SELECTED LITERATURE REVIEW

This section presents a sample training program evaluation and a brief discussion on current training issues, trends, and programs.

Sample Training Program Evaluation

Ammons and Niedzielski-Eichner (1985) offer a practical framework for evaluating supervisory training programs in local government. The authors interviewed 12 of the 14 recipients of the Clarence E. Ridley In-Service Training Award presented by the International City Management Association (ICMA) between 1969 and 1982 and 60 of 81 members of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). All 12 of the ICMA award recipients and 83 percent of the ASTD members reported participating in a coordinated management/supervisory training program of some kind.

The authors created an evaluation grid for a management development-supervisory training program by matching four levels of evaluation—reaction, learning, behavior, and results—against 14 performance areas—effective performance appraisal, interpersonal communication, decision-making/problem-solving, basic supervisory skills, team building, productivity improvement methods, human behavior skills, general office procedures, stress management, time management, budget process, written communication, achievement of subordinate performance/accountability, and public relations.

Ammons and Niedzielski-Eichner posed a key question for each of the four levels of evaluation:

• Level 1 (Reaction): Are trainees satisfied with the training provided?

• Level 2 (Learning): Did the trainees learn the information/concepts introduced?

• Level 3 (Behavior): Is the information/concept used by the trainee on the job?

• Level 4 (Results): How does the application of the information/concept affect the organization?

At Level 1 (Reaction), trainees identify how satisfied they are with the training program through the use of a survey. At Level 2 (Learning), they are tested on what they learned. At Level 3 (Behavior), their behaviors are evaluated predominantly by the use of a survey. At Level 4 (Results), results are measured by comparing pre-training measures to post-training measures or by post-training interviews or reviews.

Ammons and Niedzielski-Eichner concluded that an effective training evaluation system is valuable, but for various reasons, relatively few local governments in 1985 were involved in systematic evaluation of their training programs beyond the reaction level.

Training Issues, Trends, and Programs

Today, two decades after the study by Ammons and Niedzielski-Eichner, evaluations of training programs have come a long way. Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) note that many theoretical frameworks and models were developed over the previous decade that address the design and delivery of training, and they conclude that because there is extensive use of technical evaluation tools to assess training services against outcomes, training is no longer without a theoretical base.

Salas and Cannon-Bowers observe that a critical part of training in the new work environment is organizational and job/task analysis, which provides congruence between training goals and organizational goals. Training addresses both the cognitive and behavioral aspects of job performance, and the antecedents to training include cognitive ability, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and training motivation. They go on to discuss training methods and instructional strategies involving tools, methods, and content. In particular, they note the use of technology for video conferences, online/Internet training, and simulation-based training and games, predicting a growing role of technology in training.

Salas and Cannon-Bowers further note that researchers have investigated how learning can be optimized through feedback, practice, and reinforcement schedules. They also discuss the works of those who have used stress-exposure training (SET), where trainees are given preparatory information on stressors followed by behavioral and cognitive skills training, and simulated events to practice what they learned (Salas and Cannon-Bowers 2001; Driskell and Johnston 1998; Johnston and Cannon-Bowers 1996). They conclude with discussions about training evaluation and applying the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) acquired from training to actual job performance.

The WPF describes enablers as a critical part of the theoretical structure of HR systems. This literature review presents an example of a sophisticated evaluation tool for training programs and a number of contemporary lines of inquiry in training and development.