Evaluation of Training

 Rothwell, W.J., (2005) summarises the literature of several research as Evaluation is the process of placing value. A value, in turn, is a belief about what is good or bad, important, or unimportant. Indeed, values brought attitudes, which specify behaviour. The values of those who hold power fundamentally shape the character of an organization.

The main purpose of evaluating a training program is to acquire knowledge about whether it has achieved or failed its’ objectives. Analysing the training event by using appropriate evaluation tools can improve the outcome of future trainings to a considerable extend (Rothwell, W.J. and Kazanas, H.C., 1999).

Evaluation of training and development is the most essential aspect of training programme. Generally all good training and development programmes start with identification of training and development needs and ends with evaluation of training (Gopal, 2009).

There are different models to evaluate training, still training evaluation is the weakest and most under developed aspect of training. There are number of issues which lead to ignorance of evaluation as well as faced in the course of evaluation. It causes expenses that can be ill afforded in a constrained financial area and also it takes time to practice (Iyer et al, 2009).

Kirkpatrick Model:

Figure 1.0: Kirkpatrick model

Figure 1.0 depicts the way in which Kirkpatrick (1975) divided the evaluation model into four parts: reaction; learning; behaviour and results and its' functionality. Rothwell, W.J., (2005) and Topno, (2012) further explains how each level acts as follows. 

o Reaction would evaluate how participants feel about the programme they attended. 

“The main purpose of reaction evaluation is to enhance the quality of training programmes, which in turn leads to improved performance by measuring the participant‟s reactions to training programme. This should be measured immediately after the programme”.

o The learning would evaluate the extent to which the trainees learned the information and skills.

Learning outcome can include changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes. Some training events will emphasize knowledge, some will emphasize skills, some will emphasize attitudes and some will emphasize multiple learning outcomes. The Evaluation should focus on measuring what was covered in the training events i.e. learning objectives. So this level‟s questions will have a pre test before practicum and a post test after practicum. Tools and methods which can be used in evaluating learning level are assessment or tests before and after the training, interviews or observations can be used before or after, although this is time consuming and can be inconsistent.

o The behaviour would evaluate the extent to which their job behaviour had changed as a result of attending the training. 

Change in the job behaviour is difficult to measure because people change in different ways at different times and also it is difficult to quantify and interpret than reaction and learning evaluation. Observation and interview overtime are required to assess change, relevance of change and sustainability of change in behaviour of participants. The opinion of the trainees in the form of self – assessment, 360 – degree feedback is useful method to evaluate this level.

o The results would evaluate the extent to which the results have been affected by the training programme. 

The intention at this level is to assess the coat vs. benefits of training programme, i.e. organisational impact in terms of reduced costs, improved quality of work, higher productivity, reduction in turnover, improved human relation, increased sales, fewer grievances, lower absenteeism. Higher work morale, fewer accidents, greater job satisfaction etc. Collecting, organising and analysing level four information can be difficult, time consuming and more costly than the other three levels, but the results are often quite worthwhile when viewed in the full context of its value to the organisation.

This is one of the most used evaluation methods (Bassi & Cheney, 1997). The main strength of the Kirkpatrick evaluation approach is the focus on behavioural outcomes of the learners involved in the training (Mann & Robertson, 1996).

CIPP Evaluation model:

Figure 2.0: CIPP Evaluation model 

Figure 2.0 above explains the CIPP model of programme evaluation is developed by Daniel L. Stufflebeam (1983). It refers to the four phases of evaluation: context evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation and product evaluation.

Topno, (2012) Explains the CIPP model as follows, 

Context evaluation: It involves evaluation of training and development needs analysis and formulating objectives in the light of these needs. 

Input Evaluation: Input evaluation involves an examination of the intended content of the programme. It is designed to assess the extent to which programme strategies, procedures, and activities support the goals and objectives identified in the needs assessment and context evaluation. An input evaluation is therefore an assessment of the programmes action plan. 

Process Evaluation: A process evaluation is the critical aspect of programme implementation. It involves evaluation of preparation of reaction sheets, rating scales and analysis of relevant records (Prasad, 2005).

