Italian translation of the questionnaire for professional training evaluation

Abstract

This work illustrates the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Questionnaire for Professional Training Evaluation, designed and validated by Grohmann and Kauffeld. This 12-item questionnaire provides for the evaluation of different training outcomes, is time-efficient, applicable to several professional contexts and shows sound psychometric properties. In order to test the Italian form, we carried out two studies. In Study 1 (N 5 125), an exploratory factor analysis led to a two-factor solution accounting for short-and longterm training outcomes. In Study 2 (N 5 122), a five-model comparison was performed. Although at first a two-factor solution seemed to emerge, confirmatory factor analysis found the best fit in a six, inter-correlated, first-order factors model (satisfaction, utility, knowledge, application to practice, individual organizational results and global organizational results). Relationships with learning transfer, transfer quantity, type of training, training methodologies and individual variables -gender, age and tenure -are explored. Limitations and research and practical implications are discussed.

Training programs’ return on investment in the Portuguese railway company: a fuzzy‐set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

“…FsQCA accepts alternative combinations of causal conditions, equifinality and asymmetry (Fiss, ) that when applied to the present case, allow for more than one combination (or configuration) of causal conditions that lead to ROI; alternative causal configurations can lead to ROI, and causal conditions of ROI can differ from causal conditions of its absence. Although several antecedents of training results can be considered, we are limited by the existing data and opt to use four factors that influence the values of the ROI for training programs: (1) the program’s topic (Chochard & Davoine, ; Fregonese et al , ; Giangreco et al , ; Grohmann & Kauffeld, ), (2) its number of participants (Chochard & Davoine, ; Giangreco et al , ), its duration (Chochard & Davoine, , ; Dmitry & Manokhina, ; Giangreco et al , ; Grohmann & Kauffeld, ) and (3) its cost (Asadullah et al , ; Dmitry & Manokhina, ). Thus, the causal conditions in this study are the variables related to each training program: Training topic (top), Number of participants (part), Duration (dur) and Total cost (cost).…”

“…There are many ways to isolate the effects of training: performance monitoring (Brahmana et al, 2018;Mehra et al, 2014;Percival et al, 2013;Phillips, 1996;Travkin & Sharunina, 2016), surveys (Asadullah et al, 2015;Chochard & Davoine, 2017;Dmitry & Manokhina, 2017;Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Guerci & Vinante, 2011;Phillips, 1996), management estimation (Phillips, 1996) and information directly from the program participants (Subramanian et al, 2012).…”

“…The literature offers several training evaluation models (Aguinis & Kraiger, ). Nevertheless, the most common methods follow Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework that has specific evaluation levels that cover short and long time frames (Fregonese et al , ; Grohmann & Kauffeld, ; Wang & Wilcox, ).…”

“…The literature offers several training evaluation models (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Nevertheless, the most common methods follow Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework that has specific evaluation levels that cover short and long time frames (Fregonese, Caputo & Langher, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Wang & Wilcox, 2006). Kirkpatrick (2007) presents six reasons to engage in evaluating the effectiveness of training: (1) to decide on further investment based on the achieved results; (2) to improve the training programs by designing and implementing better programs in the future; (3) to ensure learning takes place and guaranteeing that knowledge and skills are enhanced; (4) to maximize the transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent organizational results that shows the value of training; (5) to align training with the firm's strategy by ensuring there is a fit between training policies and organizational strategies and agendas; and (6) to prove the relevancy of the training function by demonstrating its value to the entire organization.…”

“…Similarly, the ROI for training suffers influences from the other levels of training evaluation that relate to Kirkpatrick's four levels: reaction (satisfaction, utility) (Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013), learning (knowledge) (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Fregonese et al, 2018), behavior (application to practice) (Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013), individual organizational results (motivation, individual performance) (Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Fregonese et al, 2018) and global organizational results (workflow improvement, organizational climate, firm performance) (Brahmana et al, 2018;Fregonese et al, 2018;Grohmann & Kauffeld, 2013;Subramanian et al, 2012).…”