Ife PsychologIA 2014, 22(1), 50-58

Copyright 2014 Ife Centre for Psychological Studies/Services, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

ISSN: 1117-1421

Training Evaluation: Process, Benefits, and Issues

Nyitor A. Shenge, PhD
Department of Psychology,
Faculty of the Social Sciences,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Training is an organized approach to positively impacting individuals knowledge, skills,
and attitudes in order to improve individual, team, and organizational effectiveness.
Training gives organizations access to resources that will allow them to compete
successfully in a changing environment, and to plan for and accomplish set goals.
Effective training helps corrects employee and organizational deficiencies. However,
poor, inappropriate, or inadequate training can be a source of frustration for everyone
involved. Training typically posses a number of challenges and every training process
brings with it a number of questions that managers must answer. Therefore there is
need for organizations and managers to understand, plan for, and critically evaluate
training. Based on the aforementioned needs, this paper examines processes, benefits,
and issues in training evaluation. Among the issues discussed in the paper are the
meaning of training evaluation and why training evaluation is necessary; measuring
trainings effectiveness and impact; Kirkpatricks four levels of evaluation; and issues
with training evaluation. The paper concludes that effective training evaluation is
necessary for successful management of training programs and organizational growth
and development. Therefore properly evaluating training requires managers to think
through the purposes of the training, the purposes of the evaluation, the audiences for
the results of the evaluation, the points or spans of points at which measurements will
be taken, the time perspective to be employed, and the overall framework to be utilized.
Key Words: Training, evaluation, investment, effectiveness, benefits, organization
Training is one of the activities that give
organizations access to resources, including
human resources, material, money and
methods, that will allow them to compete
successfully in a changing environment,
and to plan and design activities to
accomplish the perceived goals of the
organization (Krishnaveni & Sripirabaa,
2008). Aguinis & Kraiger (2009) define
training as the the systematic approach to
affecting individuals knowledge, skills, and
attitudes in order to improve individual,
team, and organizational effectiveness.
(Goldstein & Ford, 2002) define training as
the systematic acquisition of skills, rules,
concepts, or attitudes that result in
improved
performance
in
another
environment. Training is often used in
conjunction with development (Aguinis &
Kraiger, 2009; Goldstein & Ford, 2002;
Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, &
Templer, 2004), though the terms are not
synonymous (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, Cardy,
Dimick, & Templer, 2004). Aguinis &
Kraiger (2009) view development as
organized efforts impacting individuals

knowledge or skills geared towards personal

growth.
In the view of Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer (2004), the focus
of training is typically on providing
employees with specific skills or helping
them
correct
deficiencies
in
their
performance. In contrast, development is an
effort to provide employees with the abilities
that the organization will need in the
future. Whereas in training, the focus is
solely on the current job; in development,
the focus is on both the current job and
jobs that employees will hold in the future
(Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, &
Templer
(2004,
p.224).
Furthermore,
training is job-specific and its scope is on
individual employees while the scope of
development is on the entire work group or
organization (i.e. concerned with the
workforces skills and versatility). Training
focuses on immediate organizational needs,
while development tends to focus on longterm requirements (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer, 2004).
50

