Perspectives of training evaluation among nuclear power training professionals and line managers.

摘要

The purpose of this study was to explore perspectives of training evaluation among training professionals and line managers in U.S. nuclear power plants. The conceptual framework identified three perspectives of evaluation of training: judgment, improvement, and learning. The study sought to determine the distinctiveness of these perspectives and whether training professionals and line managers differed on which perspective was most important to them. For this study, a survey was developed that included items representing each of the perspective and was administered to 583 line managers and training professionals in 65 U.S. nuclear power plants. The collected data was analyzed with the methods of structural equation modeling, multivariate analysis of variance, and descriptive statistics. The results showed that a three-factor model representing the three perspectives of training evaluation reasonably fit the data from the line managers and training professionals, while there was a high correlation between improvement and learning perspectives and there were correlations among some sets of items regarding the information of financial impacts of training, job analysis, instructional quality, and interventionist evaluation. The results also showed that there were no significant differences between line manager and training professional groups on the three perspectives, while evaluations of financial impact, factors affecting transfer of training, and interventionist evaluation were neglected despite their importance. It was also found that the extent to which line managers and training professionals received the evaluation information affected the level of satisfaction with this information. The results support the existence of three perspectives of training evaluation among the respondents. If true beyond the current research setting, such a conclusion has implications for designing future training evaluations. In practice, the three perspectives provide a potential frame for training evaluation that has greater theoretical support than some current training evaluation models. That training managers and line managers did not differ in their perspective of training evaluation may be unique aspect of the nuclear industry. Future studies should seek to further confirm the existence of the three perspectives of training evaluation, recognizing the inherent difficulty in obtaining matched sets of data from training professionals and line managers across numerous organizations.