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? 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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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 Pretest Posttest Experimental Control

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

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

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

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

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

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: -- T2

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 --- T2 R -- X T2 R -- --- T2 Post-Test Only Control: Like static group, but with randomization R X T2 R T2

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

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