Ife PsychologIA, 22(1), 2014

Training and development also differ in the

goals they seek to attain. While the goal of
training is a fairly quick improvement in
workers performance, that of development
is
the
overall
enrichment
of
the
organizations human resources. This is
achieved by preparing employees for future
work demands (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer, 2004). Training
robustly shapes present performance
levels, while development pays off in terms
of more capable and flexible human
resources in the long run (Gomez-Mejia,
Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, & Templer, 2004).
Training serves many masters and many
purposes (Nickols, 2000). Some of the
purposes that training serves may include
focusing energy on issues, making work
and issues visible, supporting other
interventions,
legitimizing
issues,
promoting change, reducing risk, creating a
community
based
on
some
shared
experience, building teams, indoctrinating
new
staff,
communicating
and
disseminating knowledge and information.
Others are certifying and licensing,
rewarding past performance, flagging "fast
trackers," and developing skills (Nickols,
2000). He notes that thinking about how
evaluation of training might vary with the
purpose or use of the training itself is as
important as knowing the details of the
training purposes.
Changes relating to training result in or
are expected to result in improved job
performance and a number of other positive
changes (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Hill &
Lent 2006; Satterfield & Hughes 2007) that
serve as precursors of job performance
(Kraiger,
2002).
However,
in-training
strategies or conditions (such as manner of
instruction)
play
significant
role
in
improving transfer or performance (Aguinis
& Kraiger, 2009; Brown, T.C., 2005). The
positive effects of training are not limited to
employees, but also extend to managers
and leaders (Collins & Holton, 2004), as
well as organizations (Paradise, 2007) and
society by way of human capital formation
(Leeuwen & van Praag, 2002). Effective
training can also raise performance,
improve
morale,
and
increase
an
organizations
potential.
Poor,
inappropriate, or inadequate training can,

however, be a source of frustration for

everyone involved (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer, 2004). Nickols
(2000) recognizes the importance of training
and notes that training is a management
tool, not the private domain of those who
specialize in its development or delivery,
nor of those who make its development and
delivery contingent upon some other
methodology. Training designs may include
before training, after training, and control
Group (Pine and Tingley, 1993).
Training typically posses a number
challenges and every training process
brings with it a number of questions that
managers must answer. Gomez-Mejia,
Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, & Templer (2004)
note these questions to include: Is training
the solution to the problem? Are the goals
of training clear and realistic? Is training a
good investment? Will the training work?
All these questions are predicated on sound
theoretical frameworks about training. For
instance, on whether training is the
solution to the problem, it is understood
that not all performance problems call for
training. Performance deficits, according to
Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, &
Templer (2004), can have several causes
(unclear or conflicting requests, morale
problems, and poor-quality materials),
many of which are beyond the workers
control and would therefore not be affected
by training.
The need to ensure that goals of training
are clear and realistic underscores the fact
that goals should be able to both guide the
training programs content and determine
the criteria by which training effectiveness
will be judged. On whether training is a
good investment, Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer (2004) opine
that training can be
quite expensive.
However, there are indications that when
money is wisely used, training is definitely
worth the investment. Gomez-Mejia, Balkin,
Cardy, Dimick, & Templer (2004) further
write that what distinguished the most
successful from the least successful
manufacturing industries (plants) were
three mutually supporting characteristics
including extensive use of work teams,
extensive delegation of responsibility to
51

Shenge, N. A.: Training Evaluation

Rothwell's Theory of Visible Activity

states that customers of training think that
high profile activity automatically means
results and, therefore, that offering much
training automatically improves employee
performance. Of course, such a view is
mistaken. The time has come, notes
Rothwell (2005), to move beyond training as
a quick fix (or fix-all) and to focus instead
on applying a wide range of human
performance enhancement (HPE) strategies.
It is also time to emphasize the strategic
and long-term role of HPE efforts and to
transform
training
and
development
professionals
into
HPE
Specialists
(Rothwell, 2005).
Any effort to evaluate training is
complex. For this reason Kirkpatrick
(1959; 1998) emphasizes the importance of
being clear about the purposes of and the
audiences for any such evaluation. Training
specialists and evaluators should be clear
on what is to be evaluated and why it
should be evaluated. Due considerations
must be given to what the learning is
supposed to do (e.g. change behavior, shape
attitudes, improve job performance, reduce
defects, increase sales, and enhance
quality). Due attention also needs to be
paid to important efficiency questions such
as how much time does the training
consume? Can it be shortened? Can we
make do with on-the-job training or can we
completely
eliminate
training
by
substituting job aids instead? There is also
need to address cost-related questions such
as: What does the training cost? Whatever
it costs, is it worth it? Who says? On what
basis? What are we trying to find out? For
whom? The preceding questions illustrate
the complexity of any effort to evaluate
training and emphasize the importance of
being clear about the purposes of and the
audiences
for
any
such
evaluation
Kirkpatrick (1959; 1998).
Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, &
Templer, (2004) have advised on the need to
remember the differential gains of training
and development when generating and
evaluating training programs. They note
that training strongly influences present
performance levels, while development pays
off in terms of more capable and flexible
human resources in the long run. It is due

