1. Evaluation Practices
Training providers flourish starting 1992 with the passing of HRD Act
The Act requires companies to contribute 1% of monthly payroll to HRDF to be used for employees training by registered training providers
In 1999 there were 300 registered training providers with Ministry of Human Resource

2. Evaluation practices found to be unsystematic, informal and ad hoc
It included all form of evaluation approaches (methods of data collection)
The most commonly used approaches were: Trainee feedback, Interview, Performance analysis, Reaction form, Survey, Document Review, Supervisor, Competency test, and Site visit

3. Majority of the training providers: Evaluated their training immediately after the training programs completed
The findings show some form of formal, but not systematic, and comprehensive evaluation
Clients (companies) to some extent did require formal evaluation
The training providers’ commitment towards evaluation was moderate

4. Conclusions Did the providers serious about evaluation?
Did they understand the importance of evaluation?
What was the important consideration to embark on evaluation
Did the evaluation approaches appropriate?

5. What were the reasons for the immediate increase in the numbers of training providers?
Who are the training providers in Malaysia?
Why companies employed outside training providers?