Evaluation of Corporate Training Programs: Perspectives and Issues for Further Research

Abstract

Performance improvement interventions, including training, are investments that can yield identifiable payoffs for an organization in the form of better job performance. Evaluation is vital to continuous improvement of human performance in the workplace. Without measures of effectiveness, organizations do not know whether dollars are being spent wisely and, consequently, whether to continue, modify, or improve performance interventions. There are several approaches for the evaluation of training programs. Few adequately cover the broader perspective of performance improvement. Various schemes and terms are used to describe facets for evaluating training programs. However, sometimes different terms describe the same event. At other times, quite different training evaluation activities are discussed by different authors using the same terms. The present article reviews six overall evaluation perspectives of corporate training programs: Kirkpatrick's four‐level approach; the CIRO approach; Hamblin's five‐level approach; Florida State University approach; Indiana University approach; and Phillips' five‐level approach. And four research areas for further study are recommended: overall evaluation models, causal relationships between evaluation categories, systematic research on how to evaluate the various categories, and appropriate uses of the results of evaluations.

Did you learn something useful today? An analysis of how perceived utility relates to perceived learning and their predictiveness of satisfaction with training

“…The final level considers the training outcomes in the context of the organization's goals. This model has been used extensively in corporate training (Lee & Pershing, 2000) and has been suggested as appropriate for assessing nontraditional education programs (Antheil & Casper, 1986;McLean & Moss, 2003) and perhaps even standard academic programs (Boyle & Crosby, 1997;Naugle, Naugle, & Naugle, 2000;Rajeev, Madan, & Jayarajan, 2009). …”

Integrating Evaluation and Needs Assessment: A Case Study of an Ergonomics Program

“…Your processes and results serve a different, though equally important, function within an organization” (Watkins et al, , p. 35). While a needs assessment is concerned with identifying unrecognized needs, results from an evaluation study are utilized to “improve [existing] programs, justify new programs, [or] gain additional support” (Lee & Pershing, , p. 256).…”

“…In addition, Dixon ( 1990 ) found that there is little correlation between the learner ' s reaction and learning outcomes. Lee and Pershing ( 2000 ) compare six evaluation schemes for corporate training programs, diff erentiating them by inclusion or exclusion of pre-training context (which includes identifying and assessing needs), provision of feedback within training (e.g., learner reaction), acquisition (learning), performance after training (i.e., transfer), organizational payoff s, and social values. Although macro-level organizational outputs and mega-level societal outcomes are featured in Florida State University ' s approach (Kaufman, Keller, & Watkins, 1995 ), Lee and Pershing suggest that strategic alignment and adaptability to change might be considered Volume 29, Number 1 / 2016 DOI: 10.1002/piq 55 as separate organizational eff ectiveness elements or levels (2000, p. 253).…”

The current state of human performance technology: A citation network analysis of Performance Improvement Quarterly , 1988-2010

“…As shown in Table 5, the most influential topics in transfer indicated that trainers' strategies used in the training setting and supervisors' role in the work environment were important factors for transfer (Foxon, 1997;Hutchins, 2009;Lee & Kahnweiler, 2000;Machin & Fogarty, 1997). In addition, case studies of transfer (Lee & Pershing, 2000;Stolovitch & Yapi, 1997), transfer models (Milheim, 1994;Yelon, 1992), and review of transfer research (Ford & Weissbein, 1997) were included.…”