CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.8 Training Evaluation and Training Effectiveness
2.8.1 Training Evaluation Definitions
The definition of training evaluation is in many different forms based on the intended outcome of such evaluation. The critical definitions of training evaluation in the existing literature relating to this study are presented in Table 2.2. Evaluation, as defined by Giberson, Tracey and Harris (2006, p. 48) , is “a systematic process used to determine the merit or worth of a specific context”. In the same view by Foxon (1989), evaluation assesses the value of any program. According to Brown (2015, p. 382), training evaluation is “the process that may be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional programmes”. Concerning its ability on effective decision making, Saks and Burke-Smalley (2012, p. 121) define it as “a systematic process of collecting data to determine the effectiveness or efficiency of training programmes and to make decisions about training”. In the same view, it is “the process of collecting descriptive and subjective information that is essential to making effective training decisions regarding the selection, adoption, value, and modification of training activities” (Goldstein & Ford, 2002, p. 128). In terms of its focus on determining the performance improvement, it is “the determination of the extent to which a programme has met its stated performance goals and objectives”; and on its ability to provide feedback, it is “an attempt to obtain information (feedback) on the effects of a training programme and to assess the value of the training in light of that information” (Topno 2012, p. 16).
27 | P a g e Since training evaluation has been defined differently, in this study, information gathering and analysis are the two relevant and considered definitions. Training evaluation is a systematic procedure of collecting and analysing information in determining training efficiency and effectiveness (Brown & Gerhardt, 2006; Brown & Sitzmaann,2011). Hence, in this study, the definition of training evaluation by the above authors is suitable for this study. Even though Kirkpatrick ‘s four-level model has been widely applied and accepted in the assessment of training programmes, there are critiques on the model. Some of the critiques are the model not considering other factors that might contribute towards the effectiveness of training such as, trainee’s characteristics, work environment and training design factors (Homklin, et al., 2014). The evaluation exercise can help the management to decide whether to continue or discontinue allocating resources towards the training programme. In other words, it will provide an understanding of whether the training is producing the desired outcomes. (Devi & Shaik, 2012).
According to Brown & Gerhardt (2006), evaluation of a training program should include procedures that ensure that there is alignment between the training activities and the organisational strategy. Evaluation of training effectiveness is “the measurement of improvement in the employee
‘s knowledge, skill and behavioural pattern within the organisation as a result of the training programme” (Al-Swidi & Al-Yahya, 2017, p. 841). Devi and Shaik (2012) are of the view that if the training outcomes are closer to the set training objectives, then the training will be core effective. Anjani (2013) asserts that even though evaluating training programmes is essential in determining the training effectiveness, there are other factors to be considered that influence training effectiveness. According to Scaduto, Lindsay, and Chiaburu (2008), training effectiveness is a function of the training design, the individual characteristic or the organisational context.
Furthermore, (Mohammed et al., 2013) asserts that it is impossible to determine training goals achievements without considering the effectiveness variables. Thus, the study evaluates the effects of training content and objectives on training effectiveness outcomes. Adequate and suitable training characteristics, such as training environment, training methods, trainer performance and behaviour, training content and objectives have a significant contribution on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of training programs (Hafeez & Akbar, 2015). Thus, it is vital to understand the contextual factors when evaluating the effectiveness of a training programme (Faizal Amin &
Ruhizan, 2014).
28 | P a g e The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) assessed the nationwide prevalence of the importance of measurement and evaluation to the Human Resources Department executives from different types of organisations in the United States of America. They found the majority (81%) of HRD executives attached some level of importance in evaluating their training, whereas about 67% used Kirkpatrick four-level evaluation model to assess the training programs.
According to Siengthai (2015), different factors such as participant’s skills, knowledge, abilities, effectiveness of instructors, training content, training objectives, and the methods of training influence the training effectiveness. Since different researchers have shown that evaluation of training outcomes can be very complex and multidimensional, it is crucial to be flexible when evaluating outcomes of training so that variety of different forms such as skill-based tests, behavioural measures, efficiency measures, job performance measure, and utility analyses are taken into consideration (Siengthai, 2015). Punia and Kant (2013) emphasised that of great concern to the management of organisations that have invested resources in training is measuring the effectiveness of such intervention and how it has improved the organisational results. Kirkpatrick (1967) introduced a well-known “four-level evaluation model” for evaluating the effectiveness of training programs. Later on, some other evaluation experts used, critiqued and made modifications to this model.
The reviewed literature indicated the enormous usage of Kirkpatrick’s model by different sectors in evaluating training programs to measure effectiveness. The primary objective for training evaluation is to understand the usefulness of the intervention in achieving the desired outcomes.
Training organisations and practitioners need to define the purpose of the training at the beginning clearly and systematically evaluate any change made by such a programme (Borate et al., 2014).
Furthermore, there is a proclaim that undertaking evaluation of pieces of training is critical to assess the effectiveness or impact of a training program at an individual or organisational level (Borate et al., 2014). The authors further emphasised that there is no alternative method to ensure that the resources invested in training are worthwhile except carrying out a proper evaluation. Two models of interest for training effectiveness and evaluation are Kirkpatrick’s (1967) and Holton (1996) training evaluation models.
29 | P a g e Previous studies that evaluated training programs focused on how training characteristics can lead to desired training outcomes by using the Kirkpatrick ‘s model either on individual levels or the relationship between two discrete levels (Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Kraiger, 2003; Tannenbaum, Cannon-Bowers & Mathieu, 2000). Nevertheless, their less devotion was put towards understanding how the training characteristics can influence training effectiveness (Homklin, et al., 2014). Training cannot be appropriately evaluated in isolation from these surrounding factors (Tannenbaum et al., 2000). The next subsections expound on the expectations of trainees from the training to improve on the training processes.