production workers, and giving training

more emphasis.
The question regarding the workability of
training
presupposes
that
adequate
preparing for training is important. On this
issue,
Gomez-Mejia,
Balkin,
Cardy,
Dimick, & Templer (2004) state that
training will not work unless it is related to
organizational
goals.
A
well-designed
training program flows from the strategic
goals of the company. It is the managers
responsibility to ensure that training is
linked with organizational goals (GomezMejia, Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, & Templer,
2004).
What is training evaluation and why
evaluate training
There is much evidence suggesting that a
considerable
part
of
organizations
investment in training does not result in
optimal transfer (Scaduto, Lindsay &
Chiaburu,
2008).
Managers
and
organizations are always interested in
evaluating the costs of training in relation
to the expected benefits of training. In not a
few
cases,
however,
managers
and
organizations may face dilemmas about
certain kinds of training; to conduct or not
conduct training. To maximize the benefits
of training, managers must closely monitor
the training process. The training process
consists of three phases: (1) needs
assessment, (2) development and conduct
of training, and (3) evaluation. In the
evaluation phase, the effectiveness of the
training program is assessed (Gomez-Mejia,
Balkin, Cardy, Dimick, & Templer, 2004).
Evaluation of training poses a problem
for many trainers, managers, executives,
and other professionals with an interest in
training (Kirkpatrick, 1959; 1998). This
problem is partly due to the conspiracy of
failure
that
poorly
conceived
and
haphazardly implemented training create in
many organizations. Conspiracy of failure
has to do with the minimization of the
importance of integrating training with
organizational strategy, assessing learning
needs, ensuring the transfer of training
from instructional to work settings,
evaluating training results, and (most
important) achieving performance gains and
productivity (Rothwell, 2005).
52

Ife PsychologIA, 22(1), 2014

to these differences that taking a

development approach to improve current
job performance problems, for instance, will
probably prove ineffective. For these same
reasons, using a training approach to affect
a long-range issue is likely to be futile.
Training is one of the most frequently
utilized human resource development
interventions
(Scaduto,
Lindsay,
&
Chiaburu, 2005).
Training efforts are often expected to
result in transfer of training as well as
training maintenance. Transfer of training
is defined as the degree to which trainees
effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes gained in a training context to the
job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Training
maintenance is defined as the reproduction
of trained skills in a new setting, and
training generalization refers to the
adaptation of trained skills to a more
complex situation.
Burke and Baldwin (1999) note that
there is much evidence suggesting that a
considerable
part
of
organizations
investment in training does not result in
optimal transfer. It is in order to improve
job performance that the skills and
behaviors learned and practiced during
training have to be transferred to the
workplace, maintained over time, and
generalized across contexts (Holton &
Baldwin, 2003). Due to the fact that
transfer of training remains an important
issue for researchers and practitioners
(Holton & Baldwin, 2003), it becomes
important to test models that include
training effectiveness predictors.
Training programs are among the first
areas to take a hit when the economy
falters. Cutting training willy-nilly can
create more problems than it solves.
Effectiveness can be measured in monetary
or non-monetary terms. However its
measured, it is important that the criteria
by which the training is judged reflect the
needs that the training was designed to
address Kirkpatrick
(1959; 1998). For
instance, a training program designed to
increase workers efficiency might justifiably
be assessed in terms of its effects on
productivity or costs, but not in terms of
employee
satisfaction.
According
to
Kirkpatrick (1959; 1998), the evaluation

