Content area
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine three variables among directors of human resource development from 150 of the largest banks in the United States related to evaluation of their training programs. A survey was sent to a random sample taken from Polk's Bank Directory (1990). Using a five-point Likert scale, the directors rated themselves on their attitudes regarding doing evaluations of training in general and on each of Kirkpatrick's four stages of evaluation specifically. They also rated themselves on their competence to design and implement each of the four stages of evaluation and rated their practice in using each of the four stages of evaluation in their programs. Fiscal support for the training programs and for the operations of the bank over a five-year period was requested. Demographic data on the directors were also obtained.
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to analyze the responses. An analysis of variance test was used to determine differences in belief, competence, and practice across the four stages. Correlations were also performed within each stage.
With a return rate of 57 (38.0%), results were not generalized to the banking industry. Major findings revealed that while directors strongly supported evaluation of training, their practice was to use reaction evaluations significantly more frequently than any other stage of evaluation, although they had significantly less belief in its usefulness. Learning, behavioral, and impact evaluations were seen as being equally good in providing information. They also judged themselves less competent in designing, implementing, and using impact evaluations. There appeared to be little standardization in the education and experience of directors of human resource development as well as in the fiscal accountability of the departments.
