Effective Reaction Evaluation in Evaluating Training Programs

Purposes and Dimension Classification
by Sung Heum Lee, PhD and James A. Pershing, PhD
he evaluation scheme that many corporate training programs use is Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). However, surveys of the evaluation of corporate training programs show limited application of the levels other than at the reaction level (Alliger & Janak, 1989; American Society for Training and Development, 1996; Brinkerhoff, 1989; Dixon, 1990; Industry Report, 1996; Parker, 1986; Plant & Ryan, 1994). Training participants' reaction is the most commonly used criterion for determining the effectiveness of corporate training programs. Most corporate trainers evaluate their training programs by using a sim-

T

pIe end-of-course reaction form, often referred to as a "happy sheet" (Plant & Ryan, 1994), a "smile or whoopie sheet" (Robinson & Robinson, 1989), an "end-of-event questionnaire" (Bramley, 1996), or a "reactionnaire" (Newby, 1992). Based on a recent survey of corporate training programs using Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation (American Society for Training and Development, 1996), only 4.3% of the organizations surveyed measured results, 13.7% measured behavior change, 27.9% measured learning, and 88.9% reported using participant reactionnaires. These findings indicate that the majority of the organizations evaluated the reactions and opinions of their training participants

immediately upon completion of training programs.

Reaction Evaluation of Training Program
Purposes The main purpose of reaction evaluation is to enhance the quality of training programs, which in turn leads to improved performance. The ultimate objective is to make training programs more efficient and effective for organizational performance improvement. Reaction evaluations are a type of formative evaluation when the results are used for program modification and the redesign of content, course materials, and presentations (Antheil & Casper, 1986; Robinson & Robinson, 1989). Generally, they collect information that

32

Performance Improvement.

SEPTEMBER1999

questionnaires. there are few differselecting reaction evaluation dimensions that are valid ences in how trainers collect and analyze the data. they may not use what they have learned and will probably advise others not to attend the training program. 1992). During training program Program designer or team Primarily internal evaluators. not to trainee. Therefore. Reaction questionnaires amount of information and require the minimum amount of should be designed to supply valid and reliable information time to complete. 1997). If participants are not satisfied with the training experience. or efficiency of a training program (Smith & Brandenburg. 1987). Volume 38 • Number 8 33 . or redesign termination. expansion. termination. Keller. a reaction evaluation will. Figure 1 summarizes the and make constructive feedback about what they do rather basic differences between formative and summative evaluathan who they are. He indicates for reaction evaluations and for the rigorous design and that ideal reaction evaluations provide the maximum development of reactionnaires. questionnaires. be linked with the Performance Improvement. not instructors or facilitators (Cangelosi. when. Although these two distinctive roles call for difsent a comprehensive set of dimensions. training materithe instructor alone. tive or summative. The evaluation of a training program. In Diagnostic for program modification. instructor. instructional strategies. 1987). or Fitzpatrick. however none of the citations preterminated. & ever. Judgment for program continuation. The tion. presents a few sample reaction forms but does not suggest This difference calls for the careful selection of dimensions guidelines for selecting reaction dimensions. interviews observations. effectiveness. effectiveness. supported by internal evaluators in unique cases Convincing information decisionmaking for observations. value. expansion. Reaction evaluations provide program designers with insights about participants' degree of satisfaction with a program's design and implementation.1996) Bloomer. The main difference is not in the information. and improvement (Grove & Ostroff. training programs is to evaluate a training program. 1996. but in how. 1986. termination. Worthen & Sanders. Consequence such cases.is specific enough to help make revisions and improvements in the training program. is a judgment about the quality. Kirkpatrick (1994. timing and use determine whether an evaluation is forma1991). or quality To improve training program and correct errors Program process Tests. Sanders. 1997). Summative evaluations provide program uation focuses on the course instructor or facilitator decisionmakers and potential customers with judgments (Phillips. howabout a program's worth or merit (Worthen. 1990. value. The responsibility of an evaluator of tion. the reaction evaluation of a training program should relate to an instructor's Any aspect of a training program can be evaluated: the instruction and the impact of the training program. Identifying and ferent uses of the evaluation results. 1991) and to make decisions Dimensions to Evaluate concerning program continuation. The evaluation of training programs can play either a formative purpose to improve the program or a summative purThere are a number of different dimensions for training pose to decide whether a program should be continued or reaction evaluations. supported by external evaluators Timing and control for program improvement Reaction evaluations can also be summative in nature. merit. value. and by whom it is used (Beer & In writing about level 1 evaluation. or adoption tion evaluation is to deterFigure 1. of course. or quality To make decisions about a program's future or adoption Program impact Post-tests. decisions are necessary during the developmental stages of Guidelines for reaction dimensions can help practitioners a training program to improve it and-when it has been stadesign useful reaction evaluations for program modificabilized-to judge its final worth or determine its future. Both forand applicable presents a formidable problem for corpomative and summative evaluations are essential because rate training evaluation practitioners (Mattoon. the goal of reacrevision. and even the training facilities. Basic Differences Between Formative and Summative Evaluation. Worthen & In some organizations the primary purpose of reaction evalSanders. or adoption (Worthen. Instructors are far more likely to accept als. modification. This is crucial information. 1991). Summative Evaluation To determine program's worth. impact of the training activity. merit. Formative Evaluation Purpose Use Focus Tools Time Audience User Major Characteristics To determine program's worth. interviews After training program Stakeholder or potential consumers External evaluators. mine the value. The kinds of questions to be addressed in to program evaluators.