phase is often neglected (due to difficulty in

collecting data as well as time and other
resources). This is akin to investing and not
caring to
know if one is receiving an
adequate (or any) return on investment. If
direct measures of training cannot be done,
it is advised that estimates and costs of the
training should at least be made
(Kirkpatrick, 1959; 1998). This is the one
dependable way through which the value of
training can be demonstrated and upper
management may feel that there is
compelling need for continuing the training
effort.
Pine and Tingley (1993) identified four
levels
of
training
measurement
or
evaluation. These include the following:
1. Participants reaction to the training
at the time of the training.
2. Participants learning of the content
of the training.
3. Participants use of their new skills
and knowledge back on the job.
4. Companys return on the training
investment.
According to Rothwell (2007), doing training
evaluation consumes valuable time and
resources. All of these things are in short
supply in organizations today. Managers
and organizations should bother about the
effectiveness of training because many
training programs fail to deliver the
expected organizational benefits. Therefore,
having a well-structured evaluating system
in place can help you determine where the
problem lies. Even more positively, being
able to demonstrate a real and significant
benefit to your organization from the
training you provide can help you gain
more resources from important decisionmakers (Rothwell, 2007).
It is also important to realize that the
business environment is not standing still.
Rothwell (2007) notes that competitors in
business,
technology,
legislation
and
regulations are constantly changing. What
was
a
successful
training
program
yesterday may not be a cost-effective
program tomorrow. Thus, being able to
measure results will help one adapt to such
changing circumstances (Rothwell, 2007).

53

Shenge, N. A.: Training Evaluation

Kirkpatrick (2007) has discussed six

reasons to evaluate. These include the
following:
Determine whether a programme
should be continued: Kirkpatrick
(2007) notes that using evaluation
in this regard is at best sporadic.
The belief that more is best, he
adds,
tends to rule the day.
Therefore retiring courses seems to
happen by default rather than by
not design.
Improve a programme: This process
is carried out by looking at available
background data and determining if
there are any snags that break the
chain from the learning process to
the desired results.
Ensure learning compliance: This
measure is important because it
ensures efficiency.
Maximize the value of training: This
helps to provide clues about how
learning contributes to bottom-line
results. On this, Kirkpatrick (2007)
advises that before demonstrating
value, one should make sure that
training is adding value.
Align training with strategy: The
basic premise here is to ensure that
training
is
aligned
with
the
expectations for particular programs
and curricula (Kirkpatrick, 2007).
Demonstrate the value of training:
Kirkpatrick
(1959; 1998) and
Kirkpatrick (2007) talk about this in
terms of justifying our existence as
training professionals. By knowing
the audience to which you are trying
to demonstrate value, you can
gather
data
and
information
accordingly and present strong
evidence that effective training led to
targeted learning, which contributed
to critical on-the-job behaviors that
influenced
the
bottom
line
(Kirkpatrick, 2007).

On the job behavior change (5) On the job

performance
change
and
(6)
Other
measures. Measuring training prior to
training entails obtaining information about
issues such as the number of people that
say they need the training during the needs
assessment process and the number of
people that sign up for the training.
Evaluating training at the end of training
could be done by ascertaining: the number
of people that attend the session; the
number of people that paid to attend the
session; customer satisfaction (attendees)
at end of training; customer satisfaction at
end of training when customers know the
actual costs of the training; a measurable
change in knowledge or skill at end of
training; ability to solve a "mock" problem
at end of training; and willingness to try or
intent to use the skill/ knowledge at end of
training (Sulivan, 1998).
The delayed impact (non-job) training
measurement has to do with knowing:
customer satisfaction at X weeks after the
end of training; customer satisfaction at X
weeks after the training when customers
know the actual costs of the training;
retention of knowledge at X weeks after the
end of training; ability to solve a "mock"
problem at X weeks after end of training;
and willingness to try (or intent to use) the
skill/ knowledge at X weeks after the end of
the training (Sullivan, 1998).
In regards to measuring training on the
basis of on the job behavior change,
Sullivan (1998) states that an evaluator
would be interested in: trained individuals
that self-report that they changed their
behavior / used the skill or knowledge on
the job after the training (within X months);
trained individuals who's managers report
that they changed their behavior / used the
skill or knowledge on the job after the
training (within X months); and trained
individuals that actually are observed to
change their behavior / use the skill or
knowledge on the job after the training
(within X months).
A training evaluator who is interested in
measuring training on the basis of on the
job performance change would take note of:
trained individuals that self-report that
their actual job performance changed as a
result of their changed behavior / skill

