Dr. Shevaun Corey

Despite the need for training evaluation, many organizations do not adequately evaluate their training programs. When organizations do evaluate their training, they often rely on Kirkpatrick’s (1959a) four-level evaluation framework, which focuses on trainee reactions, learning, behavioural outcomes, and results for the organization. This is one of the most widely used evaluation frameworks despite the fact that it has many limitations, one of the most serious being its narrow focus on just a few training outcomes at each level of the framework. An expanded version of this framework was used to evaluate the Correctional Training Program (CTP), which attempts to provide correctional officers who might be hired by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to effectively manage offenders within institutions. Three specific issues were examined: (1) Does CTP produce positive changes in trainees (e.g., with respect to domain-relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes)?; (2) Do the training outcomes measured at each level of the expanded framework correlate with one another?; and (3) Do barriers to training effectiveness (e.g., lack of supervisor support) moderate the relationships between the training levels? By analyzing the data from 102 CTP trainees, valuable information was obtained concerning the effectiveness of CTP with respect to a wide variety of trainee reactions, learning gains, and the degree to which knowledge and skills transferred to the job. However, the results from this study do not suggest that the training outcomes measured at each level of the expanded framework correlate with one another, nor do they suggest that the training effectiveness factors, as measured in the current study, significantly moderate training outcomes, with the exception of content validity and self-efficacy. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed, along with a discussion on the suitability of an expanded version of Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework. Recommendations for CSC as well as directions for future research are also suggested.