Textbook treatments of training evaluation typically equate evaluation with the measurement of change and focus on formal experimental design as the mechanism for controlling threats to the inference that the training intervention produced whatever change was observed. This paper notes that two separate questions may be of interest: How much change has occurred? and. Has a target performance level been reached? We show that the evaluation mechanisms needed to answer the two types of questions are markedly different, and discuss circumstances under which an evaluator's interests will focus on one, the other, or both of these questions. We then discuss alternatives to formal design as mechanisms for reducing various threats to validity, and discuss trade-offs between intemal validity and statistical conclusion validity.In this paper we wish to develop a series of ideas that expand on traditional approaches to training program evaluation. First, we note that evaluating training is typically equated with the tneasurement of change, and evaluation designs are critiqued in terms of their adequacy for answering the question. Can the degree of change attributable to training be quantified? We will argue that while quantifying the degree of change is important in some circumstances, in a variety of applied situations the organization's primaiy interest is in determining whether trainees have reached some target performance level. We will show that the training evaluation methods needed to quantify the degree of change due to training are different from those needed to determine whether a target performance level has been reached. We will develop prescriptions for when it is necessary to measure change and when it is sufficient to measure level of achievement.Second, textbook treatments often view formal experimental design as the sole mechanism for avoiding threats to intemal validify in settings
SummaryThe mentoring literature has focused largely on outcomes associated with having been mentored. This study considered informational outcomes associated with being a mentor, viewing the prote ge as a source of information for the mentor and vice versa. Survey data were collected across 17 organizations from 161 mentors and 140 prote ge s. Mentor characteristics and perceptions and characteristics of the relationship were hypothesized to be related to mentors' seeking information from their prote ge s. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that perceived appropriateness of mentor information seeking, perceived prote ge competence, vocational mentoring functions and prote ge in¯uence contributed signi®cantly to the prediction of mentor information seeking among the mentor sample; hierarchical distance, perceived appropriateness and mentor self-monitoring were signi®cant predictors in the prote ge sample. Future research directions are discussed.
Results of this study help identify those who serve both vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions. Mentoring research has suggested that protégés are drawn to competent mentors (Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, and Feren, 1988) but has not empirically examined which mentors serve both vocational (career‐related) and psychosocial (personal development) functions. Serving in both capacities indicates the most intense mentoring (Kram, 1983). In this study, older mentors who have greater organization‐based self‐esteem (OBSE), who perceive the protégé as competent, and who are influenced by their protégés reported serving more vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions. Protégés indicated that the matter of who initiates the relationship determines whether vocational and psychosocial functions are both served.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.