The objectives of process evaluation are 

o to provide feedback to organisation and their employees about the extent to which the activities are on schedule are being carried out as planned and using time and resources in an efficient manner. 

o to provide guidance for modifying or explicating the programmes action plan as needed, particularly since not all aspects of the plan can be anticipated or planned in advance. 

o to assess periodically the extent to which programmes personnel are performing their rules and carting out their responsibilities. 

o to provide an extension record of the programmes, how it was implemented and how it compares to what was intended.

Product evaluation: It involves measuring and interpreting the effectivity of training and development objectives. In other words, it can be said that the purpose of product evaluation is to measure, interpret and judge the extent to which an organisation’s improvement efforts have achieved their short term and long term goals. It also examines both intended and unintended consequences of improvement efforts.

CIRO approach:

The CIRO model for the evaluation of managerial training was proposed by Warr, Bird & Rackson, (1970). Figure 3.0 depicts the CIRO model that was developed on the evaluation of four aspects of training such as; context, input, reaction, and outcomes. 

Figure 3.0: CIRO model

According to Tennant, Boonkrong and Roberts (2002), the CIRO model focuses on measurements/ assessment on both before and after the training has been carried out. The main strength of the CIRO model is that the objectives (context) and the training equipment (input) are recognized and considered.

D. Phillip’s Evaluation approach:

 Figure 4.0: D. Phillip’s Evaluation approach explained

Training professionals have been challenged to provide evidence of how training financially contributes to business. Phillips (1996) suggested adding another level to Kirk – Patrick‟s four level evaluation approach to calculate the return on investment (ROI) generated by training. Figure 4.0 explains the D. Phillip’s Evaluation approach. According to James and Roffe (2000), Plillips‟s five level evaluation approaches translate the worth of training into monetary value which, in effect addresses ROI. 

There are several other training approaches and models. As it has been discussed earlier that training evaluation itself is less touched part of training and development, these methods have theoretical side but less in practical application. So those models are not discussed in detail (Bennett, 2011). 

Conclusion: Training evaluation is significant to assess whether your training has the desired outcome (Shenge, 2014). However, this part of training and development is deeply disregarded in organizations for their own reasons, but the literature provides enough evidence as why Its’ important to have evaluation in place. Understanding different training evaluation models and methods and applying the most suitable ones enables your organization to improve the effectiveness of the training and, ultimately, the organizational performance.

References: 

Bassi, L.J. and Cheney, S., (1997). Benchmarking the best. Training & Development, 51(11), pp.60-65. 

Bennett, R.E., (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 18(1), pp.5-25. 

Francis, D. and Woodcock, M., (1990). Unblocking organizational values. Scott, Foresman and Company. 

Gopal, (2008) Effectiveness of Executive Training Programs, The Indian Journal of Commerce, 61(3), 143-150. 

Iyer, R., Pardiwalla, P. and Bathia, J., (2009). Training evaluation practices in Indian organizations. HRD Newsletter, 25(8), pp.35-37. 

James, C. and Roffe, I., (2000). The evaluation of goal and goal‐free training innovation. Journal of European Industrial Training. 

Kirkpatrick, D.L., (1975). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Evaluating training programs, pp.1-17. 

Mann, S., (1996). What should training evaluations evaluate?. Journal of European Industrial Training. 

Phillips,J. (1996) Accountability in Human Resource Management. Oxford.  Butterworth- Heinemann.

Phillips, J.J., (2009). Accountability in human resource management: connecting HR to business results. Routledge. 

Rothwell, W.J., (2005). Beyond Training and Development. 2nd edt. New York. AMACOM 

Rothwell, W.J. and Kazanas, H.C., (1999). Building in-house leadership and management development programs: Their creation, management, and continuous improvement. Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Shenge, N.A., (2014). Training evaluation: Process, benefits, and issues. 

Stufflebeam, D.L., (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. In Evaluation models (pp. 117-141). Springer, Dordrecht. 

Tennant, C., Boonkrong, M. and Roberts, P.A., (2002). The design of a training programme measurement model. Journal of European industrial training. 

Topno, H., (2012). Evaluation of training and development: An analysis of various models. Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), pp.16-22. 

Warr, P., Bird, M. and Rackham, N., (1970). Evaluation of Management Training (Chapter 1,‘The CIRO Framework of Evaluation’).