Training Measurement Part 1 – The Objective

Training isn’t the objective. It’s just a tool. Improved business results is the objective. If we train people in the wrong things using the wrong methods, we might feel good that we’ve completed our training goals, but nothing will change.

In an earlier segment we shared that ASTD participants in San Diego this spring thought that 2-20% of training was retained. I’d really want to change what I was doing if I was getting 5 tablespoons of gasoline when I paid for a full gallon (2% for my money). At the very least I’d want 20%, not 2%. So I’d measure how much gas I was getting. Likewise, I’d try to measure my training results.

The generally accepted method of training measurement uses four levels. It’s pretty solid theoretically, but our experience – shared by most people we’ve talked to – is that reality is less satisfactory. The four levels are:

• Level 1 – Participants react to the training through questionnaires, comments, focus group sessions and the like. Typically some form of scale is used (really like, like, dislike, etc.) to enable comparative measurements.
  
• Level 2 – Participants’ degree of learning is measured by comparing pre-training and post-training test scores. On-job assessments and supervisor reports can also be used.
  
• Level 3 – Desired behavior change in participants is measured through self-assessments, on-job observations and customer reports. This level is difficult to quantify, but attempts to look for useful results.
  
• Level 4 – Improvements in business results are measured, usually by using financial or inspection data.

In our next entry, we’ll look at how this usually works in the real world.