Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

From Reactions to Return on Investment:A Study on Training Evaluation Practices


Affiliations
1 XLRI, Jamshedpur, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Training evaluation continues to be a challenge for workplace learning and development professionals. Based on the information from 104 organizations across the country, this study explored the training evaluation practices in India. The findings indicated that when compared to the past, significant progress was made at different levels of training evaluation such as reactions, learning, job application, business results and ROI calculation. However, there was a declining trend in the percentage of programs taken up from reactions level to ROI level. Lack of support, resources, time, and cost associated with evaluation, difficulty in accessing right data, and lack of expertise on the part of learning professionals were the main reasons for not evaluating training at higher levels.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Al-Athari, A. & Zairi, M. (2002),”’Training Evaluation: An Empirical Study in Kuwait”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 26: 241-51

  • Alliger, G. & Janak, E. (1989), “Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Training Criteria: 30 Years Later”, Personnel Psychology, 42: 331-42.

  • Alliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W.,Traver, H. & Shortland, A.(2002), “A Meta-analysis on the Relations among Training Criteria”, Personnel Psychology, 50: 431-58.

  • American Society for Training & Development (2009), The Value of Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective , Alexandria, VA: ASTD Research Department.

  • American Society for Training & Development (2012), 2012 State of the Industry, Alexandria, VA: ASTD Research Department.

  • Bassi, L. J. & Van Buren, M.,E. (1999), “The 1999 ASTD State of the Industry Report”, Training & Development Magazine, Supplement, 53.

  • Bates, R. (2004), “A Critical Analysis of Evaluation Practice: the Kirkpatrick Model and the Principle of Beneficence”, Evaluation and Program Planning, 27: 341-7.

  • Bennett, N. (1997), “The Voices of Evaluation”, The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 17:198-206.

  • Bersin, J. (2008), The Training Measurement Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies, and Practical Approaches, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Blanchard, P. N., Thacker, J. W. & Way, S. A. (2000), “Training Evaluation: Perspectives and Evidence from Canada”, International Journal of Training and Development, 4: 295–304.

  • Brinkerhoff, R.O. (1989), Evaluation Training Programs in Business and Industry, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

  • Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2003), The Success Case Method, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

  • Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2005), “The Success Case Method: A Strategic Evaluation Approach to Increasing the Value and Effect of Training”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7: 86-101.

  • Budhwar, P. S. : Varma, A. (2011), “Emerging HR Management Trends in India and the Way Forward’, Organizational Dynamics, 40: 317-25.

  • Brown, K. G. & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002), “Formative Evaluation: An Integrative Practice Model and Case Study”, Personnel Psychology, 55: 951-83.

  • Cascio, W.F. & Boudreau, J.W. (2008), Investing in People: Financial Impact of Human Resource Initiatives, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

  • Casey, M. (2006), Problem-based Inquiry: an Experiential Approach to Training Evaluation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OH

  • Dessinger, J.C. & Moseley, J.L. (2006), “The Full Scoop on Full-scope Evaluation”, in Pershing, J.A. (ed), Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices, Potential, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer

  • Galvin, J. C. (1983), “What Can Trainers Learn from Educators about Evaluating Management Training?” Training and Development Journal, 37: 52-57.

  • Geis, G L. (1987), ”Formative Evaluation: Developmental Testing and Expert Review” Performance and Instruction, 26: 1-8.

  • Goldstein, Irwin L. & Ford, Kevin J. (2007), Training in Organizations, New Delhi: Cengage.

  • Guerci, M., Bartezzaghi, E. & Solari, L. (2010), “Training Evaluation in Italian Corporate Universities: a Stakeholder-based Analysis”, International Journal of Training and Development, 14, 291-308.

  • Hall, B. W. (2008), The New Human Capital Strategy: Improving the Value of Your Most Important Investment – Year after Year, New York: AMACOM.

  • Hambiln, A.C. (1974), The Evaluation and Control of Training, London: McGraw-Hill

  • Holton, E. (1996), “The Flawed Four-level Evaluation Model”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7: 5-21.

  • Kaufman, R. & Keller, J. (1994),”Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5: 371-80.

