Abstract:
The purposes of this research were to analyze and to describe major factors that affected qualityassurance of workers training at Bangkadee Industries. The sample chosen for this study were 786 workers atBangkadee Industries. Instruments used for collecting data were 7 rating scales. Reliability of the instrumentcalculated by Cronbach Alpha Coefficient was at 0.897. The data analyzed by using means ( ?bar ), Standard Deviation(S.D.) and Factors Analysis by Principal Component Analysis technique: PCA, orthogonal rotation axis byVarimax Method.The results of the study were are follows :There were 13 major factors that affected quality assurances of workers training at BangkadeeIndustries as follows: (1) Training Management, (2)Trainees Personality, (3) Curriculum Structure of Training,(4) Training Policy, (5) Technique and Contents of Training, (6) Training Technique, (7) Trainers Personality, (8)Training Method Models, (9) Measurement and Evaluation of Training, (10) Training Process, (11) TrainingAdministration, (12) Training Facilities, and (13) Supporting Staff for quality assurances of workers training atBangkadee Industries. These factors could be explained total variance of 58.050%. A study of CorrelationCoefficient between 13 and 47 factors was at 0.409 - 0.803. And the Correlation Coefficient between 13 factorswhich affected quality assurances of workers training at Bangkadee Industries which was at 0.454 - 0.912 was ata high level. The Correlation Coefficient within the 13 internal factors which was at 0.001 - 0.020 was at a lowlevel. The regression or predicting equation that affected quality assurance of workers training at BangkadeeIndustries was:Y = 0.912 (Training Management) + (Trainees' Personality) + 0.777 (Curriculum Structure of Training) + ).730 (TrainingPolicy) + 0.707 (Technipue and Contents of Training) + 0.651 (Training Technipue) + 0.644 (Trainers" Personality + 0.588(Training Method Models) + ).541 (Measurement and Evaluation of Training) + 0.508 (Training Process) + 0.484 (TrainingAdminstration) + 0.465 (Training Facilities) + 0.454 (Supporting Staff)The predicting equation had power of prediction at 53.846% and the error of prediction was at 7.629%.