Some reaction forms might be very simple. or textbooks-performed for participants. technological materials. the appropriateness. helping to improve future programs. In addition. Phillips (1996) enumerates the most common dimensions of reaction evaluations as being program content. program materials. laboratory manuals. Keller. manipulable materials. whether the 34 Performance Improvement. and helpfulness. Faerman & Ban. and recommendation for program improvement (Basarab & Root. & Cook. resources. SEPTEMBER1999 . duration. gaps in content. trainer. The content of a training program should be identified with recognition of some significant variables. various delivery methodologies. Robinson and Robinson (1989) indicate that reaction evaluations should include some questions that are specific to the particular program being evaluated. and timeliness of the content presented can be judged by the participants' reactions. and any conflicts in concepts and terminologies used. The areas of feedback used on reactionnaires should be directly tied to the nature and scope of the training program and the purposes of the evaluation. 1994). Based on the results of an extensive literature review on reaction evaluations. 1996. level. and the learner's belief as to the overall effectiveness of the event. reactionnaires inquire about participants' reactions to and interest in the usefulness ofthe program content. handouts. quality of the program materials. 1992. level of difficulty. and general comments. and relevance to the job or to intended changes. overall evaluation. trainers. the use of media. and reaction evaluations can identify these weaknesses. manuals. quality of materials. the trainer. During the design and development stages of training program materials. whether the content was organized into manageable amounts. techniques. and methods that are relevant to the training objectives. However. program relevance to job/work area. efficiency. effectiveness of the instruotorls). individualized instruction packages. The most important concept associated with program content is that of a performance objective. facilities/accommodations. developers should make every effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. Schouborg. Considerations include how well the training materials matched the real world of the trainee. Answers can verify the consistency of the materials with the program objectives. comprehensive dimensions for reaction evaluations can be summarized as follows: • Program objective(s)/content • Program materials • Delivery methods/technologies • Instructor/facilitator.information requirements of program designers. Other areas incorporate logistical concerns. 1989. such as the size and comfort of the room and the tests or other performance measures (Wart. The results of material evaluation can be used to revise the training materials and to make the materials as effective as possible (Dick & Carey. while others might be detailed and require a considerable amount of time to complete. objectives. Sanderson (1995) advocates dimensions such as the participants' opinion of the precourse briefing. etc. 1993). and delivery methods. adaptability. 1993. Robinson & Robinson. but ask more general questions about whether the training participants feel that they will be able to transfer what they have learned to the work environment and whether the organization is ready to support new skills. and planned improvements. They also suggest that the reaction evaluation of a training program should not only focus on the program itself. The selection of training objective(s)/content depends on the purposes of the training program and is largely a judgment procedure (Tracey. such as the quality of classroom environment. training environment/facilities. Sample reaction questions for objective(s)/content dimensions are as follows: • Did the program content meet the stated objectives? • Were the program topics effectively sequenced? • Was the program content up to date? • Was the course content at an appropriate level of difficulty? • Was the course content practical? Program Materials. program coordinator/facilitator. 1993). program value. (1995) suggest some guidelines for selecting dimensions of reaction evaluation. instructor. Forsyth et al. Program materials are the objects the trainer and instructor use in the training environment. allowing for more precise information about a program's content and process. Typically. Program designers select procedures. trainee. class handouts. content. 1993). instructional activities • Program time/length • Training environment • Planned action/transfer expectation • Logistics/administration • Overall evaluation • Recommendations for program improvement Program Objective(s)/Content. 1992). discrepancies are bound to occur. administrative details. ease of use. Instructional materials include published and unpublished print materials such as textbooks. participatory materials. The reaction questions should consider how well training materials-tutorial guides. content. Designing a training program starts with these factors. or approaches. Cayer. or decisionmakers (Payne. The purpose of evaluating the training materials is to determine their effectiveness. There are areas to assess during a reaction evaluation. 1996). methods. A performance objective is a detailed description of what trainees will be able to do when they complete a training program. communication medium. the course materials. such as objectives. and value (Hellebrandt & Russell.

