Different Models used in Training Evaluation

Employee training is probably the best venture an organization should invest in, as it can drive efficiency, support income, and achieve vital objectives. Evaluation models are precise structures used to explore and investigate the adequacy of coaching or teaching sessions. There are many techniques developed to meet various business requirements. Organizations use these techniques to gauge the efficiency of their training sessions. Kirkpatrick, Brinkerhoff, and Jack J. Phillips developed the most significant models, with the ROI model by Phillip best fitting for the talent development reporting task.

Kirkpatrick developed the primary technique, which comprises four major stages in the evaluation process. The initial step is useful in deciding how the members reacted and whether there were appropriate conditions during the program. Tools used include an online assessment, interview, and printed or oral reports. The second phase helps to gauge the skills trainees gained in the session. Simple questions and several tests are the most common tools at this level  (Boller & Fletcher, 2020). These two phases are straightforward in execution, hence posing minimal challenges.

The last phases pose a more challenging task than the initial ones, as there are no specific tools to apply. The third phase focuses on the participants’ behaviour after the program. It assesses whether they employ what they learned in their work. Main evaluation techniques used at the stage include observations and interviews. The model measures result against the employer’s expectations in the last stage through a process known as return on equity (ROE) (Chyung, 2018). From a business outlook, the elements above are the principal justification of the model, even though there is no thought of level four outcomes. To figure out whether the training program results in better outcomes is usually complicated. This model needed more improvement, leading to the creation of a new technique with several differences.

Phillips improved the previous model by incorporating several changes, including adding a new phase. Changes occur in the last stages as the first two steps are similar to the previous technique. The approach assists an organization with deciding if an issue lies with applying or implementing the learning. That addresses a modest yet significant improvement in the third phase. While the previous fourth level centers simply around results, this model looks at the effect of the training and helps recognize whether different components delivered the desired outcomes.

The remarkable improvement is the introduction of an ROI stage. Unlike the other model that measures training results against employers’ assumptions, the ROI model contains the additional phase intended to evaluate return on investment. The stage uses money-saving analysis to decide the benefit of learning initiatives (Fu et al., 2018). The technique found attention from companies that needed to allocate a monetary value to the training outcomes. However, only a few training courses afford a complete, five-level evaluation due to its complexity and expenses.

Success Case Method (SCM) by Brinkerhoff takes a unique approach in comparison with the previous techniques. It tries to figure out how a learning program becomes successful or the reasons for failure. The primary concern is not finding the average return of participants as the initial approaches do. Instead, it purposely contemplates the most successful trainees and the ineffective ones. It includes researching the effects of a training program and recording all the elements that upgraded or hindered business impact (Robert & Renerken, 2016). The result is a study disseminated to an organization’s stakeholders to help their knowledge of the training and its effect on the business. Processes involved include planning a successful case study, defining success, and drafting an impact model. The last step requires drafting outcomes, giving recommendations, and presenting results to the employer. This technique best fits large or long-term tasks, mainly those that involve repeating the program over time.

The ROI model would be a perfect choice for a training director to generate the Talent Development Reporting task data. The primary focus is how participants respond to learning and their returns in monetary value. This technique aims to calculate the economic value of returns to an organization from a training session. It provides the financial analysis regarding the cost of the program and the final returns. The data collection is also precise and well structured compared to other techniques. From this point, this model can be regarded as the most appropriate choice for a corporate training director. The director will gather the required data for the task and provide the financial report regarding performance changes experienced. This method offers more flexibility and functionalism for assessment thus would be a suitable choice for such an assignment. 

Organizations use training sessions to improve the output of employees and improve their skills. Various techniques are applied to assess the effectiveness of such sessions depending on the current tools available. Kirkpatrick, Brinkerhoff, and Phillips came up with the most used techniques for this purpose. Each model has its upsides and downsides, providing an uphill task to choose the right one for a specific assignment. However, for various reasons, the Phillips model would suit an organization for talent development reporting tasks.

References

Boller, S., & Fletcher, L. (2020). Design thinking for training and development. ATD Press.

Chyung, S. Y. (2018). 10-Step evaluation for training and performance improvement. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Fu, F. Q., Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2018). ROI marketing: Measuring, demonstrating, and improving value. Performance Improvement, 57(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21771

Robert, J. J., & Renerken, A. (2016). Success SMB: Leadership and multidimensional management: An exploratory study. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2772907