1 / 21

Evaluation Procedures

Evaluation Procedures. Dr. Steve Training & Development INP6325. Perspectives on Training. Trainee – What if trainee does well in training, but gets fired or laid off for being ineffective on the job?

norris
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation Procedures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation Procedures Dr. Steve Training & Development INP6325

  2. Perspectives on Training • Trainee – What if trainee does well in training, but gets fired or laid off for being ineffective on the job? • Trainer – What if trainee develops what s/he thinks is effective training, but supervisors won’t let workers use newly learned techniques/skills? • Organization – What if organization spent big money on training program, but employees are still not effective?

  3. Applied Questions • Training specialists interested in: • Whether criteria (performance, $ savings) indicate improvement following training • Whether improvement was a result of training • Whether training will be equally effective with different group of trainees • Whether training will be beneficial to other organizations.

  4. Research Questions • Which of two or more training programs is the best and why? • Which type of training works best with which type of worker? • What type of organization can benefit most by this type of training?

  5. Types of Training Researcher (Randall) • Negativists – Evaluating training is either impossible or unnecessary • Often decisions made based on anecdotal evidence • Positivists – Only rigorous scientific evaluation is worthwhile • If there’s no experimental data, it’s a waste of time • Often don’t have resources for full-blown experiment • Frustrates (Activists) – All training should be evaluated, but must recognize that evaluation quality varies depending on constraints.

  6. Training Evaluations Training Evaluation only as good as the: • Question that is asked • Appropriateness of the criteria • Evaluation design

  7. Training Evaluations: Ethical Issues Ethical issues of empirical study • Use of control group means some may not get training • Eliminates promotion opportunities • Control group may feel slighted • Trainees act differently if know in experiment • Hawthorne Effect

  8. Formative vs. Summative Evaluation • Formative Evaluation – evaluate whether training program is operating as planned BEFORE it is implemented • Focus on process criteria – how training should be implemented • Summative Evaluation – Does training produce the expected outcome? • Trained vs untrained group comparisons’ • Comparative summative evaluation – which of 2 or more training approaches produces greatest benefit

  9. Threats to Validity of Training • Internal Validity – did training make a difference in this situation? • Training Validity – Does trainee’s training performance meet criteria for training program? • Transfer Validity – Does trainee’s job performance meet criteria? • External Validity – Can training results be generalized to other trainees or settings? • Intraorganizational Validity – Will training be effective on new group of trainees? • Interorganizational Validity – Can training program be used successfully at other organizations?

  10. Threats to Internal Validity • History – Events that happen between pre- & post- tests have nothing to do with training • Contamination of results (ex: layoffs, accidents, holidays, etc.) • Maturation – Biological or psychological effects of time on training • Effects of fatigue or disinterest

  11. Threats to Internal Validity • Testing – pre-test sensitizes trainee to upcoming post-test • Trainee prepares for it, or learn from pretest • Ex: GRE score  GRE course  GRE score improves • Instrumentation – questionable reliability of test measure • If fluctuation in scores is normal, can’t attribute change to training

  12. Experimental • Control Pretest Posttest Threats to Internal Validity • Statistical Regression – Extreme (hi or lo) pre-test scores will often regress to the mean on post-test • Differential Selection of Participants – if allow participants to volunteer, experimental group may be more highly motivated • Random selection, random assign, or matched groups

  13. Threats to Internal Validity • Experimental Mortality – differential loss of participants between groups • Trainees who did poorly on pre-test may get discouraged, fired, quit, etc. • Training may coincide with other project deadlines • Interactions – differential effects that one threat might have on another • Ex: testing effects different in each group due to selection

  14. Threats to Internal Validity • Diffusion or Limitation of Treatments – members of one group share information with the other • Compensatory Equalization of Treatments – to avoid perceived differential treatment, some alternative might be given to control group • No longer true control, but 2nd experimental group

  15. Threats to Internal Validity • John Henry Effect – competition between experimental and control group increases motivation of control group to work harder • Demoralization of Control Groups – passive-aggressive response to not being selected for training

  16. Threats to External Validity • Reactive Effect of Pre-testing (sensitization)- effects of pre-test lead to increase sensitivity of instruction • Increased attention to material that was seen in pre-test • Interaction of Selection & Experimental Treatment (representative sample) – characteristics of the group chosen for evaluation may be different than in future groups

  17. Threats to External Validity • Reactive Effects of Experimental Settings – Experimental group knows they’re being observed causing them to react differently from future groups • Hawthorne, Guinea pig, or Pygmalion Effects • Multiple-Treatment Interference (carryover)– problem with within subjects experiments • participant is exposed to more than one treatment - previous treatments will affect later ones

  18. Training Evaluation Designs • Pre-Experimental Designs • One Shot Case Study: • No control group X T2 • One Group Pre-Test/Post-Test: • Before and after comparison, no control group T1 X T2 • Static Group Comparison: X T2 -- T2

  19. Training Evaluation Designs • True Experimental Designs • Pre-test/Post-test Control Group: • Controls for most internal validity threats (except diff treatment) R T1 X T2 R T1 -- T2 • Solomon 4-Group Design: • Controls for both internal and external threats R T1 X T2 R T1 --- T2 R -- X T2 R -- --- T2 • Post-Test Only Control: • Like static group, but with randomization R X T2 R T2

  20. Training Evaluation Designs • Quasi-Experimental Designs • Time Series • Longitudinal method rules out maturation, testing, stat regression T1 T2 T3 T4 X T5 T6 T7 T8 • Non-Equivalent Control Group • Same as pre-test/post-test control, but not random selection T1 X T2 T1 --- T2

  21. Other Evaluation Methods • ANCOVA – use pre-test as covariate in comparing post-test means • Example covary measure of ability prior to training • Useful when small r between pre & post test R T1 X T2 R T1 --- T2 • Correlations – correlate training performance to on-the-job performance • Doesn’t necessarily mean training had effect • Content Validity – SMEs opinion that KSAs covered in training were those identified in needs assessment

More Related