An Integral Approach to Evaluating Outcome Evaluation Training

Brown, Robert E.; Reed, Celeste Sturdevant

doi:10.1016/s1098-2140(01)00161-8

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also highlight the importance of considering the work environment and situational aspects in a transfer assessment (Brown & Sturdevant Reed, 2002). This point of view is shared by McCain (2005) and Bournazel (2005).…”

Section: The Brown and Sturdevant Reed's Model (2002)mentioning

confidence: 82%

Literature review on assessment models of the quality of training devices

Lotfi

2017

PROSOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the quality of training devices is an ongoing and relevant research topic. It's now more than ever an obvious necessity. However, the literature review on the issue remains disparate and fragmented according to themes and across countries. Our research had a threefold purpose: 1) to propose a review of the literature on assessment models of the quality of training devices; 2) identify assessment models that are most often used; 3) to determine their key issues, strengths and limitations. Our methodological approach was based on two types of data: (1) a set of empirical documents published over the last thirty years (guides and reports); and (2) an analysis of recent studies produced by specialized research centers. Thus, we conducted three successive steps: 1) selection of documents on the basis of criteria such as relevance and consistency; 2) extensive analysis of assessment models, using a validated analysis matrix that consists of four criteria: goals, issues, strengths and limitations; 3) categorization of these models by transversal thematic analysis. At least 21 models have been generated. All have more or less different characteristics. These models have been listed in a thematic classification into four distinct categories. Beyond this classification, we retain two main conclusions. First, no model of them is exhaustive. Each model covers one or at most three dimensions of quality of training device, and thus has limits. Secondly, the quality is complex and plural. Therefore, two approaches are recommended: conceptual (systemic) and methodological (total triangulation). The first allows a combination of several assessment models to cover up dimensions of a training device. The second allows multiple crossing between several actors (assessors), collection instruments and data analysis tools to better describe the quality of training.

show abstract

Section: The Brown and Sturdevant Reed's Model (2002)mentioning

confidence: 82%

Literature review on assessment models of the quality of training devices

Lotfi

2017

PROSOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As companies enter and function in the post‐industrial economy, research should follow the directions indicated by a few scholars (e.g. Brown and Gerhardt, 2002; Brown and Reed, 2002) who maintain that what we need to assess is the use of training and how it contributes to company performances (and therefore employee performance) (i.e. Brinkerhoff, 2003), rather than assessing the training itself.…”

Section: Final Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are we doing the right thing?

Giangreco

Carugati²,

Sebastiano³

2010

Personnel Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to advance the debate regarding the use of training evaluation tools, chiefly the Kirkpatrick model, in reaction to minimal use of the tools reported in the literature and the economic changes that have characterised the industrialised world in the past 20 years.Design/methodology/approachThe main argument – the need to design new evaluation tools – emerges from an extensive literature review of criticism of the Kirkpatrick model. The approach is deductive; the argument emerges from extant literature.FindingsThe main findings of the literature review show that the major criticisms of the Kirkpatrick model, though rigorous, are not relevant in today's post‐industrial economy. Issues of complexity, accuracy and refinement, which are relevant in stable industrial organisations, must be revised in the new economic world.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper is based on a literature review and presents a call for new research. As such, it is not grounded in original empirical evidence, beyond that presented in the cited articles.Practical implicationsThe paper calls for training evaluation tools that align better with modern organisational reality. If the research community responds to this call, the results will benefit practitioners directly. This paper also presents practical advice about the use of existing evaluation techniques.Originality/valueA new angle on criticisms of existing training evaluation systems does not reiterate classic criticisms based on logic and mathematics but rather takes a pragmatic and economic approach. Thus, this paper offers evidence of theoretically grounded paradoxes of the consequences of existing criticisms of training evaluation.

show abstract

“…Ainsi, Marth (1994), s'intéressant aux niveaux des apprentissages et du changement comportemental, soutient qu'il convient de distinguer les apprentissages «subjectifs» et les apprentissages «objectifs», tant au niveau des connaissances que du transfert comportemental. Ce point de vue est d'ailleurs partagé par McCain (2005) et Brown et Sturdevant Reed (2002). McCain (2005) différencie l'amélioration des connaissances, compétences et habiletés et leur identification ou démonstra-tion effective dans le cadre de la formation.…”

Section: Le Modèle De Kirkpatrick à Quatre Niveaux D'impactsunclassified

“…Il apporte, de plus, un nouvel élément à prendre en compte pour la mesure du transfert: l'environnement de travail qui peut faciliter ou entraver l'utilisation des nouvelles connaissances, compétences et habiletés sur le lieu de travail alors qu'elles sont acquises. Certains auteurs soulignent l'importance de considérer l'environnement et les aspects situationnels lors d'une évaluation (Lupton et al, 1999;Brown et Sturdevant Reed, 2002). Des éléments situationnels circonstanciels ou relativement stables peuvent ainsi perturber ou favoriser la possibilité de démontrer des résultats attendus.…”

Section: Le Modèle De Kirkpatrick à Quatre Niveaux D'impactsunclassified

Revue des modèles en évaluation de formation : approches conceptuelles individuelles et sociales

Gilibert

Gillet

2010

Pratiques Psychologiques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RésuméCette revue présente les modèles les plus représentatifs pour effectuer des évaluations de dispositifs de formation. Après avoir évoqué les pratiques, les résistances et les mesures possibles en évaluation de formation, une présentation des principaux modèles est faite. Le modèle à quatre niveaux de Kirkpatrick est notamment présenté et discuté ainsi que le CIRO de Ward, Bird et Rackham visant à poser le problème de l'efficacité de la formation au regard de son adéquation aux besoins et aux contextes de formation. Sont également présentés les modèles de Kraiger sur les niveaux d'apprentissage et la synthèse de Beech et Leather. Au niveau pratique, les finalités, modalités et enjeux de telles évaluations sont alors discutés. Au niveau théorique, la discussion porte sur la nécessité de prendre en compte les interactions entre les acteurs de la formation. Exemplaire de travail des auteurs AbstractThis review presents the most representative models used to carry out training evaluations. After a recall of the practices, resistances and possible measurements in training evaluation, an overview of the principal models is carried out. The Kirkpatrick's four level-model, in particular, is presented and discussed, as well as the CIRO of Ward, Bird and Rackham aimed at posing the problem of the effectiveness of training, taking into consideration its adequacy to the needs and the contexts of the training. The Kraiger's model on the levels of learning and the synthesis of Beech and Leather are also presented. At a practical level, the finalities, methods and stakes of such evaluations are discussed. At the theoretical level, the discussion relates to the need to take into account the interactions between the stakeholders of the training.

show abstract

An Integral Approach to Evaluating Outcome Evaluation Training

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Literature review on assessment models of the quality of training devices

Literature review on assessment models of the quality of training devices

Are we doing the right thing?

Revue des modèles en évaluation de formation : approches conceptuelles individuelles et sociales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About