Disadvantages Of Training Evaluation

As the definition of training evaluation says, it is a systematic collection of descriptive and judgmental information which is necessary to take important decisions related to the selection, adoption and modification of various training activities (Goldstein and Ford, 2007). It involves both formative and summative evaluation (Tarenou et al., 2007). Formative evaluation involves evaluating training during design and development (Brown and Gerhardt, 2002). Summative evaluation refers to an evaluation conducted to determine the extent to which the training program objectives are achieved. However, the focus of training evaluation research and practices is predominately on summative evaluation (Brown and Gerhardt, 2002).

There are three stages

It classified training outcomes into four levels such as reactions, learning, behavior and results. Reaction evaluation is defined as assessing satisfaction of the participants with the program. Learning evaluation is concerned with the extent to which the participants have learned the knowledge, skills, and abilities taught in the program. Behavior evaluation refers to the extent the knowledge, skills, and abilities learned are transferred onto the job performance. Results evaluation is concerned with monitoring outcomes made by the participants. According to this framework, higher level outcomes should not be measured unless positive changes occur in lower level outcomes. There are criticisms on the hierarchical nature of this model (Alliger and Janak, 1989; Alliger, et al., 2002; & Bates, 2004). There is a limited evidence to support the causal relations between the levels of evaluation of this model. It leads to an excessively simplified method of assessing training effectiveness. This framework devalues the evaluation of societal impact or the usefulness and availability of organizational resources (Kaufman & Keller, 1994). To address these issues Kaufman & Keller (1994) have proposed a five-level framework of training evaluation covering ‘enabling (1a)’ and ‘societal outcomes (5)’ to Kirkpatrick‘s

return of investment (ROI) to the four levels of evaluation developed by Kirkpatrick. But isolating the effects of the training is a major challenge in this model. To address the issues and concerns with existing training evaluation models, Brinkerhoff, (2003) proposed the Success Case Method (SCM) for evaluating training programs. It is a process for evaluating the business effect of training that is aligned with and fulfills the strategy. It assesses the effect of training by looking intentionally for the very best that training is producing. When these instances are found, they are carefully and objectively analyzed, seeking hard and corroborated evidence to irrefutably document the application and result of the training. Further, there must be adequate evidence that it was the application of the training that led to a valued outcome. If this cannot be verified, it does not qualify as a success case (Brinkerhoff, 2005). The main disadvantage of SCM is that it needs some level of judgment with respect to what trainers identify as critical success factors on the job (Casey, 2006). Dessinger and Moseley (2006) developed the Dessinger-Moseley Full-Scope Evaluation Model (SEM). It aims at integrating formative, summative, confirmative, and meta-evaluation. It helps to formulate judgments about the worth of any performance improvement intervention. However, as pointed out by the authors themselves, the evaluation of