Affiliations: Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da
Educação, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Note: [] Address for correspondence: Marta Santos, Centro de Psicologia
da Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da
Educação, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto,
Portugal. Tel: +351226079760; Fax: +351226079725; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Objective: This paper aims to decode the activity of Human Resources
(HR) professionals responsible for evaluating continuing vocational training.
It is based on the understanding of the different "time frames" involved in
the development of the evaluation process as well as the reasons that justify
the options for different implementation methods in the world of work. Methods: Document analysis of the training evaluation process implemented in
two companies and comparison of the results obtained in the evaluation of a
specific training session using two different evaluation methods. Results: In both cases the companies largely adopted the Kirkpatrick's model
to evaluate training, although they hardly exceed the evaluation level
reaction to training. One of the two companies offered the opportunity to
carry out an evaluation procedure inspired in an alternative model that
confirms that different evaluation methods lead to different analysis produced
by the trainees regarding the process they have experienced. Conclusions: The choice for a specific training evaluation model usually depends on
administration "time frames" and options and it usually entails a consensus
that considers training evaluation as the fulfillment of previously determined
standard procedures. Nevertheless, the use of alternative evaluation methods,
as a complement to that already in use, may be the right way to revisit the
questions which originated the training course and rethink not only its
original design but also the working conditions associated to it.
Keywords: Kirkpatrick's approach, activity and training analysis, procedures
