The paper provides a deep insight into the prevalent methods and mechanisms of evaluation of training. It discusses various approaches to training evaluation such as discrepancy evaluation model, transaction model, goal-free model, the Kirkpatrick model and so on. It also presents Paul Kearns’ three-box model that classifies training initiatives. The paper concludes that no single model can cater to all requirements of training evaluation and calls for further research in this regard.

Training and its evaluation has for long been a subject of constant innovation. Training evaluation is regarded as an important human resource development strategy. However, there seems to be widespread agreement that systematic evaluation is the least well carried out training activity. To serve the purpose it is designed for, evaluation should include getting ongoing feedback, e.g., from the learner, trainer and the learner’s supervisor to improve the quality of the training and identify if the learner has achieved the goals of the training. Furthermore, it should also take into account the effectiveness, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, with regard to the organization itself.

Organizations are usually observed to relegate this exercise to the background, making it a short-term priority overshadowed by long-term business objectives. While ‘happy sheets’ are useful in evaluating training in a crude form, they seldom hold much bargaining power with the stakeholders who fund training at the expense of other organizational needs. They are more interested in demonstrated results, i.e., measures of how training expenditures contribute to organizational growth.

Soft Skills Journal, Training, Evaluation, Various, Approaches, Applications