Evaluation of Training Surveys Report

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Summary

The current memo presents the evaluation of two reactionaries that were reviewed by a consultant. Two assessments of reactionaries are included in the appendices of this memo. They comprise major aspects such as the general criteria for instrument development and the question construction. Summaries of the assessments are provided in the comments sections.

Introduction

The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate two reactionaries. One of them is going to be used for the employee benefits survey, and the other summarizes impressions from a training program. Both of them are necessary to receive effective feedback from the employees to develop interventions for improvement of both, employee benefits policy and the courses organized for the employees. Thus, they should be appealing, include meaningful questions, and stimulate employees to give honest answers.

Evaluation

A reactionary, frequently called a questionnaire, is an instrument used for surveys. They are aimed at obtaining valid information from a certain sample that represents some population, for example, employees of a company. Reactionaries are useful tools in discovering reactions of employees to the company policies or interventions implemented by the company’s management.

The first reactionary is a part of the employee benefits survey. It is expected to provide the company’s management with information necessary to meet the needs and expectations of the employees. It includes four sections such as health benefits, financial benefits, paid time off, and additional benefits. It contains an introductory statement which states the purpose of the survey and appeal for cooperation. Still, it does not have a closing statement or any directions for respondents.

However, the directions may be not necessary because it is evident that a participant should rate the statements. Five rating options can be confusing but are expected to provide relevant information. There are no questions. They are replaced by statements. Although the reactionary is a little crowded, a grid-based design makes it easy to follow. Still, the overall design looks amateur. The statements are not long. Only three of them violate the guideline of the double-barreled question using ‘and’ as the conjunction. On the whole, they are clear and cannot be misinterpreted.

The second reactionary is aimed at the evaluation of a training program. It begins with a well-structured introductory statement which informs a respondent about its purpose which is to improve the learning process and appeals for cooperation. Its closing statement expresses gratitude for participation. Both introductory and closing statements are written. This reactionary contains brief overall instructions about rating the course. This assessment applies statements that have to be rated instead of questions.

The rating scale is 1 to 4 which maybe not enough to provide a precise assessment. The reactionary is grid-based, has clustered statements with labels, and its layout design is easy to follow. On the whole, it looks professional. As for the construction of statements, there are no violations of guidelines. The statements are short and formulated. Moreover, there is space for additional comments.

Conclusion

Although both reactionaries are likely to achieve their aims, some recommendations can be provided for the first one about employee benefits.

  • It is necessary to provide guidelines for the evaluation of statements.
  • It is advisable to add a closing statement.
  • The layout should be less crowded.
  • It is better to avoid double-barreled questions.
  • Both reactionaries should contain anonymity-confidentiality procedures to assure the participants that their personal information is not needed for these surveys.

Assessing Reactionnaires

  • Instrument Name: Employee Benefits Survey
  • Rater: ( )
  • General Criteria for Instrument Development
Criterion UsedAssessment Standard (√ as appropriate)
Introductory &
Closing Statement
  • Introductory statement
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes,
    • Purpose
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Appeal for cooperation
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Anonymity/confidentiality procedure
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Request for follow-up
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Writing style
[ ] Clear[ ] Confusing
  • Closing statement
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes, – Writing style[ ] Clear[ ] Confusing
    • Expressing appreciation
[ ] Yes[ ] No
Directions
  • Instructions for answering questions
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes,[ ] Overall[ ] Section by section[ ] Both
Question & Resource
Formats
  • Closed question:
Problems
  • yes-no
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • true-false
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • multiple choice
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • rating scale
[ ] Yes[ ] NoToo many options
  • Open question:
  • fill-ins
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • short-answer
[ ] Yes[ ] No
Layout
  • Layout design to follow:
[ ] Easy[ ] Complex
  • General appearance:
  • crowded
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • grid-based design
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • clustered questions with label
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • room for comments
[ ] Adequate[ ] Small
  • Overall layout design:
[ ] Professional[ ] Amateur
Overall Comments:
The survey is not very complicated; it does not demand much thinking to answer questions. The division of statements into groups contributes to a better understanding of survey purposes. Lack of closing statement and general instructions. Lack of anonymity or confidentiality procedure. Crowded layout. Looks amateur.

