How Well Do We Measure Training?

TLDR

The study compares various measures of on‑the‑job training using a new source that matches establishments and workers, enabling direct comparison of employer and employee responses to identical training questions. Establishments report 25% more training hours than workers, yet both groups find similar incidence rates and agree that informal training far exceeds formal training, which is measured as accurately as formal training, but measurement error substantially attenuates the observed impact of training on productivity growth.

Abstract

This article compares various measures of on‐the‐job training, from a new source that matches establishments and workers, allowing us to compare the responses of employers and employees to identical training questions. Establishments report 25% more hours of training than do workers, although workers and establishments report similar incidence rates of training. Both establishment and worker measures agree that there is much more informal training than formal training. Further, informal training is measured about as accurately as formal training. Finally, we show that measurement error reduces substantially the observed effect of training, in particular the effect of training on productivity growth.