Measuring Training's Effectiveness and

Impact
Sullivan (1998) discussed a variety of ways
that training can be measured. These
include (1) Prior to training (2) At the end of
training (3) Delayed Impact (non job) (4) )
54

Ife PsychologIA, 22(1), 2014

(within X months); trained individuals

who's manager's report that their actual job
performance changed as a result of their
changed behavior / skill (within X months);
and trained individuals who's manager's
report that their job performance changed
(as a result of their changed behavior /
skill) either through improved performance
appraisal scores or specific notations about
the training on the performance appraisal
form (within X months) (Sullivan, 1998).
Other information to look out for under this
type of training measurement would be:
trained individuals that have observable /
measurable (improved sales, quality, speed
etc.) improvement in their actual job
performance as a result of their changed
behavior / skill (within X months); the
performance of employees that are managed
by (or are part of the same team with)
individuals that went through the training;
departmental performance in departments
with X % of employees that went through
training; and ROI (Cost/Benefit ratio) of
return on training dollar spent (compared
to a firms
competition, last years
performance, other offered training, preset
goals etc.) (Sullivan, 1998).
Other measures of training that
Sullivan (1998) has highlighted include:
CEO / Top management knowledge
of / approval of / or satisfaction
with the training program.
Rank of training seminar in forced
ranking by managers of what factors
(among
miscellaneous
staff
functions) contributed most to
productivity/
profitability
improvement.
Number (or %) of referrals to the
training
by
those
who
have
previously attended the training.
Additional number of people who
were trained (cross-trained) by those
who have previously attended the
training. And their change in skill/
behavior/ performance.
Popularity (attendance or ranking) of
the program compared to others (for
voluntary training programs).

Reactions, Learning, Transfer, and Results

(Kirkpatrick 1959, 1994, 1998; Winfrey,
1999; Kirkpatrick, 2007).
Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions
Evaluation at level one (reactions) measures
how participants in a training program
react to it (Winfrey, 1999). He adds that the
reactions evaluation level attempts to
answer
questions
regarding
the
participants' perceptions. For instance, did
they like the training? Was the training
material relevant to their work? Kirkpatrick
(1994) advises that every program should at
least be evaluated at this level to provide for
the improvement of a training program.
Furthermore, the participants' reactions
have important consequences for learning
(level two). Although a positive reaction
does not guarantee learning, a negative
reaction almost certainly reduces its
possibility (Winfrey, 1999).
Level 2 Evaluation - Learning
Assessing at level two (learning) takes the
evaluation beyond learner satisfaction and
attempts to assess the extent learners have
advanced in skills, knowledge, or attitude.
Measurement at this level is more difficult
and laborious than level one (Winfrey,
1999). Methods range from formal to
informal testing to team assessment and
self-assessment. To assess the amount of
learning that has occurred due to a training
program, level two evaluations often use
tests conducted before training (pretest)
and after training (post test) (Winfrey,
1999).
Level 3 Evaluation - Transfer
The objective of level 3 evaluation is to
measure the transfer that has occurred in
learners' behavior due to the training
program. According to Winfrey (1999),
evaluating at this level tries to answer the
question - Are the newly acquired skills,
knowledge, or attitude being used in the
everyday environment of the learner?
Winfrey (1999) further notes that, for many
trainers, this level represents the truest
assessment of a program's effectiveness.
Nevertheless, measuring at this level is
difficult as it is often impossible to predict
when the change in behavior will occur,

Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation

The Kirkpatricks model of measuring
training effectiveness consists of four levels:
55

Shenge, N. A.: Training Evaluation

and thus requires important decisions in

terms of when to evaluate, how often to
evaluate, and how to evaluate (Winfrey,
1999; Kirkpatrick, 1994).

