How u calculate training effectiveness Index In your organization ? Pl. send me some insight into it rgds Gautam
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
The article mentioned above has this to say about training effectiveness, and I quote driectly:
"Effectiveness: The effectiveness of training is a measurement of learning. It is determined by comparing post-test scores with pre-test scores and then measuring the net change. There are several methods to measure this—on a per-student basis, on a per-“skill point” base or on a per-dollar basis. Let’s look at the skill-point base, which measures the cost of raising a student’s skill by one unit."
This is dangerously wrong! Let me explain!
The difference between a pre-test score and a post-test score can be for many reasons, several of whcih may actually apply together. Without any root cause analysis to identify the causal links between the different scores (pre-test and post-test) all you can truthfully say about this situation is that the pre-test scores were X and the post-test scores were Y - you cannot say WHY they are like this.
This does NOT mean there is no link, just that you haven't demonstrated one - and this is where evaluation practitioners get in to bother - yes, even if you follow Kirkpatrick or Phillips' approach - you have to have PROOF when the CFO and CEO ask for it - CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!
A measurement of learning is not training effectiveness - it's a measure of learning! You can learn everything required, but fail to put it to required use and the required outcomes are not achieved. Training in organisations is ALMOST ALWAYS about achieving a better performance or capability than is currently available - it's about OUTCOMES that favour the customer and the shareholder - it's not about learning - that's a bonus (in my humble opinion!).
Generally effectiveness measures are defined in terms of the extent to which a set of objectives are met. It would be quite easy to have a large overlap here with efficiency measures.
(Training) efficiency is generally defined as the number of units output for the number of units input. Taking a similar theme I suggest training efficiency can be measured several ways - here are some examples:
Number of training courses achieving the required outcomes
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x 100%
Total number of training courses delivered
Or
100% x (Number of trainees behaving as requried/operating equipment to required standard) / (Total number of people trained)
Or
100% x Total benefits / Total costs
Coming back to the effectiveness focus again there is some help to be found from our old friend Kirkpatrick.
Effectiveness at Level 1 (Reactions of trainees) could be measured in terms of getting at least 4 out of 5 in each area being rated. If 100% of trainees rate all the aspects at least 4 out of 5, then at Level 1 we'd be 100% effective. But if these same trainees have line managers sho report that these trainees are only demonstrating new but required behaviours for 40% of the time, then arguably the training at Level 4 (Business Impact of training) is just 40% effective.
Going back to the article I quoted from above...
IF you can demonstrate causal links as I discussed earlier, then arguably the pre and post test scores CAN be seen as a measure of effectiveness.
Tread carefully with definitions!!
Regards
Martin
From United Kingdom,
13"Effectiveness: The effectiveness of training is a measurement of learning. It is determined by comparing post-test scores with pre-test scores and then measuring the net change. There are several methods to measure this—on a per-student basis, on a per-“skill point” base or on a per-dollar basis. Let’s look at the skill-point base, which measures the cost of raising a student’s skill by one unit."
This is dangerously wrong! Let me explain!
The difference between a pre-test score and a post-test score can be for many reasons, several of whcih may actually apply together. Without any root cause analysis to identify the causal links between the different scores (pre-test and post-test) all you can truthfully say about this situation is that the pre-test scores were X and the post-test scores were Y - you cannot say WHY they are like this.
This does NOT mean there is no link, just that you haven't demonstrated one - and this is where evaluation practitioners get in to bother - yes, even if you follow Kirkpatrick or Phillips' approach - you have to have PROOF when the CFO and CEO ask for it - CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!
A measurement of learning is not training effectiveness - it's a measure of learning! You can learn everything required, but fail to put it to required use and the required outcomes are not achieved. Training in organisations is ALMOST ALWAYS about achieving a better performance or capability than is currently available - it's about OUTCOMES that favour the customer and the shareholder - it's not about learning - that's a bonus (in my humble opinion!).
Generally effectiveness measures are defined in terms of the extent to which a set of objectives are met. It would be quite easy to have a large overlap here with efficiency measures.
(Training) efficiency is generally defined as the number of units output for the number of units input. Taking a similar theme I suggest training efficiency can be measured several ways - here are some examples:
Number of training courses achieving the required outcomes
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x 100%
Total number of training courses delivered
Or
100% x (Number of trainees behaving as requried/operating equipment to required standard) / (Total number of people trained)
Or
100% x Total benefits / Total costs
Coming back to the effectiveness focus again there is some help to be found from our old friend Kirkpatrick.
Effectiveness at Level 1 (Reactions of trainees) could be measured in terms of getting at least 4 out of 5 in each area being rated. If 100% of trainees rate all the aspects at least 4 out of 5, then at Level 1 we'd be 100% effective. But if these same trainees have line managers sho report that these trainees are only demonstrating new but required behaviours for 40% of the time, then arguably the training at Level 4 (Business Impact of training) is just 40% effective.
Going back to the article I quoted from above...
IF you can demonstrate causal links as I discussed earlier, then arguably the pre and post test scores CAN be seen as a measure of effectiveness.
Tread carefully with definitions!!
Regards
Martin
From United Kingdom,
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Training Effectiveness Chart.jpg
TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS FORM.xls