Question Construction

GuidelineRuleViolation ()Question Numbers
  • Already know answer
– Do not ask questions which the instructor or others involved in the delivery of training can answer.
  • Single-purpose
– Separate issues from sources.
  • Double-barreled question
– Avoid the use of the word ‘and’ and the word ‘or’ in questions.+11, 13, 15
  • Leading/ Loaded questions
– Avoid wording which nudges the survey response in one direction or the other.
  • Use neutral wording
– Subjective words introduce bias and slant respondents’ answers or discredit the objectivity of the instrument.
  • Avoid negatives and double negatives question items
– Do not ask respondents to disagree with something false or negative – easy to misinterpret.
  • Avoid overlapping or unbalanced response categories
– Response categories or choices should be mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and balanced.
  • Avoid jargon, slang, and abbreviations
– Do not use jargon, technical terms, slang, and abbreviations unless a specialized population is being surveyed.
  • Use simple, clear, and short words (KISS principle)
– Simple, clear, and short is best. Long statements – 25 words or more – are difficult to remember.
  • Other 1
  • Other 2
  • Overall comments: The questions are not long but well-structured. They are not ambiguous or misleading and are written in simple language. Violation of the guideline about double-barreled questions in three statements.

Assessing Reactionnaires

  • Instrument Name: Training Program Assessment
  • Rater: ( )
  • General Criteria for Instrument Development
Criterion UsedAssessment Standard (√ as appropriate)
Introductory &
Closing Statement
  • Introductory statement
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes,
    • Purpose
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Appeal for cooperation
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Anonymity/confidentiality procedure
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Request for follow-up
[ ] Yes[ ] No
    • Writing style
[ ] Clear[ ] Confusing
  • Closing statement
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes, – Writing style[ ] Clear[ ] Confusing
    • Expressing appreciation
[ ] Yes[ ] No
Directions
  • Instructions for answering questions
[ ] Yes[ ] No
If Yes,[ ] Overall[ ] Section by section[ ] Both
Question & Resource
Formats
  • Closed question:
Problems
  • yes-no
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • true-false
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • multiple choice
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • rating scale
[ ] Yes[ ] NoScale 1 to 4 points
  • Open question:
  • fill-ins
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • short-answer
[ ] Yes[ ] No
Layout
  • Layout design to follow:
[ ] Easy[ ] Complex
  • General appearance:
  • crowded
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • grid-based design
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • clustered questions with label
[ ] Yes[ ] No
  • room for comments
[ ] Adequate[ ] Small
  • Overall layout design:
[ ] Professional[ ] Amateur
Overall Comments: The reactionary is well-structured. It has both introductory and closing parts that explain the purpose of the assessment. Lack of anonymity or confidentiality procedure. Pleasant and easy-read grid design. The use of color adds clarity. Space for additional comments stimulates expression of personal opinion.

Question Construction

GuidelineRuleViolation ()Question Numbers
  • Already know answer
– Do not ask questions which the instructor or others involved in the delivery of training can answer.
  • Single-purpose
– Separate issues from sources.
  • Double-barreled question
– Avoid the use of the word ‘and’ and the word ‘or’ in questions.
  • Leading/ Loaded questions
– Avoid wording which nudges the survey response in one direction or the other.
  • Use neutral wording
– Subjective words introduce bias and slant respondents’ answers or discredit the objectivity of the instrument.
  • Avoid negatives and double negatives question items
– Do not ask respondents to disagree with something false or negative – easy to misinterpret.
  • Avoid overlapping or unbalanced response categories
– Response categories or choices should be mutually exclusive, exhaustive, and balanced.
  • Avoid jargon, slang, and abbreviations
– Do not use jargon, technical terms, slang, and abbreviations unless a specialized population is being surveyed.
  • Use simple, clear, and short words (KISS principle)
– Simple, clear, and short is best. Long statements – 25 words or more – are difficult to remember.
  • Other 1
  • Other 2
  • Overall comments: No violation of guidelines. Statements are properly structured. Statements are short, without slang or abbreviations.
More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2020, October 25). Evaluation of Training Surveys. https://ivypanda.com/essays/evaluation-of-training-surveys/

Work Cited

"Evaluation of Training Surveys." IvyPanda, 25 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/evaluation-of-training-surveys/.

References

IvyPanda. (2020) 'Evaluation of Training Surveys'. 25 October.

References

IvyPanda. 2020. "Evaluation of Training Surveys." October 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/evaluation-of-training-surveys/.

1. IvyPanda. "Evaluation of Training Surveys." October 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/evaluation-of-training-surveys/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Evaluation of Training Surveys." October 25, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/evaluation-of-training-surveys/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1