Level 4 Evaluation- Results

For many training experts (Kirkpatrick
1959, 1994, 1998; Winfrey, 1999; Kraiger,
2002) and Krishnaveni & Sripirabaa (2008),
level four evaluation is frequently thought
of as the bottom line. This level of
evaluation attempts to assess training in
terms of business results. That is to say
that the level measures the success of the
training program in terms that managers
and executives can appreciate - increased
in
production,
quality
improvement,
decrease in costs, reduction in frequency of
accidents, sales increases, and even higher
profits or return on investment (ROI)
(Winfrey, 1999). From a business and
organizational perspective, Winfrey (1999)
notes that level four evaluation is the
overall reason for a training program, yet
level four results are not typically
addressed. Obviously, determining results
in financial terms is difficult to measure,
and is hard to link directly with training
(Winfrey, 1999).
In Kirkpatricks four-level model, each
successive evaluation level, according to
Winfrey (1999), is built on information
provided by the lower level. Evaluation,
according to Kirkpatrick
(1959; 1994,
1998) and Winfrey (1999), should always
begin with level one, and then, as time and
budget allows, should move sequentially
through levels two, three, and four.
Information from each previous level serves
as a base for the next level's evaluation
(Winfrey, 1999). Thus, each succeeding
level represents a more precise measure of
the effectiveness of the training program,
but at the same time requires a more
rigorous and time-consuming analysis
(Winfrey, 1999).
There also exist evaluation methods
that are specifically meant for long-term
assessment of training results. Winfrey
(1999) identify these long-term evaluation
methods to include the following:
Sending post-training surveys;
Offering ongoing, sequenced training
and coaching over a period of time;

Conducting
follow-up
needs
assessment;
Checking metrics (e.g., scrap, rework, errors, etc.) to measure if
participants
achieved
training
objectives; and
Interview
trainees
and
their
managers, or their customer groups
(e.g., patients, other departmental
staff).

Issues with training evaluation

As desirable as training evaluation is, it is
not without some issues. Nickols (2000)
argues that training in actual fact only
eliminates deficiencies and in turn reduces
mistakes, errors, defects, and waste.
However, training is not in itself a solution
to a performance problem. He further
argues that the only way to prove that
training is successful is to shut down the
training. As it is applicable to some other
things, it is sometimes the case with
training that the true measure of its value
lies in its absence, not its presence, but
shutting down training is hardly a practical
way of testing that proposition (Nickols,
2000).
Evaluating training essentially depends
on the perception of the person doing the
evaluation. Nickols (2000) asserts here
again that what is of great value to one
person is of little or no value to another. In
evaluating
training,
therefore,
it
is
important to know one's audience (the
person
or
persons
for
whom
the
determination of value is to be made).
Training does compete for resources and
these resources ideally should be allocated
before any effort can be undertaken. This
means that, from the resource allocation
perspective, the case to be made concerning
the results of training must be made before
the training is conducted, not after as it is a
common practice (Nickols, 2000).
Gibbons (2004) summarizes key issues
on the evaluation of training and
development activities. He notes that most
organizations do not thoroughly evaluate
training and development events and that
most line managers are not actively
involved in the process of evaluating
training and development
activities,
but we must not assume they dont want to
56

Ife PsychologIA, 22(1), 2014

be. Gibbons (2004) further observes that

many individuals and organizations oppose
spending time on evaluation on the basis
that it would cost too much even as few if
any line managers have the development of
their staff really spelled out within a job
description, or focused upon at appraisal.
Consequently, training is often not
optimized.
Kirkpatrick (1959, 1998) and Kirkpatrick
(2007) are of the view that training
evaluation methods may not always be
applicable across board. For instance, a
method that was used to evaluate a sales
training workshop may not be used in an
exact way to evaluate an engineering skills
building workshop.
Also of note is the fact that learners
themselves receive little or no attention
during most evaluation efforts. According to
Gibbons (2004), this is a very serious
omission, as trainees acceptance of the
need to learn; their level of engagement and
contribution; their motivation, and their
willingness to confront transfer barriers are
absolutely crucial to the successes of any
event or activity.

