McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 1

6Chapter

Training Training EvaluationEvaluation

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 2

Introduction Introduction (1 of 2)(1 of 2)

Training effectivenessTraining effectiveness refers to the benefits that the company and the trainees receive from training

Training outcomes or criteriaTraining outcomes or criteria refer to measures that the trainer and the company use to evaluate training programs

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 3

Introduction Introduction (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

Training evaluationTraining evaluation refers to the process of collecting the outcomes needed to determine if training is effective

Evaluation designEvaluation design refers to from whom, what, when, and how information needed for determining the effectiveness of the training program will be collected

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 4

Reasons for Evaluating TrainingReasons for Evaluating Training (1 of 2)(1 of 2)

Companies are investing millions of dollars in training programs to help gain a competitive advantage

Training investment is increasing because learning creates knowledge which differentiates between those companies and employees who are successful and those who are not

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 5

Reasons for Evaluating TrainingReasons for Evaluating Training (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

Because companies have made large dollar investments in training and education and view training as a strategy to be successful, they expect the outcomes or benefits related to training to be measurable.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 6

Training evaluationTraining evaluation provides the data needed to demonstrate that training does provide benefits to the company.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 7

Formative EvaluationFormative Evaluation

Formative evaluation –Formative evaluation – evaluation conducted to improve the training process

Helps to ensure that:the training program is well organized and runs smoothly

trainees learn and are satisfied with the program

Provides information about how to make the program better

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 8

Summative EvaluationSummative Evaluation

Summative evaluation –Summative evaluation – evaluation conducted to determine the extent to which trainees have changed as a result of participating in the training program

May also measure the return on investment (ROI) that the company receives from the training program

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 9

Why Should A Training Program Be Why Should A Training Program Be Evaluated?Evaluated? (1 of 2)(1 of 2)

To identify the program’s strengths and weaknesses

To assess whether content, organization, and administration of the program contribute to learning and the use of training content on the job

To identify which trainees benefited most or least from the program

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 10

Why Should A Training Program Be Why Should A Training Program Be Evaluated?Evaluated? (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

To gather data to assist in marketing training programs

To determine the financial benefits and costs of the programs

To compare the costs and benefits of training versus non-training investments

To compare the costs and benefits of different training programs to choose the best program

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 11

The Evaluation ProcessThe Evaluation Process

Conduct a Needs AnalysisConduct a Needs Analysis

Develop Measurable Learning Outcomes Develop Measurable Learning Outcomes and Analyze Transfer of Trainingand Analyze Transfer of Training

Develop Outcome MeasuresDevelop Outcome Measures

Choose an Evaluation StrategyChoose an Evaluation Strategy

Plan and Execute the EvaluationPlan and Execute the Evaluation

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 12

Training Outcomes: Training Outcomes: Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Framework of Evaluation CriteriaFramework of Evaluation Criteria

LevelLevel CriteriaCriteria FocusFocus

1 Reactions Trainee satisfaction

2 Learning Acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior

3 Behavior Improvement of behavior on the job

4 Results Business results achieved by trainees

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 13

Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs:Programs: (1 of 4)(1 of 4)

AffectiveOutcomes

ResultsReturn onInvestment

CognitiveOutcomes

Skill-BasedOutcomes

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 14

Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs:Programs: (2 of 4)(2 of 4)

Cognitive OutcomesCognitive OutcomesDetermine the degree to which trainees are familiar with the principles, facts, techniques, procedures, or processes emphasized in the training programMeasure what knowledge trainees learned in the program

Skill-Based OutcomesSkill-Based OutcomesAssess the level of technical or motor skillsInclude acquisition or learning of skills and use of skills on the job

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 15

Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs:Programs: (3 of 4)(3 of 4)

Affective OutcomesAffective OutcomesInclude attitudes and motivation

Trainees’ perceptions of the program including the facilities, trainers, and content

ResultsResultsDetermine the training program’s payoff for the company

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 16

Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs:Programs: (4 of 4)(4 of 4)

Return on Investment (ROI)Comparing the training’s monetary benefits with the cost of the training

direct costs

indirect costs

benefits

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 17

How do you know if your outcomes are How do you know if your outcomes are good?good?

Good training outcomes need to be:

Relevant

Reliable

Discriminative

Practical

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 18

Good Outcomes: Good Outcomes: RelevanceRelevance

Criteria relevance –Criteria relevance – the extent to which training programs are related to learned capabilities emphasized in the training program

Criterion contamination –Criterion contamination – extent that training outcomes measure inappropriate capabilities or are affected by extraneous conditions

Criterion deficiency – failure to measure training outcomes that were emphasized in the training objectives

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 19

Criterion deficiency, relevance, and Criterion deficiency, relevance, and contamination:contamination:

Outcomes Measured in Evaluation

Outcomes Identified by

Needs Assessment and

Included in Training

Objectives

Outcomes Related to Training

Objectives

Contamination Relevance Deficiency

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 20

Good Outcomes Good Outcomes (continued)(continued)

Reliability –Reliability – degree to which outcomes can be measured consistently over time

Discrimination –Discrimination – degree to which trainee’s performances on the outcome actually reflect true differences in performance

Practicality –Practicality – refers to the ease with which the outcomes measures can be collected

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 21

Training Evaluation PracticesTraining Evaluation Practices

79%

38%

15% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Reaction Cognitive Behavior Results

Outcomes

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cou

rses

Usi

ng O

utco

me

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 22

Training Program Objectives and Their Training Program Objectives and Their Implications for Evaluation:Implications for Evaluation:

Reactions: Did trainees like the program?Did the environment help learning?Was material meaningful?

