Process evaluation of training

The IEG evaluation of Bank-financed training found that there is a high correlation between training process and training results: When training is done according to good training management practice, it generally succeeds in achieving its objectives. Where training as designed, implemented and monitored poorly, it generally has the desired results. Evaluating the quality of training management processes may be simpler and cheaper than evaluating its results, and can provide accurate information on whether training is likely to succeed. Process evaluation of training can also indicate which processes should be improved, to effect better results.

These are the training processes that can be evaluated in order to assess training quality. (click here for Flash version)

Training Targeting

Capacity Diagnosis: Was the decision to pursue training and the selection of training objectives based on a correct assessment of organizational and human capacity gaps and the appropriateness of training as a means to address those gaps.

Training-needs assessment: Was course design based on correct identification of present capacities of potential trainees and the specific course content that would be necessary to bring trainees from their present capacity levels to those defined in course objectives.

Client Involvement in Diagnosis and Needs Assessment: Were training participants and/or other representatives of organizations targeted by training meaningfully involved in diagnosis of capacity gaps and organizational objectives to be addressed through training? Do target organizations believe that training is important to the achievement of their goals?

Clarity of Training Objectives: Did training objectives specify a) the knowledge, skills and attitudes that participants were expected to learn in training b) The performance change that learning is expected to lead to?

Strategic participant selection: Were participant selection strategies matched to the capacity objectives to be achieved by training?

Training Content

Pedagogical quality: Was course length and class size appropriate for training goals? Were the lecturers and course materials of high quality? Were participatory and action-learning methods used where possible?

Training Follow-up

Did training participants receive the technical assistance or other forms of follow-up support necessary to facilitate transfer of learning to the workplace environment?

Training context: Do training participants have the necessary resources and incentives to implement learning in the workplace? If not, are these resource and incentive constraints being addressed? Was training properly sequenced with other related organizational or institutional capacity interventions? Where needed, is local training capacity being developed to ensure sustainability of the training program?

Monitoring and Evaluation: Where training is an ongoing program, have monitoring and evaluation feedback loops been set up so that feedback on training quality and results can be used to improve future training?