Brown, T.C. (2005). Effectiveness of distal

and proximal goals as transfer-oftraining
interventions:
a
field
experiment. In Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K.
(2009). Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
451-474.
Burke, L. A. and Baldwin, T. T. (1999).
Workforce training transfer: a study of
the effect of relapse prevention training
and
transfer.
Human
Resource
Management, 38, 227-43.
Gibbons, A. (2004). Key issues on the
evaluation of training and development
activities.
Retrieved
from
www.andrewgibbons.co.uk
on
19
November, 2012.
Goldstein, I. L. and Ford, J. K. (2002),
Training
in
Organizations:
Needs
Assessment,
Development,
and
Evaluation (4th edn). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Group.
Holton, E. F., III and Baldwin, T. T. (2003),
Improving Learning Transfer Systems in
Organizations (San Francisco, CA: JoseyBass and Pfeiffer).
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., Cardy,
R.L., Dimick, D.E., and Templer, A.J.
(2004). Managing Human Resources
(Third Canadaian Edition). Toronto:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hill, C.E. and Lent, R.W. (2006). A narrative
and meta-analytic review of helping
skills training: time to revive a dormant
area of inquiry. Psychotherapy Theory
Research and Practice, 43, 15472.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Evaluating
Training Programs (2nd ed.). San
Francisco:
Berrett Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Another Look at
Evaluating Training Programs, ASTD,
Alexandria,
USA.
Kirkpatrick, J (2007, August). The
hidden power of Kirkptricks four levels.
Training
and Development, 61 (8), 34-37.
Krishnaveni, R. and Sripirabaa, B. (2008).
Capacity building as a tool for assessing
training and development activity: an
Indian case study. International Journal
of Training and Development, 12 (2),
121-134.
Leeuwen, M.J., van Praag, B.M. (2002). The
costs and benefits of lifelong learning:

Conclusion
In line with Nickols (2000) assertion, the
concluding point to be made here is that to
properly
evaluate
training
requires
managers to think through the purposes of
the training, the purposes of the evaluation,
the audiences for the results of the
evaluation, the points or spans of points at
which measurements will be taken, the
time perspective to be employed, and the
overall framework to be utilized. Only then
can training and its evaluation produce
gains that advance organizations overall set
goals.
References
Aguinis, H., and Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits
of
training
and
development
for
individuals and teams, organizations,
and
society.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988).
Transfer of training: a review and
directions for future research. Personnel
Psychology, 41, 63-103.
57

Shenge, N. A.: Training Evaluation

the case of the Netherlands. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 13,
15168. Retrieved September 24, 2009
from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/docume
nts/000001150.htm.
Nickols, F. W. (1982, April). Training: a
strategic view. NSPI Journal.
Nickols, F. W. (2000). Evaluating Training:
There is no "cookbook" approach.
Retrieved
from
http://www.spauldingassociates.com/Tr
ainingEvaluation.htm on November 17,
2012.
Paradise, A. (2007). State of the Industry:
ASTDs Annual Review of Trends in
Workplace Learning and Performance.
In Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009).
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451474.
Pine, J., and Tingley, J.C. (1993). ROI of
soft skills training. Training, 30, 55-60.
Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Beyond training and
development: the groundbreaking classic
on human performance enhancement.
New York: AMACOM.
Tracey, J. B. and Tews, M. J. (2005),
Construct validity of a general training
climate,
Organizational Research Methods, 8,
35374.
Scaduto, A., Lindsay, D. and Chiaburu,
D.S. (2008). Leader influences on
training effectiveness: motivation and
outcome
expectation
processes.
International Journal of Training and
Development, 12 (3), 158-170.
Satterfield, J.M., Hughes, E. (2007).
Emotion skills training for medical
students: a systematic review. Med.
Educ., 41, 93541.
Sullivan, J. (1998). Measuring Training's
Effectiveness and Impact. Retrieved from
http://www.zigonperf.com/resources/pmn
ews/sullivan_meas_trng_eff.html on 18
November, 2012.
Winfrey, E.C. (1999). Kirkpatrick's Four
Levels of Evaluation. In B. Hoffman
(Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Educational Technology.
Retrieved November 17, 2012, from
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/k4level
s/start.htm.
58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.