The Effects of Types of Training on Support of Training Among Corporate Managers

With organizations becoming leaner during times of cost consciousness, it is becoming critical that training departments demonstrate their contributions to their bottom lines by becoming more productivity based than they have been historically. For training professionals to obtain the needed financial and organizational support of their training efforts, top management should corroborate the training function. To gain this support, training professionals have evaluation procedures available to them. My purpose for conducting this study was to determine which type of training evaluation method (reaction, learning, behavior, or results) elicited the most management support of the training function among corporate managers. I designed and distributed a case study survey instrument (TEMS) to assess the extent of this support. MBA students with management experience and non-training managers participated in the study. For both samples, the data indicated that the results evaluation format received the most support, with progressively less support for behavior, learning, and reaction evaluations, respectively. I believe that this study provides training practitioners with a mandate for demonstrating training results to top management. It further gives an accountability system for gaining management support of the training function.     

Statistical and individual temporal stability of the WISC-R for cognitively disabled adolescents

This study examines the temporal stability of the WISC-R for 155 13-and 14-year-old adolescents identified as either EMR or LD who were involved in special education during the preceding three-year time period. The three major scales of the WISC-R were found to be more stable over a three-year period for the LD than for the EMR group, while the subtest scales for the EMR group, showed greater stability over the three-year interval. Test-retest coefficients for the EMR group were substantially lower than those presented in the WISC-R test manual. A large proportion of individuals within both groups showed statistically significant differences on one or more of the IQ score scales between testings based on standard errors of measurement. These findings are examined in relation to individual placement of students, reporting confidence intervals in reports, and calculation of the best unbiased estimate of intellectual functioning.