The Relationships between the Levels of Evaluation of the Training & Development for Job skills

직무교육훈련 평가수준들간의 관계

The propose of this study was to analyze the relationships among the levels of training & development evaluation (reaction, learning, transfer). The study has been conducted on 730 trainees who attended in the basic accounting program in L training and development institution through three incidents of tracked research such as reaction survey right after the conclusion of training, learning evaluation through test, and an evaluation of the transferability after 3 months of training. Questionnaires and test papers for analyses were used after their reliability, validity, difficulty, and discrimination have been verified on a pre-test. The research has been conducted for six months from 4 March 1996 to the end of August 1996, and data have been collected through direct research and survey through mail. The collected data have been worked on at SAS program for Windows with a statistical significance level of 5%. Statistical method that had been used was Pearson's correlation coefficient. The result and conclusion acquired from this study were as follows: Between reaction and learning, learning and transfer of training, only a weak positive correlation exists and explanation or prediction variance showing hierarchical relationship was quite weak with 1%. Thus, this research not only does not strongly support Kirkpatrick(1976)'s hierarchical model of $reaction{\rightarrow}learning{\rightarrow}transfer$, but also indicates that the separate measurement on each levels of training evaluation needs to be done. On the other hand, there was a relatively strong positive correlation between reaction and transfer of training. Based on the result, the conclusion, and the restriction perceived through this study, the following suggestions were made. 1. There is a need to empirically analyze and verify the hierarchy of all levels of training evaluation including the evaluation of the fourth level (result) such as organizational productivity, organizational satisfaction, and separation rate. 2. A great deal of efforts will be needed to systematically analyze what the relationships are among the methods measuring the level of evaluation of the training and development, and to apply this result to the training field.