Training Evaluation Models

1375 Words6 Pages
I.4. Training Evaluation Models Lewis & Thornhill (1994) said that many evaluation methods have focused on analyzing cost and benefit while Paauwe & Williams (2001) stated that many evaluation methods simply evaluate the levels of happiness indices of participants. I.4.1. CIPP model of Stuffebeam et al. (2003) Stufflebeam and colleagues firstly introduced the CIPP model (Context, Input, Process and Product) in 1966 and then revised by the authors in 2003 (Stufflebeam at al., 2003). According to Khalid et al. (2012), the CIPP model is a useful tool to evaluation training. They found out that the context gives specific data to identify program objectives; the input determines the methods to obtain the results, the products including evaluation…show more content…
Kirkpatrick (1996) suggested a four-level assessment including measurement of training reaction from participants, learning outcomes, knowledge/behaviour changes and business results. Kirkpatrick’s four-level model proposes measuring these criteria: Level one – the participants’ reactions or satisfaction with the program; Level two – the gain of the new knowledge and skills from the training program; Level three – Behaviour, measure the changes or improvement in jobs after training program; and Level four – Results, the outcomes of the program to the company such as employee turnover, productivity, sales performance, company revenue… Higher level outcomes should be measured when lower outcomes have positive…show more content…
Application 4. Impact 5. ROI Highest Client Infrequent Difficult Figure 1.4: Characteristics of evaluation levels (Source: Phillips, 2002) I.4.4. CIRO model by Warr et al (1970) Warr and colleagues created the CIRO Model refers to Contents/Contexts, Inputs, Reactions and Outcomes, which is quite popular also for training evaluation. Training effectiveness both before and after training are used CIRO elements of this model to evaluate (Warr et al, 1970). Strengths of this model are measuring corporate training program, considering the objectives (context) and training equipment (inputs) effectively. However, according to Tzeng et al (2007), the model does not show how to measure and does not provide essential information for improvement for the current training situation. Table 1.1: Comparison between Kirkpatrick’s model and CIRO model Criteria Kirkpatrick’s model CIRO model Focused areas • Reaction • Learning • Behavior • Result • Content/Context • Inputs • Reactions • Outcomes Strengths Identify behavioral changes, focus on the changes of ability and application to workplace Measure pre-training and post-training to find whether the objectives of the training were achieved or

More about Training Evaluation Models

Open Document