Evaluation of Training
Various studies have highlighted that the evaluation of training was relatively neglected in the early development of training programmes (Werner & De Simone, 2009; Junaidah, 2006). Junaidah (2006) indicated that reasons for not undertaking training evaluation include naivety or ignorance on its importance, and cost implications for both the evaluator and the participants.
These criticisms have led to a substantial increase in training evaluation in recent years, although their quality and designs vary considerably, with a considerable number of organisations involved in such evaluation. Their focus initially was on the reactions of the trainees rather than on the learning process, and its later impact on job performance or other indicators (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). This is largely still the case, as many evaluating practices are implemented in non-systematic ways, and evaluation is not a priority for commissioning organisations, who often opt for short-term and simple means (Junaidah, 2006; Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001). These flaws and gaps have, nevertheless, also led to the realisation that non-evidenced training is not in the interests of organisations, their employees or their professional bodies that commit considerable time and funding to new and continuing training. Common errors that could be avoided include the lack of systematic assessment, evaluation by the trainer provider, improper data collection and interpretation (Robillos, Lale, Wooldridge, Heller, & Sarkin, 2014). Because of this realisation, there has been more investment in resources and quality in carefully designed and independent evaluation in recent years and this is often a pre-requisite for commissioning to training providers (McConnell, Breitkreuz, & Savage, 2012; Sanders & Kirby, 2014).
Among the different classification systems of evaluation, one commonly adopted by researchers includes four types, i.e. formative, summative, confirmative and meta-evaluation (Dessinger and Moseley, 2004). These four types are only relevant for relatively long-term training programmes rather than for ‘one-off events’, as they consider the pre-, during- and post-training phases, including their implementation in practice. Consequently, their application is particularly relevant to evaluation of child protection training. Different types of evaluation are often used, because they provide insight into different aspects of the training to suit the needs of the organisation (Su et al., 2010). Even more so, they are relevant to inter-agency training, as the required professional collaboration of the evaluation procedure mirror the nature of the training programme (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). Therefore, although it is acknowledged that other evaluation models are no less important, this particular system will be discussed in more detail.