The designer can choose from delivery methods such as lecture. the instructor/facilitator is one of the key components of an effective training program. 1996). simulation. Sample questions for the evaluation dimension of delivery methods/technologies are as follows: • Were the audio learning aids helpful? • Were the presentation technologies used in class effective? • Were the visual aids helpful? InstructorlFacilitator. there are 60 standards covering preparation. The instructional designer determines method/technology options to achieve the objectives of a training program. Group teaching distinguishes classroom instruction from individualized instruction. to group-based activities. After using delivery methods such as audio. drill and practice. questioning techniques. instructional staff variables can be one of the more important factors in attempts to account for variance in program outcomes and to distinguish a program's success. demonstration. as well as each aspect of the total instructional activity. 1990).sequence was from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. skills.. Jolliffe. training aids. The selection of instructional activities for a training program has significant implications for course management strategies. Another important consideration is the degree of trainee involvement in the training activity. In this sense. 1981. To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of instructional activities. and course evaluation. visual. 1992). Various instructional activities can take place in a classroom. and the quality of any performance tests or examinations. particularly for the use of class time (Dick & Carey. written assignments. laboratory. discovery. objectives. To be effective in using instructional activities to enhance job performance. and constraints before selecting methods or technologies. ranging from listening to the instructor. and technology-based instruction (Davies. Jolliffe. 1995). tutorial. Choices of delivery methods/technologies are based on selection criteria such as whether the delivery methods are appropriate for the trainee. role play. Sample questions about the instructor/facilitator dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Did the instructor present content clearly? • Was the instructor responsive to participants' questions? • Was the instructor well-prepared? Instructional Activities. & Stevens. Seels & Glasgow. 1999. participant evaluation. 1994). 1992). Heinich et al. interesting. As a manager of the training situation. Consideration should be given to whether the instructor encouraged active participation through the use of examples and illustrations. to ensure content understanding and performance change. and helpful. the training situation. problemsolving. to multimedia-mediated instruction. and tutorials. Classroom instruction has two distinct attributes: the teaching of groups of trainees and the physical separation of the classroom from the workplace (Yelon. self-instruction. platform skills. content and sequencing. 1992). and attitude and be successful in using the strategies. Physical separation from the workplace distinguishes classroom instruction from on-the-job training. Evaluation questions revolve around the instructor's ability to interact with the learners and his or her ability to deliver the training content in a meaningful way. and whether the training materials were presented in a way that was both interesting and stimulating (Forsyth. An instructional activity is a set of structured experiences designed to help trainees achieve one or more training objectives. programmed instruction. training objectives. Sample questions for program materials are as follows: • Were the materials consistent with the training objectives? • Were the program materials of high quality? • Was the level of difficulty of the materials appropriate? • Was the content of the handouts easy to understand? Delivery Methods/Technologies. discussion. case study. 1995). game. The designers of training programs strive to be effective in creating each element of classroom instruction. materials. and enthusiastically answered questions (Forsyth. Reaction evaluation of program materials should also include gathering data regarding the relevance of reading materials. or multimedia for a training program. cooperative learning group. Based on the performance standards for instructors (Powers. the evaluation might ask questions such as the following: • Were the course exercises relevant to the program objectives? Performance Improvement. Several of these standards can be assessed using reactionnaires. the evaluator can evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of the delivery methods in helping learners understand the content of a training program. and instructional constraints. Performance standards for instructors are the backbone of instructor excellence. & Stevens. gaining participation. designers adhere to many instructional principles derived from learning and instructional theories (Yelon. The instructors must possess the required technical and pedagogical knowledge. Determining whether the delivery methods will help trainees reach the stated objectives is an important issue in selecting appropriate delivery methods/technologies for different types of objectives (Dean. Volume 38 • Number 8 35 . They must identify trainee characteristics. explained concepts. Reaction questions should also cover how the instructors interpreted and used the training materials and whether they presented materials in a way that was stimulating. Developers should consider several factors in selecting delivery methods/technologies that will help trainees reach objectives. and equipment selected for a training program (Tracey. 1992). Training action begins with this person.