Skill-Based: Ratings by peers or managers based on observation of behavior

Cognitive: Pencil-and-paper tests Affective: Trainees’ motivation or job attitudes

Skill-Based: Performance on a work sample Results: Did company benefit through sales, quality, productivity, reduced accidents, and complaints?Performance on work equipment

Outcomes

Learning Transfer

Objective

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 23

Evaluation Designs: Threats to ValidityEvaluation Designs: Threats to Validity

Threats to validityThreats to validity refer to a factor that will lead one to question either:

The believability of the study results (internal (internal validity)validity), or

The extent to which the evaluation results are generalizable to other groups of trainees and situations (external validity)(external validity)

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 24

Threats to ValidityThreats to Validity

Threats To Internal Validity

Company

Persons

Outcome Measures

Threats To External Validity

Reaction to pretest

Reaction to evaluation

Interaction of selection and training

Interaction of methods

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 25

Methods to Control for Threats to ValidityMethods to Control for Threats to Validity

Pre- and PosttestsPre- and Posttests

Use of Comparison Use of Comparison GroupsGroups

Random AssignmentRandom Assignment

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 26

Types of Evaluation DesignsTypes of Evaluation Designs

Posttest – only

Pretest / Posttest

Posttest – only with Comparison Group

Pretest / Posttest with Comparison Group

Time Series

Time Series with Comparison Group and Reversal

Solomon Four–Group

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 27

Comparison of Evaluation DesignsComparison of Evaluation Designs(1 of 2)(1 of 2)

Design Groups Pre-training Post-training Cost Time Strength

Posttest Only Trainees No Yes Low Low Low

Pretest / Posttest Trainees Yes Yes Low Low Medium

Posttest Only with Comparison Group

Trainees and Comparison

No Yes Medium Medium Medium

Pretest / Posttest with Comparison Group

Trainees and Comparison

Yes Yes Medium Medium High

Measures

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 28

Comparison of Evaluation DesignsComparison of Evaluation Designs(2 of 2)(2 of 2)

Design Groups Pre-training Post-training Cost Time Strength

Time Series Trainees Yes Yes, several Medium Medium Medium

Time Series with Comparison Group and Reversal

Trainees and Comparison

Yes Yes, several High Medium High

Solomon Four-Group Trainees ATrainees BComparison AComparison B

YesNoYesNo

YesYesYesYes

High High High

Measures

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 29

Example of a Pretest / Posttest ComparisonExample of a Pretest / Posttest ComparisonGroup Design:Group Design:

Pre-training Training Post-training Time 1

Post-training Time 2

Lecture Yes Yes Yes Yes

Self-Paced Yes Yes Yes Yes

Behavior Modeling

Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Training (Comparison)

Yes No Yes Yes

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 30

Example of a Solomon Four-Group Example of a Solomon Four-Group Design:Design:

Pretest Training Posttest

Group 1 Yes IL-based Yes

Group 2 Yes Traditional Yes

Group 3 No IL-based Yes

Group 4 No Traditional Yes

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 31

Factors That Influence the Type of Factors That Influence the Type of Evaluation DesignEvaluation Design

Factor How Factor Influences Type of Evaluation Design

Change potential Can program be modified?

Importance Does ineffective training affect customer service, product development, or relationships between employees?

Scale How many trainees are involved?

Purpose of training Is training conducted for learning, results, or both?

Organization culture Is demonstrating results part of company norms and expectations?

Expertise Can a complex study be analyzed?

Cost Is evaluation too expensive?

Time frame When do we need the information?

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 32

Conditions for choosing a Conditions for choosing a rigorousrigorous evaluation evaluation design: design: (1 of 2)(1 of 2)

1. The evaluation results can be used to change the program

2. The training program is ongoing and has the potential to affect many employees (and customers)

3. The training program involves multiple classes and a large number of trainees

4. Cost justification for training is based on numerical indicators

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 33

Conditions for choosing a Conditions for choosing a rigorousrigorous evaluation evaluation design: design: (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

5. You or others have the expertise to design and evaluate the data collected from the evaluation study

6. The cost of training creates a need to show that it works

7. There is sufficient time for conducting an evaluation

8. There is interest in measuring change from pre-training levels or in comparing two or more different programs

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 34

Importance of Training Cost InformationImportance of Training Cost Information

To understand total expenditures for training, including direct and indirect costsTo compare costs of alternative training programsTo evaluate the proportion of money spent on training development, administration, and evaluation as well as to compare monies spent on training for different groups of employees

To control costs

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 35

To calculate return on investment (ROI), To calculate return on investment (ROI), follow these steps: follow these steps: (1 of 2)(1 of 2)

1. Identify outcome(s) (e.g., quality, accidents)

2. Place a value on the outcome(s)

3. Determine the change in performance after eliminating other potential influences on training results.

4. Obtain an annual amount of benefits (operational results) from training by comparing results after training to results before training (in dollars)

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 36

To calculate return on investment (ROI), To calculate return on investment (ROI), follow these steps: follow these steps: (2 of 2)(2 of 2)

5. Determine training costs (direct costs + indirect costs + development costs + overhead costs + compensation for trainees)

6. Calculate the total savings by subtracting the training costs from benefits (operational results)

7. Calculate the ROI by dividing benefits (operational results) by costs

The ROI gives you an estimate of the dollar return expected from each dollar invested in training.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 37

Determining Costs for a Cost-Benefit Determining Costs for a Cost-Benefit Analysis:Analysis:

DevelopmentCosts

OverheadCosts

Compensationfor

Trainees

Direct Costs Indirect Costs

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 - 38

Example of Return on InvestmentExample of Return on Investment

Industry Training Program ROI

Bottling company Workshops on managers’ roles 15:1

Large commercial bank Sales training 21:1

Electric & gas utility Behavior modification 5:1

Oil company Customer service 4.8:1

Health maintenance organization

Team training 13.7:1