Training Evaluation

  • Uncategorized




Jones,Woods and Guillaume (2015) in theirjournal article uses a meta-analytic processes to examine thecorrelation between specific teaching strategy, assessment aspectsand their significance in organizations. They argued that theconstant need for organizational and individual growth is traceableto different demands, such as upholding superiority in the market,improving employees’ knowledge and skills as well as increasingproductivity. Companies can enhance individual productivity andcommunicate organizational targets to new workers through training(Jones,Woods and Guillaume, 2015).

Thescope of the article focused on

  1. The assessment conditions.

  2. Training needs performance.

  3. Task or skill features training.

  4. Match amongst the task and expertise features and the training communication technique.

Jonesetal.(2015) considered the features that practitioners and researcherscould use in design, execution and assessment of training curriculain organizations.

Jonesetal.(2015) identified evaluation criteria as the significant measureutilized to operationalize the efficiency of training. They identifyKirkpatrick’s four-level paradigm of training evaluation as themost common approach to organizational training evaluation. They usedthe model because it suited their purposed. According to Jones etal.(2015), questions regarding the efficiency of instructional ortraining programs ask questions such as “effectiveness based onwhat?” “Learning, reactions, behavior, or outcomes?” Therefore,training goals define the best suitable standards for evaluating theefficiency of training.

Thefirst level or criteria for training evaluation in Kirkpatrick’smodel as stated by Jones etal.(2015) includes the reaction criteria. The criteria entail the use ofself-report procedures that characterize the attitudinal andaffective reactions of trainees to the training program. According toSalasetal.(2012),the reaction criteria tells researchers

  1. What trainees have learn from the training programs (learning criteria)?

  2. Possible alterations in the job-allied performance (behavioral criteria).

  3. The training program utility in the company (result criteria).

Thelearning standards entail the procedures of the significant effectsof the training (Jones etal.,2015). The measures are normally operationalized using performanceand paper-and-pencil assessments. They argue that trainee learningremains crucial but insufficient requirements for behavioral change.On the contrary, behavioral standards entail measures of concreteon-the-job routine that identify the consequences of training in realwork (Jones etal.,2015). Problems relating to the assignment of training remain crucialin these criteria as well. Moreover, behavioral criteria are normallyoperationalized using objective performance indicators or supervisorratings (Jones etal.,2015).

Lastly,the results criteria that include the organizational profits andproductivity are operationalized through utility analysis estimates(Jones etal.,2015). Utility scrutiny offers an approach to evaluate the dollarvalue by partaking specified employee interventions like training.

Thearticle analyzed the printed training and development texts dating1960-2000 (Jones etal.,2015). The article reflected on the 1960 post era that was to beillustrated through better technological advancements in trainingmethodology and design, and also through the routine of moreinclusive training assessment methods and statistical methods. Thestudy also incorporated the practitioner-based literature that metthe inclusion criteria, such as journals, books, thesis, conferencepresentations, and papers including dissertations. The inclusioncriteria for the literature used in the study included (Jones etal.,2015):

  1. The study should have examined the efficiency of training programs in organization and also perform an empirical assessment of an organization training method.

  2. The researchers needed the study to report on sample size alongside other relevant information, such as statistics that facilitated the calculation of d statistic (such as standard deviations and group means).

Theresearchers excluded studies that assessed the effectiveness oftraining programs, as they considered such programs to bequalitatively dissimilar to conventional training programs inorganizational. Additionally, the researchers excluded studiescentered on lone group pretest-posttest plans.

Theresults of the study portrayed that organizations considered 0.60 (k_15, N_936) the reaction criteria, 0.63 (k_234, N_15,014) for learning criteria, 0.62 (k_122, N_15,627) for behavioral criteria, and 0.62 (k_26, N_1,748) for results criteria (Jones etal.,2015). This means that companies use these criteria to evaluate theirtraining programs.

Thestudy faced several limitations. The researchers limited theirmeta-analysis to facets over which they possessed a sound amount ofcontrol (Jones etal.,2015). The study concentrated on equally extensive training designand assessment features and ignored other moderators that requiredinvestigation. The information remained restricted to specifictraining interventions and failed to incorporate any group trainingstudies. The study concluded that it is crucial to evaluateorganizational training programs to assess their efficacy (Jones etal.,2015).

Articlevs. Course Chapter Reasons for Conducting

Jonesetal.,(2015) and chapter nine identify the importance of training inorganization. Both maintain that training helps employees of anorganization to understand the set goals. They also identify trainingas a pervasive method for communicating organizational objectives tonew workers and improving the efficiency of individuals. Similarly,chapter nine maintains that a business that ignore productivity,return or investment (ROI) and profitability would fail (Blanchardand Thacker, 2013, p.315).

Secondly,Blanchardand Thacker (2013, p.315) argue that good management practicesrequire organizational activities, such as training to be routinelyevaluated to guarantee that they happen as intended and that theyproduce the anticipated outcomes. Similarly, Jonesetal.,(2015) supportthe routine evaluation of training in an organization.

Jonesetal.,(2015) maintainthat companies needs to conduct an assessment on training needs toinfluence the general efficiency of training curricula. The regularneeds of evaluation can be directed and acted as the foundation forstrategy, expansion, delivery and assessment of training approach.Similarly, Blanchard and Thacker (2013, p.318) maintains thattraining evaluation improves the image of training.

Inconclusion, training plays a significant role in communicating thegoals of an organization to new employees. Evaluating the trainingprograms is important as it helps the management know whether theprograms are effective. It also helps organizations learn the thingsthey need to improve and avoid problems in the future. Evaluatingtraining programs helps companies handle competitive pressures oncompanies that require a greater focus on quality, constant upgradingand organizational cost reduction. However, companies must expectresistance from employees and managers who are afraid of losing theirjobs. In such case, it is essential to explain the benefits ofembracing training and routine evaluations.


Blanchard,P. N., &amp Thacker, J. W. (2013). EffectiveTraining: Systems, Strategies, and Practices.(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jones,R. J., Woods, S. A., &amp Guillaume, Y. R. (2015). The Effectivenessof Workplace Coaching: A Meta-analysis of Learning and PerformanceOutcomes from Coaching.&nbspJournalof Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

Salas,E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., &amp Smith-Jentsch, K. A.(2012). The science of training and development in organizations:What matters in practice.&nbspPsychologicalscience in the public interest,&nbsp13(2),74-101.

Close Menu