  • Kennedy, P. E., Chyung, S. Y., Winiecki, D. J. & Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2014), “Training Professionals’ Usage and Understanding of Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 and Level 4 Evaluations”, International Journal of Training and Development, 18: 1–21.

  • Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994), Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

  • Kirwan, C. & Birchall, D. (2006), “Transfer of Learning from Management Development Programs: Testing the Holton Model”, International Journal of Training and Development, 10: 252-68.

  • Moller, L. & Mallin, P. (1996), “Evaluation Practices of Instructional Designers and Organizational Supports and Barriers”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9: 82–92.

  • Pio, E. (2007), “HRM and Indian Epistemologies: A Review and Avenue for Future Research”, Human Resource Management Review, 17: 319-35.

  • Passmore, J. & Velez, M. (2012), “SOAP-M: A Training Evaluation Model for HR”, Industrial and Commercial Training, 44: 315-25.

  • Phillips, J. (1997), Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods, Houston, TX: Gulf.

  • Pulichino, J. P. (2007), Usage and Value of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University.

  • Rao T.V. & Varghese, S. (2009), “Trends and Challenges in Developing Human Capital in India”, Human Resource Development International, 12: 15-34.

  • Rao, T. V., Rao, R. & Yadav,T. (2007), “A Study of HRD Concepts, Structures of HRD departments, and HRD Practices in India”, Vikalpa, 26: 49-63.

  • Roark, S., Kim, M. & Mupinga, M. (2006), “An Exploratory Study of the Extent to Which Medium-sized Organizations Evaluate Training Programs”, Journal of Business and Training Education, 15: 15-20

  • Saks, A. M. & Burke, L. A. (2012), “An Investigation into the Relationship between Training Evaluation and the Transfer of Training”, International Journal of Training and Development, 16: 118–27.

  • Srimannarayana, M. (2006), “Training Trends in India”, Indian Journal of Training and Development, XXXVI: 51-57.

  • Srimannarayana, M. (2010),’”Training and Development Practices in India”, Indian Journal of Training and Development, XXXX: 34-42.

  • Srimannarayana, M. (2011), “Measuring Training and Development”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47: 117-25.

  • Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Hammond, L. R., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971), Educational Evaluation and Decision-making in Education, Illinois, Peacock

  • Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M. & Moore, C. (2007), “A Review and Critique of Research on Training and Organizational-level Outcomes”, Human Resource Management Review, 17: 251

  • Twitchell, S., Holton, E. & Trott, J. W. (2000), “Technical Training Evaluation Practices in the United States”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13: 84–109

  • Tzeng, G., Chiang, C. & Li, C. (2007), “Evaluating Intertwined Effects in e-learning Programs: a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL”, Expert Systems with Applications, 32: 1028-44.

  • Warr, P., Bird, M. & Rackham, N. (1970), Evaluation of Management Training: A Practical Framework, with Cases for Evaluating Training Needs and Results, London: Gower Press.

  • Wang, G. G. & Spitzer, D. R. (2005), “HRD Measurement & Evaluation: Looking Back and Moving Forward” Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7: 5-15.

  • Weston C, McAlpine L, Bordonaro T (1995), “A Model for Understanding Formative Evaluation in Instructional Design” Educational Technology Research and Development, 43:29-48.

  • Yadapadithaya, P. S. (2001), “Evaluating Corporate Training and Development: An Indian Experience”, International Journal of Training and Development, 5: 261–74.


Abstract Views: 384

PDF Views: 0




  • From Reactions to Return on Investment:A Study on Training Evaluation Practices

Abstract Views: 384  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

M. Srimannarayana
XLRI, Jamshedpur, India

Abstract


Training evaluation continues to be a challenge for workplace learning and development professionals. Based on the information from 104 organizations across the country, this study explored the training evaluation practices in India. The findings indicated that when compared to the past, significant progress was made at different levels of training evaluation such as reactions, learning, job application, business results and ROI calculation. However, there was a declining trend in the percentage of programs taken up from reactions level to ROI level. Lack of support, resources, time, and cost associated with evaluation, difficulty in accessing right data, and lack of expertise on the part of learning professionals were the main reasons for not evaluating training at higher levels.

References