Kindly ADD to CART and Purchase an editable Word File at $5.99
The process of evaluating the quality, relevance, and usefulness of an organization’s training based on specified criteria is known as training assessment. According to the company’s evaluation models, several organizational management techniques have been created to assist in the assessment of training program frameworks. Using the proper training assessment methods, for example, helps businesses collect the data they and their trainers need. The data is then used to improve and expand business training programs, thus improving their productivity and value. Depending on the size of the organization or the company’s budget, different businesses use different methods and approaches to evaluate the success of their training (Srivastava & Walia, 2018). The Brinkerhoff, Phillips, and Kirkpatrick assessment models are the most often used training evaluation methods in businesses.
Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model (Kirkpatrick’s Training Evaluation Model)
Kirkpatrick’s assessment methodology is broken down into four stages. During the first step, the trainees’ answers are evaluated. Each training program is evaluated to discover unique personal needs, according to Srivastava & Walia (2018), which helps to enhance the model. On the other hand, this method aims to determine how trainees respond to instruction by asking pertinent questions that characterize their ideas (Srivastava & Walia, 2018). The answers to the questions are used to determine the trainees’ comprehension of the learning program. The assessors will consider the trainees’ satisfaction with the move and how effectively it prepared them for new employment. Delegates and other examiners may analyze an internet-based examination, for example.
The second stage is to assess how far you’ve progressed in your studies. The primary goal of this phase is to assess the trainees’ understanding, competence, and attitudes. The evaluation will evaluate if the trainees acquired any new perspectives or skills throughout the training sessions and what was not addressed. In comparison to the first, this second stage has a lot of problems and takes a long time to finish (Srivastava & Walia, 2018). The third stage is the transfer evaluation. Based on this stage, the trainees’ on-the-job behavior is evaluated to see whether the information gained throughout the training program is being implemented after the training has finished.
The third step involves a review of the adjustment. It is essential because it allows assessors to evaluate whether the abilities, attitudes, and information acquired throughout the course are implemented in the job. According to Jasson et al. (2017), the third phase begins three to six months following training. The last step is to evaluate the findings. At this stage, the main goal of the assessors is to assess the training program’s outcomes. The main aim of the course is to evaluate the results since this affects the training evaluation models’ efficacy (Jasson et al., 2017). The performance measure at this level evaluates observable components such as decreased expenses, better profit margins for business expenditures, growth in product worth, production time reliability, and decreased overall work-related mishaps.
Brinkerhoff’s Learning Evaluation Method
Brinkerhoff’s approach attempts to identify and delve into the less successful and most successful employees in a company’s training program. The primary goal of this assessment tool is to look at successful and unsuccessful trainees to see what changes are needed to enhance future performance while training employees. On the other hand, the evaluators promote and sell their accomplishments based on the information acquired from the value produced in their educational programs (Srimannarayana, 2017). Brinkerhoff’s approach was not intended to help companies evaluate their overall performance and efficacy. Instead, the method was developed to assist businesses in learning from both their best and worst employees.
Model for Training Evaluation by Phillips
By a large margin, the Phillips evaluation model beats the Kirkpatrick approach. It functions as a maker of evaluations, requiring that a pattern of effects be permitted inside the training course. The series begins with the evaluation model’s framework (level 1) and concludes with the return on investment (ROI). The trainees’ input is assessed as the first stage in the Phillips assessment methodology. On the other hand, assessors evaluate if learning was influential during the second level and according to the necessary criteria, which completely encompasses the relevant topic (Phillips et al., 2020). Participant’s complete quizzes and assessments throughout the course, and their progress is assessed at the conclusion.
According to Phillips et al. (2020), the main goal of the third phase is model implementation and application. Trainees are evaluated on their ability to apply their newly learned abilities to their duties at this stage. The fourth stage of the Philips assessment model expands on Kirkpatrick’s classification, which focuses primarily on instructional outcomes, to look into the training’s effect on organizational performance and productivity (Phillips et al., 2020). It is considered the fifth and last stage in the value creation process. At this level, organizational assessors use the Phillips ROI method to calculate the company’s net returns on investment.
Kirkpatrick’s method is the most efficient way for a professional development director to collect Talent Development Reporting (TDR) data. The approach enables more in-depth evaluations of positive training program performance, which are not feasible with Brinkerhoff and Philips’ models. When the corporate training director is requested to submit content for the TDR, it’s critical to assess how practical the courses were in helping people learn more. Kirkpatrick’s approach, for example, may aid in determining if trainees are applying what they’ve learned. The professional development director may also undertake an unbiased assessment of the training’s results using this method. It allows them to evaluate how well the participants learnt, enabling them to enhance their instruction in the future.
Jasson, C. C., & Govender, C. M. (2017). Measuring return on investment and risk in training–A business training evaluation model for managers and leaders. Acta Commercii, 17(1), 1-9.
Phillips, J., Phillips, P., & Ray, R. (2020). Proving the Value of Soft Skills: Measuring Impact and Calculating ROI. American Society for Training and Development.
Srimannarayana, M. (2017). From reactions to return on investment: a study on training evaluation practices. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(1), 1-20.
Srivastava, V., & Walia, A. M. (2018). An analysis of various training evaluation models. International Journal of Advance and Innovative Research, 5(4), 276-282.