1.

In your organization, they would have conducted a training program for the newly joined
middle-level managers. To evaluate the outcome of the training conducted which model
of the evaluation was being used. Elaborate this in details covering all three stages.

Ans – B.R. Virmani and Premila Seth model of Evaluation.

1. Pre – training Stage : when the trainee and those sponsoring him build up expectations for
returns from training.

2. Training Stage: when the trainee is going through the process of learning.

3. Post Training Stage: When the trainee back on the job , is supposed to transfer and
integrate training with his job performance.

The evaluation model presented incorporates these three stages of training.

1. Pre-Training Evaluation:
 Procedure of selecting/Nominating trainees: Sponsoring organizations
supposed to match the training with the job requirements of the trainee and the
organization. An organizational variable that promotes learning is needed for
substantial congruence of the purpose of training as perceived by the trainee ,his
boss and the trainer. During our research ,query as to why the executives were
attending that particular training, most of the responses were – “I did not know
why I was sent for training ,just five days back my boss called me and told me
that I should attend this programme” ,or “every year we send some executive for
this training and it was your turn now”.Other responses elicited during our
informal chat was like “I had worked hard on a project for the last one year and it
was felt that I needed a change”. In yet other cases it was found that some
executives were send for training so that their bosses could comfortably take
certain decision which was otherwise not possible. This reasons can hardly
motivate a person to learn. Hence executive’s involvement in his selection for
training is essential for his motivation to learn and to provide him direction and
commitment towards application. It also helps the organization decide on
trainees placement corroborated with his training.

 Trainee Profile :
After being acquainted with what the trainees intend learning trainers need to
understand more about them in terms of their existing level of knowledge and
skill ,their potential in the organization and the degree of susceptibility of the
trainees to accept and imbibe training. In the present study this was done with
the help of a pre training evaluation questionnaire. This essentially aids the
formulation of a training design which best suits the executives in the context if
their organizational climate ,their hierarchical level in the organization, the job
characteristics and other organizational factors. An interesting study by warr ,Bird
and Rackhan, (1970) showed that in respondents who had not undergone
training, but only answered pre-training test, there was a 37% improvement in the
post training test questionnaire , as against an improvement of 65% in those
 executives who underwent training. This shows that a pre-training questionnaire
increases the awareness of the trainee about the management concepts before
the training itself and increases motivation of learn.

Therefore pre-training evaluation is useful prelude to the total training process.it

not only helps the management and the trainee in identifying training needs but
also helps trainers to become acquainted with their specific and diverse training
needs.

2. Training Evaluation:
 Once clarity of objectives and expectations from training is achieved and the
profile of the participants being trained is known, the trainer is in a better position
to evaluate his own inputs. It enables the trainer to evaluate the training design,
the pedagogical tools and the curriculum design. After the training plan is ready,
before organizing the training activity the trainer should ask:
i. Whether their inputs give the trainees an opportunity to learn?
ii. Weather their inputs will result in enduring learning?
iii. What can be its impact on trainees subsequent job performance?
iv. What can be the benefits of training to the stakeholders/organization
investing the financial resources for training?

3. Post Training Evaluation:

Thought and preparation of tools for evaluation at the post training stage is to carried out
much more prior of training.
1. Reaction Evaluation: It is common practice in most situations to evaluate training
by eliciting the reactions of the trainees through varied formats. The immediate
reaction of the participants to the academic and social surroundings of training,
no doubt has the apparent benefit of providing feedback to their trainer as to how
well programme was received. On closer study it was seen that the reactions had
little consistency for the trainer to improve future training. While one group
preferred lectures to case studies still others reported group sessions more
effective. Same was true regarding the course content. Evidently the trainee
group mix ,the trainee profile and many other extraneous factors tend to
influence the relation feedback of the trainees.
2. Learning Evaluation and learning index: since reaction evaluation failed to
provide a definite feedback , other majors had to be used substantiate the
evaluation finding. It was in this context that we evolved a method of arriving at a
learning index to assess the acquisition of knowledge and skills by the trainee.
Administration of test questionnaire before and after training was a better
measure of learning.
Though the pre and post-training scores were obtain easily, arriving at the true
learning index remain a matter of prolonged debate with the researches. The
most obivious learning index, i.e. the difference between pre and post test score
failed to differentiate between the trainee whose initial score was , say ,80% and
post training score of 90% amounting to a change score often percent i.e. (90 –
80 = 10) vis-à-vis the trainee whose pre score was 20% and post score was 30%
again gaining a change score of ten (30 – 20 = 10) because in the former case
the scope of learning from that particular training was much less than the latter.
In other words the heterogeneity of trainee profile provided very little learning
opportunity for the first case above. Perhaps the actual learning is based on the
scope for learning and the training design meeting those requirements.

Finally an index that was easy to understand and simple to calculate was
decided upon. The researchers thought that more than the pre-training score
itself, the unknown or unlearnt score (i.e. 100 pre-training score) was important
since it was an indicator of the degree to which the trainee stood to gain through
the training program. Hence ,the index of learning was based on this unknown
portion which obviously varied from trainee to trainee then:

Learning = post training score (%) – pre-training score(%)

100 – pre-training score (%)

The standardized learning index thus arrived at for each trainee was studied in
relation to pre-training ,reaction ,biographical ,organizational and psychological
variables.

For effective evaluation of training the following guidelines should be kept in mind

i. The trainer must be clear about the purpose of evaluation and choose the
criteria and the methodology accordingly.
ii. Evaluation is a cooperative effort of the trainer , the trainee and the
sponsoring organization.
iii. Evaluation is not a “one shot” appraisal of training but is a continuous
action-research process with shift in form , focus and emphasis as when
required.
iv. As far as possible evaluation result must be directive rather than
conclusive and the feedback should be communicated properly to its
utilizers.
v. Quantified evaluation data is insufficient by itself and needs to be
supplemented by qualitative assessment.