and extracurricular activities associated with the program. and how well the program is managed once underway. The facilities of the learning environment include the furnishings. Sample questions for the program timellength dimension are as follows: • Was the amount of time in the program sufficient? • Was the length of the program appropriate for program objective(s)? • Was there enough time for practice of course content? Training Environment. travel arrangements. 1992). Sample questions for the training environment dimension are as follows: • Was the training environment appropriate for the learning? • Were the environmental conditions-comfort. 1996). lighting. they need to ask specific questions regarding learning space. If participants have to report to their managers about their training experiences and their intended transfer actions. it may be more likely that they will implement what they learn (Sanderson. Sample questions regarding the planned action/transfer expectations dimension for reactionnaires are as follows: • Was the training content relevant to your job? • Do you expect the organization to support your use of the skills learned in this program? • What factors will encourage job transfer of the training content? • What factors will inhibit job transfer of the training content? Logistics/Administration. accessibility. the conditions. arrangements. SEPTEMBER 1999 . heating. living room. adequacy of the learning environment. These questions function as a type of administrative audit that assesses administrative aspects such as personnel practices. Broad and Newstrom (1992) report that there is a positive relationship between favorable organizational climate and management support of training and the participants' ability to apply classroom learning to the work environment. Sample questions for this dimension of reaction evaluations are as follows: • Was the scheduling for this course efficiently administered? • Was the process of registration for this course easy? • Was the assistance with extracurricular activities helpful? Overall Evaluation. 1988). When evaluators are considering questions in this area. patterns of work. noise. The quality of large training programs depends on how well the objectives and content of the program are marketed. how well pretraining enrollments are executed. room temperature. From this point of view. effectiveness of the instructor. reaction evaluations can include questions about operations. and overall flexibility in terms of training event demands. Training participants' perceptions of classroom environments can have a significant influence on both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Haertel & Walberg. planned action/expectation for job trans- 36 Performance Improvement. measuring participants' perceptions regarding the likelihood of their being able to transfer training content to the work environment may be particularly important (Baldwin & Ford. Too little time or too much time can negatively affect training effectiveness. 1988). 1980. the program evaluator could ask participants about their plans and expectations for applying the content of the program when they return to their jobs. Positive transfer is highly contingent on factors in the trainee's work environment. facilitator or coordinator. To help the participants implement the results of the program on the job. Using this dimension. To find and remove the barriers for planned action and transfer of training content. 1988). Time-on-task and the efficient use of time are important in planning a training session. developers can use program time/length as an evaluation dimension. The logistics and administrative sides of program planning are important. To improve future training programs. Questions related to this fact would focus on understanding and awareness of ergonomics as applied to the logistics and physical adequacy of the training environment (Faerman & Ban. The place could be a classroom. the evaluators of a training program can assess the length of sessions and/or entire training program and use the results for schedule changes and considerations of overall program length. An understanding of logistical and administrative support undergirds the effective team-building effort that is necessary in conducting successful programs. 1993. division of duties and responsibilities. acoustics. computer lab. Peterson & Bickman. 1995). and the location of the placers) where learning occurs (Tessmer & Harris. and program procedures and policies (Miringoff. Environmental psychologists recognize the environment as a persistent and powerful influence on human learning and behavior. reaction evaluation should include questions on planned actions and anticipated organizational barriers. seating arrangements. or car. This dimension of reaction evaluation is used to measure the participants' overall reactions about the usefulness of the course content. study facility-meet your needs? • Was there enough workspace for class activities? Planned Actionlfransfer Expectation. kinds of activities in which people are engaged. office. and special events such as registration procedures. To ensure quality programs for performance improvement. social and special events.• Were the group discussions helpful to participants in exchanging ideas with each other? • Was the homework helpful in understanding the course content? Program Time/Length. visibility-conducive to learning? • Did the arrangements-food. McVey. sleeping accommodation.

