Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
training evaluation |
process to assess value of training programs to employees and the organization |
|
formative evaluations vs. summative evaluations |
Form - provides data about various aspects of a training program Summ - data about worthiness or effectiveness of a training program |
|
descriptive evaluations vs. causal evaluations |
descriptive - provides info that describes the trainee once he/she completes training program causal - provides info to determine whether training caused the post-training behaviours |
|
Models of Training Evaluation |
1) Kirkpatrick's Hierarchical Model 2) COMA model 3) Decision Based Evaluation |
|
Kirkpatrick's model |
Training effective when: L1) trainees report positive reactions L2) trainees learn the material L3) trainees apply what they learn on job L4) training has positive effect on organizational outcomes |
|
COMA model |
suggests measurement of variables falls into four categories: Cognitive variables - declar./proced. learning Organizational environment - support, culture Motivation - desire to learn/to transfer learning Attitudes - self-efficacy, perceptions of control questionnaires given to assess above components |
|
COMA improves on Kirkpatrick's model in 4 ways |
1) defines new variables with greater precision 2) greater number of measures 3) measures proven to be causally related to improved transfer of training 4) especially useful for formative evaluations |
|
Decision-based evaluation |
3 assessors to custom-fit evaluation to requirements of situation: 1) target of theevaluation (what we wish to find out), 2) focus (what are the variables to bemeasured) 3) methods that would be most appropriate to conductthe evaluation |
|
DBE's 3 potential targets |
1) trainee change 2) organizational payoff 3) program improvement |
|
Advantages of DBE |
- does not specify a single best way for evaluation -does not compel the use of a single set of variables for all situations -allows for different variables to be measured depending on goals -more flexible, used for both formative and summative evals. |
|
Reaction measures |
-Affective reactions - assesses trainee likes and dislikes of a program -Utility reactions - perceived usefulness of program (more important for transfer) -questionnaires more efficient, cost effective, consistent, can be used repeatedly |
|
Measuring learning |
Declarative - acquisition of facts, most assessed. Multiple choice, true/false tests Procedural - organizational of facts (more strongly related to transfer), re-organizing steps into correct order, case scenarios with carefully created answers to detect comprehension levels Post-training tests can increase motivation to learn. Tests also provide legal defense to prove competency, and indicate which course material is insufficient |
|
Measures to measure behaviour |
1) self reports - trainee indicates how often she/he used new knowledge. easiest to use. accuracy is questionable. 2) observation - others observe whether trainee uses new knowledge. accuracy questionable when supervisor/peers not in direct line of observing 3) production indicators - output assessed through records, i.e. sales or absenteeism. can be highly precise on specific behaviours. |
|
Other factors to measure |
-Motivation - questions based on Valence, instrumentality, expectancy -Self-efficacy - "how confident are you..." -Perceived/anticipated support - "I know I can obtain help from my supervisor - agree or not?" -organizational perceptions - i.e. "do you agree that supervisors set goals for trainees?" -organizational results - how has org. befitted? hard to measure |
|
hard vs. soft data |
hard - results assessed objectively soft - results assessed through perceptions and judgements |
|
Data collecting designs |
non-experimental - comparison not made to another group of people experimental - trained group compared to another group who has received no training, groups are random quasi-experimental - like above but groups not random last two stronger evidence of causality, demonstrating changes in trainee behaviour |