Comparison and Integration of three Training Evaluation Approaches:Effectiveness, Utility, and Anticipatory Evaluation of Training

摘要

This report provides a brief overview of three methods, or general approaches, tojudging the usefulness of training. The first method or approach is the traditional evaluation approach of training effectiveness evaluation. This method or approach centers on estimations of training effect size and the determination of the statistical significance of those training effects. Thus, in this first category standard pre post analyses and control group comparisons are included. Next traditional training utility analysis, or training utility evaluation is reviewed here, costs and benefits of training are always contrasted in some way in determining traditional utility analysis. This branch of evaluation traces its roots back to Brogden Taylor (1950), who discussed the need to examine the dollar criterion. Finally, anticipatory training evaluation is discussed Anticipatory training evaluation examines what kinds of training will have the greatest effectiveness and utility, given a variety of parameters and choices. The primary tool in anticipatory evaluation is Multi-Attribute Utility analysis (MAU). As opposed to training effectiveness and training utility evaluation, MAU is designed explicitly as a decision tool. It can be used most effectively as an anticipatory evaluation, the results of which facilitates planning for training. A detailed example of the development and application of MAU is described in this report, since it is the least well known of the three approaches to researchers and practitioners in the training are. In explicating this expanded view of training evaluation, this report attempts to represent state-of-the-art understanding and research; thus current issues like risk and uncertainty in input and output evaluation and utility indices, and problems in transfer of learned skills to the job, are addressed in appropriate contexts.