(1989). & Janak. Dimensions of Reaction Evaluation. training location. Sample questions of this dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Was the overall instructional environment conducive to learning? • Was there enough time to cover the program content? • Did the training program meet your intended needs? • Would you recommend this training program to others? Dimension Program Objectives/ Content Program Materials Delivery Methods/ Technologies InstructorlFacilitator Instructional Activities Program Time/ Length Training Environment Purpose To evaluate the program objectives with participants' expectations and the appropriateness. Participant reactions may vary 42(2). lodging. other trainees. and other logistical and administrative matters Administration ment of the training program and provide an open forum To determine overall participant satisfaction and feelings about the training Overall Evaluation for the participants to share program their opinions. (1996)." is being used in the best-practice companies to make train• Please make any comments for changes that would improve the program. recognized as "customer satisfaction. the training context. and leisure facilities Recommendations for ProPlanned Action! To evaluate the participants' plans/expectations and anticipated barriers for gram Improvement. but also when they should be assessed. structure. throughout the training program. attitudes." Personnel Psychology. E. 1992). ing more effective in meeting customer requirements. Therefore. and the Alliger. Sample questions for recommending one reaction evaluation for all its training programs. such as training content and methods. G. some being transitory in American Society for Training and Development. it is best to use a series of open-ended questions that allow the aspects of these reactions are of interest. The idea of selecting dimensions for the reaction evaluation of A total of 11 dimensions and their purposes are summarized training programs also can be applied to evaluate other interin Figure 2. Logistics! tinuous quality improveregistration. nature. At least program improvement are as follows: a portion of each evaluation should be specific to the program it is designed to evaluate (Robinson & Robinson. Questions Transfer Expectation applying the content of the training program on the job in this dimension collect useful information for conTo evaluate the smoothness and effectiveness of the scheduling. With appropriate dimensions. evaluators must decide not only what Performance Improvement. 331-342. ventions for improving human performance. "Kirkpatrick's levels of trainee's perceived success at achieving some of the goals of training criteria: Thirty years later. 11\ Each participant's reactions. reaction evaluation can be a more useful and valuable tool in the evaluation of training programs and perConclusion formance improvement programs in general. and timeliness of the program content To determine the effectiveness. and effectiveness of the trainer or facilitator in leading the program To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of in. This approach can produce very helpful information for program improvement and decisionmaking for future training.. including media/technologies To rate the ability. or feelings about a specific training program are complex. They are the results References of many factors.fer. 1989). • What would you suggest to improve the training program? Reaction evaluation. and usefulness of written material and other aids To judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivery methods. 1996). including classroom. When the Recommendations for To receive suggestions/recommendations for improving similar or future evaluator wants more sponProgram Improvement training programs taneous feedback about participants' attitudes toward Figure 2. and quality of materials for the training program. the training program. but it takes longer to It is a common mistake for a training department to create summarize the results. preparation.A. forced into a set of choices (Keller. level. as specified in the participants to express their own thoughts without being purpose of reaction evaluation. efficiency. Volume 38 • Number 8 37 .and/or out-of-class activities To assess the length of session and/or entire training program for schedule change and considerations of program length To evaluate the adequacy of the physical training environment. dining room. training (Patrick.M.

