Training Evaluation Models (Research Paper Sample)

Training Evaluation Models
Student Name
University
Course
Professor Name
Date
Training Evaluation Models
In the constant quest to achieve innovativeness and foster creativity, contemporary organizations deploy various training tactics. Training assessment can be seen as a technique of keeping track of changes in understanding, abilities, mindsets, work performance, and the quality of the training facility. One of the most significant reasons to assess training programs is to see whether they accomplish their stated training goals. The three main evaluation models, the Kirkpatrick, Brinkerhoff, and the Phillips models have proven to be the staple for quality training evaluation with modern organizations.
The Kirkpatrick Model
Developed in 1959 by Donald Kirkpatrick, this model is a universally acclaimed framework that accounts for informal and formal avenues. It is mainly divided into four significant levels, in ascending order. The first level measures the reaction of the learners and is pivotal in establishing whether the program was engaging enough and how they perceived it. The next stage technically shows whether the trainees acquired the knowledge and skills required from the training process. Thirdly, this model shows if the training impacted the trainees' behavior and whether they used their new skills at work (Srivastava & Walia, 278). The final level then establishes the raw metric results of the training program. This is the most crucial stage, as it establishes the return on expectations. This model’s most significant merit is its flexibility to accommodate both traditional and digital programs. Its flexibility, therefore, makes it a benchmark staple for organizations seeking to do their first training evaluation. It is also a transparent and objective model that is easy to follow. However, it can be time-consuming and costly to execute appropriately. Finally, it is also hard to relate specialized training to specific commercial outcomes.
The Brinkerhoff Model
Brinkerhoff developed the Success Case Method (SCM) in 2003, and it stood out from others for its broad applicability. It requires identifying and analyzing which conditions in a training program are the most and least efficient. You can determine what has to be altered to ensure future success by contrasting the pros and cons. First, an impact model is developed, including ascertaining how the objectives should affect the company's performance. The best and worst scenarios are then hypothesized, which helps locate the trainees from both sides of the extremity spectrums. The third step’s purpose is to fully comprehend why the program was effective or ineffective by obtaining evidence (Ghosh, 2020). This may lead to the uncovering of hidden facts in an effective data analysis process. Finally, the findings are established and shared with the relative hierarchical heads. This third step should focus on maintaining operational excellence on increasing both training and organizational performance.
The Phillips Model
The Phillips Model is widely renowned as an improvement to the Kirkpatrick Model. The entire framework of this model is a derivative of Kirkpatrick’s theory, with the third stage being the first significant difference. The model is unique because it incorporates a statistical and monetary perspective (Srivastava & Walia, 280). After gauging the individuals’ levels of reaction and learning, this model focuses on implementing and applying the training. The fourth stage is, therefore, to determine the impact of the program on the company. This can help you identify if the findings were influenced by factors other than the program. This is an improvement over the Kirkpatrick Model since it allows one to see if any factors affect performance indicators. Unlike its parent theory, the final stage involves calculating return on investment (Phillips & Phillips, 2016). ROI uses cost-benefit analysis to determine if the investment spent on the program has yielded tangible results. However, one of the biggest criticisms of this model is its practicality. Most scholars argue that despite the ROI not being necessary, it is a welcome metric to organizations.
Talent Development Reporting
When it comes to talent development reporting, detail is vital. A training director is expected to be as det