Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2009 Annual Conference
On September 15, 2009, Eduardo Salas, Ph.D. made this presentation at the
2009 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (346
KB). Plugin Software Help.
Patient Safety Training Evaluations: Reflections on Level 4 and more.
Eduardo Salas, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology &
Institute of Simulation & Training
University of Central Florida
- Offer some observations & myths
- Time to think differently
A few thoughts about the science of training.
What do we know about training?
- The science has evolved & matured.
- The past decade-an explosion of research!
- More empirical work
- Research conducted in organizations
- New, more & deeper theories and models
- More evaluations reported
- Huge military investment.
- Influence of cognitive psychology.
What do we know about training?
- Much progress in.
- Organizational needs analysis
- Cognitive task analysis
- Transfer of training
- Instructional design
- Training evaluation
- Simulation-based training
- Individual characteristics
Observations From the Science
- The quality and quantity of research has increased
- The cognitive and organizational concepts is revolutionizing the field
- The field is multi-disciplinary
- The influence of technology will continue
- Training is part of an organizational system
- There are more guidelines, tools and approaches for practitioners
Framework for Training Effectiveness
Myths & misconceptions about training.
The Simplistic View of Training
- Unskilled Worker
- Training Program
- Skilled Worker
- Uninformed About the Science
- Erroneous Assumptions
Everyone Who Has Ever
Learned Anything is a
- Opinions aside, training is a behavioral/cognitive event that can be structured to empirical investigation.
- There is a science of training that should be exploited to optimize training design.
- Processes exist which, if appropriately and consistently applied, can help to ensure that effective training is designed.
TASK EXPERTS CAN ARTICULATE
- Experts do not have access to their own expertise.
- Knowledge becomes "compiled"
- Task experts do not necessarily understand the learning process or how learning progresses.
- Task experts are crucial, but they must be paired with learning experts.
Reactions to training =
- Just because trainees are having fun, doesn't mean that they are learning anything.
- Very little or no relationship
- "Instrumentality" does seem to be a factor.
- Does seem to be related to learning
- Affects motivation to learn
- Simple measures of training outcomes are insufficient to judge training quality.
Learning will translate
into Behavior change
- Training transfer is a very complex phenomenon.
- Some of the factors:
- Supervisor Peer support
- Climate for Transfer
- Opportunity to perform/practice
- Even when trainees demonstrate learning after training, it does not mean that they can or will transfer back to the job.
Thinking Differently about Training Evaluation.
Kirkpatrick's Model of Training Evaluation
- Level 5 - Return on Investment
Was the training worth the cost?
- Level 4 - Results
Did the change in behavior positively affect the organization?
- Level 3 - Behavior / Training Transfer
Did the participants change their behavior on-the-job-based on what they learned?
- Level 2 - Learning
What skills, knowledge, or attitudes changesd after training? By how much?
- Level 1 - Reaction
Did the participants like the training? Whad od they plan to do with what they learned?
- Has served as well!
- Used, misused & abused!
- Created a misconception that Level 1 is all one needs
- Over simplified evaluations
- Links among levels, weak
- Minimal impact of training on Level 4
What if we reverse Kirkpatrick's model?
Start as Level 4.
What are the outcomes/results we want out of this training?
Level 3: Given these wanted outcomes.
What behaviors we want/need of our trainees?
Level 2: Given these needed behaviors.
What KSAs we want our trainees to have?
Level 1: Given those KSAs.
What reactions we want our trainees to have?
What do you get by reversing Kirkpatrick's typology?
- Precise learning outcomes
- Better links among Levels
- Better link of training to outcomes
- Hints for performance assessment/observation
- Tailor training program better
- Better accountability
Best Practices after Training Evaluation in.Healthcare, Aviation.
- Even before designing your training, start backwards: Think about evaluation first.
- Accept that effective training does not exist without effective evaluation.
- Strive for robust, experimentation design in your evaluation: It is worth the headache.
- When designing your evaluation plan and metrics, ask the experts - your frontline staff.
- Do not reinvent the wheel, leverage existing data relevant to training objectives.
Best Practices (cont)
- When developing measures: Consider multiple aspects of performance.
- When developing measures: Design for variance.
- Evaluation is affected by more than just training itself: Consider organizational, team, or other factors which may help (or hinder) the effects of training (and thus the outcome of your evaluation)
- Engage socially powerful players early:
Physicians, nursing & executive management is crucial to evaluation success.
Best Practices (cont)
- Ensure evaluation continuity: Have a plan for employee turnover at both the participant & evaluation administration team level.
- Environmental signals before, during, and after training must indicate that the trained KSAs & the evaluation itself are valued by the organization.
- Get in the game coach! Feed evaluation results back to frontline providers & facilitate continual improvement through constructive coaching.
- Report evaluation results in meaningful way.
- Avoid Myths!
- Training Evaluation matters!
- Reverse Kirkpatrick's typology!
Current as of December 2009
Patient Safety Training Evaluations: Reflections on Level 4 and more. Slide Presentation from the AHRQ 2009 Annual Conference (Text Version). December 2009.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/about/annualconf09/salas.htm