M. Phillips. J.L." Human Resources Development Quarterly. B.T. TX: Gulf. Alexandria. T. (1992). 44. handbook. Training: Research and practice. 63-105.J. Brinkerhoff. Washington. 32(6). Newby.D.. Designing educational project and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. N. MA: Kluwer Academic.C. Jonassen [Ed. (1988)." In D.performance (2nd ed. Russell. D." New Directions for Program Evaluation. The training evaluation process: A practical approach to evaluating corporate training programs. 299-314.). A. (1991).W. (1996). MA: Kluwer Academic. London: Kogan Page. New York: Macmillan. (1996). San technique. New York: McGraw-Hill. "Comprehensive evaluation model: A tool for the evaluation of nontraditional educational programs. Keller. (1996).J. (1986). Management in human service organizations. --.The 1996 American Society for Training and Development report on trends that affect corporate learning &.K. Davies. Training evaluation Diego: Pfeiffer. C. 55-64.. Evaluating training effectiveness: Benchmarking your training activity against best practice (2nd ed. A. Boston. J. & Root. (1980). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. "Industry report: Who's learning what?" (1996)." In R. L. Molenda. I.S. 16(3). Hellebrandt. The systematic instruction (4th ed. Developing human resources. classroom instruction.L. "Levels of evaluation.). London: Academic." Personnel Psychology.A. 83-92.).. Basarab.H. & Newstrom. 294-312. ---. D. & Bloomer. (1995). Evaluating New York: Longman. design of Parker. Handbook of training evaluation and mea- Dixon. 45-61. Brooks. H. C. Evaluating diversity training: 17 readyto-use tools. Forsyth. (1996).L. Wexley & J. & Carey. (1996). Payne." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.. 1045-1104." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. New York: Dean. R.. Faerman." In K.). J. I. P. Reading. 1(2).).D. RO. Antheil. Evaluating training and educational programs: A review of the literature.). & Ford. TX: Air Force Material Command. MA: Addison-Wesley. S. 5-185-5-220.. Instructional McGraw-Hill. Grove. & Stevens.K. & Walberg. Beer. 29-55. 8(4). (1997).J..G. M.A.. & Bickman. Training. W. L. J. New York: HarperCollins. (1992). "Ergonomics and the learning environment. 22-27. "Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. "Using evaluation to transform training. Accountability in human resource management: Techniques for evaluating the human resource function and measuring its bottom-line contribution. (1996).E.M." Public Productivity &.. 23(2). DC: The Bureau of National Affairs. J. (1990). I. Malabar. NJ: Prentice-Hall. A. G. Upper Saddle River. Broad.. G. (1988)..A. VA: Author. The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed. Hinrichs (Eds. Heinich.L. lecturers and trainers.L. "Assessing social-psychological classroom environments in program evaluation. "Confirmative evaluation of instructional materials and learners. (1986). Peterson. & Casper.H." New Directions for Program Evaluation. J. Evaluating courses: Practical strategies for teachers.). Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed." New Directions for Program Evaluation. 11(1). Craig (Ed. S. (1988). "Sumrnative evaluation in training and development. "Program personnel: The missing ingredient in describing the program environment. J.C. McVey. M. London: McGraw-Hill. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. (1992). 129-137. 5-20. 41(1). & Russell. (1991). SEPTEMBER 1999 . (1981).. Boston.N. 38 Performance Improvement. & Smaldino.M.Management Review. & Ostroff. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.. J. (1989). 53-65. D. 33(10). Dick. D. San Diego: Pfeiffer. FL: Krieger. Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. "Evaluation.S. Cangelosi. J. D.J. Designing instruction for adult learners. (1992). "Program evaluation.. (1993). (1993). (1994). v. Bramley.). 40. J." Performance &Instruction. (1994). J. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Jolliffe. & Ban. (1994). K. D.R. Mattoon. Miringoff. 335-345.F. "The relationship between trainee responses on participant reaction forms and post-test scores." Innovative Higher Education.K. Haertel. Baldwin. G. (1992).D. (1986). Kirkpatrick. Patrick. 40. "Trainee satisfaction and training impact: Issues in training evaluation. Houston. (1999).

