1. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 1 6 Chapter Training Evaluation

2. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 2 Introduction (1 of 2) Training effectiveness Training effectiveness refers to the benefits that the company and the trainees receive from training Training outcomes or criteria Training outcomes or criteria refer to measures that the trainer and the company use to evaluate training programs

3. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 3 Introduction (2 of 2) Training evaluation Training evaluation refers to the process of collecting the outcomes needed to determine if training is effective Evaluation design Evaluation design refers to from whom, what, when, and how information needed for determining the effectiveness of the training program will be collected

4. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 4 Reasons for Evaluating Training (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

5. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 5 Reasons for Evaluating Training (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.

6. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 6 Training evaluation Training evaluation provides the data needed to demonstrate that training does provide benefits to the company.

7. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 7 Formative 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

8. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 8 Summative 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

9. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 9 Why Should A Training Program Be Evaluated? (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

10. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 10 Why Should A Training Program Be Evaluated? (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

11. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 11 The Evaluation Process Conduct a Needs Analysis Develop Measurable Learning Outcomes and Analyze Transfer of Training Develop Outcome Measures Choose an Evaluation Strategy Plan and Execute the Evaluation

12. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 12 Training Outcomes: Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Framework of Evaluation Criteria LevelCriteriaFocus 1ReactionsTrainee satisfaction 2LearningAcquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior 3BehaviorImprovement of behavior on the job 4ResultsBusiness results achieved by trainees

13. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 13 Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs: (1 of 4) Affective Outcomes Results Return on Investment Cognitive Outcomes Skill-Based Outcomes

14. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 14 Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs: (2 of 4) Cognitive Outcomes Determine the degree to which trainees are familiar with the principles, facts, techniques, procedures, or processes emphasized in the training program Measure what knowledge trainees learned in the program Skill-Based Outcomes Assess the level of technical or motor skills Include acquisition or learning of skills and use of skills on the job

15. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 15 Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs: (3 of 4) Affective Outcomes Include attitudes and motivation Trainees’ perceptions of the program including the facilities, trainers, and contentResults Determine the training program’s payoff for the company

16. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 16 Outcomes Used in Evaluating Training Programs: (4 of 4) Return on Investment (ROI) Comparing the training’s monetary benefits with the cost of the training direct costs indirect costs benefits

17. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 17 How do you know if your outcomes are good? Good training outcomes need to be: Relevant Reliable Discriminative Practical

18. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 18 Good Outcomes: Relevance 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

19. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 19 Criterion deficiency, relevance, and contamination: Outcomes Measured in Evaluation Outcomes Identified by Needs Assessment and Included in Training Objectives Outcomes Related to Training Objectives ContaminationRelevanceDeficiency

20. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 20 Good Outcomes (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

21. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 21 Training Evaluation Practices Outcomes Percentage of Courses Using Outcome

22. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 22 Training Program Objectives and Their 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

23. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 23 Evaluation Designs: Threats to Validity Threats to validity Threats to validity refer to a factor that will lead one to question either: (internal validity) The believability of the study results (internal validity), or (external validity) The extent to which the evaluation results are generalizable to other groups of trainees and situations (external validity)

24. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 24 Threats 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

25. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 25 Methods to Control for Threats to Validity Pre- and Posttests Use of Comparison Groups Random Assignment

26. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 26 Types 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

27. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 27 Comparison of Evaluation Designs (1 of 2) DesignGroupsPre-trainingPost-trainingCostTimeStrength Posttest OnlyTraineesNoYesLow Pretest / PosttestTraineesYes Low Medium Posttest Only with Comparison Group Trainees and Comparison NoYesMedium Pretest / Posttest with Comparison Group Trainees and Comparison Yes Medium High Measures

28. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 28 Comparison of Evaluation Designs (2 of 2) DesignGroupsPre-trainingPost-trainingCostTimeStrength Time SeriesTraineesYesYes, severalMedium Time Series with Comparison Group and Reversal Trainees and Comparison YesYes, severalHighMediumHigh Solomon Four-GroupTrainees A Trainees B Comparison A Comparison B Yes No Yes No Yes High Measures

29. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 29 Example of a Pretest / Posttest Comparison Group Design: Pre-trainingTrainingPost-training Time 1 Post-training Time 2 LectureYes Self-PacedYes Behavior Modeling Yes No Training (Comparison) YesNoYes

30. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 30 Example of a Solomon Four-Group Design: PretestTrainingPosttest Group 1YesIL-basedYes Group 2YesTraditionalYes Group 3NoIL-basedYes Group 4NoTraditionalYes

31. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 31 Factors That Influence the Type of Evaluation Design FactorHow Factor Influences Type of Evaluation Design Change potentialCan program be modified? ImportanceDoes ineffective training affect customer service, product development, or relationships between employees? ScaleHow many trainees are involved? Purpose of trainingIs training conducted for learning, results, or both? Organization cultureIs demonstrating results part of company norms and expectations? ExpertiseCan a complex study be analyzed? CostIs evaluation too expensive? Time frameWhen do we need the information?

32. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 32 Conditions for choosing a rigorous evaluation design: (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

33. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 33 Conditions for choosing a rigorous evaluation design: (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

34. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 34 Importance of Training Cost Information To understand total expenditures for training, including direct and indirect costs To compare costs of alternative training programs To 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

35. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 35 To calculate return on investment (ROI), follow these steps: (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)

36. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 36 To calculate return on investment (ROI), follow these steps: (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.

37. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 37 Determining Costs for a Cost-Benefit Analysis: Development Costs Overhead Costs Compensation for Trainees Direct Costs Indirect Costs

38. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 - 38 Example of Return on Investment IndustryTraining ProgramROI Bottling companyWorkshops on managers’ roles15:1 Large commercial bankSales training21:1 Electric & gas utilityBehavior modification5:1 Oil companyCustomer service4.8:1 Health maintenance organization Team training13.7:1