A Meta‐analysis of the Relations Among Training Criteria

Abstract

An augmented framework for training criteria based on Kirkpatrick's (1959a, 1959b, 1960a, 1960b) model divides training reactions into affective and utility reactions, and learning into post‐training measures of learning, retention, and behavior/skill demonstration. A total of 34 studies yielding 115 correlations were analyzed meta‐analytically. Results included substantial reliabilities across training criteria and reasonable convergence among subdivisions of criteria within a larger level. Utility‐type reaction measures were more strongly related to learning or on‐the‐job performance (transfer) than affective‐type reaction measures. Moreover, utility‐type reaction measures were stronger correlates of transfer than were measures of immediate or retained learning. These latter findings support recent concurrent thinking regarding use of reactions in training (e.g., Warr & Bunce, 1995). Implications for choosing and developing training criteria are discussed.

Assessing Influences on Perceived Training Transfer: An Investigation of Perceptions of Air Force Logistics Readiness Officer Technical School Graduates

“…The literature has shown links between the constructs of training transfer and training effectiveness (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997;Cannon-Bowers et al, 1995;Salas et al, 2003). The more common connection has been to use training transfer in combination with other constructs such as pretraining motivation and other factors such as tests scores from evaluations given at the training, and evaluations scores from on the job, to form training effectiveness (Baldwin & Ford, 1988).…”

From the Schools of Public Health

“…Level 1 evaluations may assess affective reactions, such as level of satisfaction and enjoyment of the training, and utility judgments, such as perceived relevance and practical value of the training for subsequent job performance. 8 To measure reactions to training provided by the SCCPHP, the Teaching and Learning Environment Questionnaire-Distance Learning Form (TLEQ-D) was developed to assess trainee reactions. 9 In accordance with recommended guidelines for survey development, 10 the questionnaire was validated by standardized procedures to ensure that responses reflect appropriate opinions of the training participants (i.e., reviewed by subject matter experts including representatives of the health departments for clarity and completeness).…”

“…10 Although the Level 1 evaluations do not directly measure student learning, research in adult learning and training has demonstrated that utility-type reactions, also measured by the TLEQ-D, are significantly correlated with knowledge acquisition and performance of the training on the job and can serve as useful indicators of student learning and performance. 8,11 Level 2: Learning Level 2 evaluations are designed to measure the extent to which the students acquired the principles, facts, techniques, and attitudes stated in the learning objectives. Multiple choice and essay examinations, case studies, behavioral role plays, and scenario-based simulated exercises are examples of Level 2 tools used to assess student learning.…”

Training and Development Policy, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance

“…In other words, the ownership concentration, firm's size, and board structure play important roles in determining the success of the TDP, which is in line with the alignment theorem. Moreover, most of the research conducted in this area only evaluates TDP using reaction criteria (Alliger et al 1997;Kraiger 2003;Kraiger et al 2004), and surveys (Nguyen et al 2011;Ganotakis 2012). Hence this research aims to bridge the research gap in this area.…”