2805 EastTenth Street. Sanders.D. Stolovitch & E. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Flex: A flexible tool for continuously improving your evaluation of training effectiveness. (1994).. J. Handbook of training and development (znd ed. OH: Merrill.V. B. Instructor excellence: Mastering delivery of training. J. computer-based several topics in professional Educational Performance Communications Improvement. Analyzing the instructional setting: Environmental analysis. 383-411. S. Sung Heum Lee.). New York: Pergamon.R. Robinson. He may be reached at Wendell W. (1993). and the business impact of training and development. IN 47405-1006.. New York: Longman.. 4(2). Smith Research Center. His research focuses on the fields of performance analysis. Handbook of training and development for the public sector: A comprehensive resource. This article was accepted for publication before James A. needs analysis. TX: Gulf. Bloomington. (812) 855-8545. associations the American instruction/training.). Training for impact: How to link training to business needs and measure the results. "Summative evaluation. He holds a PhD in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University. M." In S. J.surement methods: Proven models and methods for evaluating any HRD program (3rd ed. (1991). "Objectives and evaluation. Tracey. training evaluation. M. & Cook. Amherst. S.D. W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. He may be reached at the Office of Education and Training Resources.pn? • Check Out the ISPI Bulletin Boards at WWW. B. & Glasgow. "Program evaluation.lspl.E. Exercises in instructional design.).J. & Harris. (1992)." In H.R (1992). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. & Robinson. MA: HRD.R.). "Classroom instruction. Oxford: Blackwell. email suhlee@indiana. New York: AMACOM. Seels. The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. Cayer. 18(5).edu. & Brandenburg. PhD. is a Research Associate with Education and Training Resources at Indiana University. Designing training and development systems (3rd ed.L. J.L.J." In H. Pershing was selected to replace Martha Dean as the new editor of Performance Improvement.R. Wright Education Building #2230. Powers. PhD.R (1990). D. Smith. training evaluation.. 35-58. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Instructional Systems Technology and Director of Education and Training Resources at Indiana University He teaches courses and conducts research in the areas of performance technology. Yelon. G. 113-14. RJ.R (1987). Room 101.org Performance Improvement. Pershing.. & Fitzpatrick. (1993). (1997). the Worthen. B. Wart. or fax: (812) 339-8792.). He has presented such as the Association Society for Training & Technology. (1989). Schouborg.. Truelove (Ed. Worthen. Haertel (Eds. Walberg & G. Keeps (Eds.). G. D. B. 27-30. (1992). 201 North Rose Avenue. N. Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. & Sanders.G. IN 47408. Worthen.I§. (1990). Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. Volume 38 • Number 8 39 • . London: Kogan Page. email: pershin@indianaedu. B. Plant. (1992). "Who is evaluating training?" Journal of European Industrial Training. Bloomington. Columbus. (1995). New York: Longman. 42-47." Performance Improvement Quarterly. Sanderson. for and and theory of instructional and performance technology.). & Ryan. Tessmer. and the International Federation of Training and Development Organisations over the last three years. the International Society for Development. Got a Performance Qu. J. M..e.e. RA. D. Houston. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Z. or fax: James A.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful