Training evaluation is an elusive concept, especially when it comes to practice. The practice of evaluation in training has received a lot of criticism. This criticism is largely explained by the unsystematic, informal, and ad hoc evaluation that has been conducted by training institutions. In Malaysia, training activities are monitored by the government. Organisations are required to obtain training services from approved training providers registered with the government. Examines the clients’ demand toward evaluation, the commitment given by training providers, and the overall practice of evaluation by the training providers in Malaysia. Finds that the government, client and economic situations have influenced the evaluation practice in a positive direction.
[1]
Daniel L. Stufflebeam,et al.
The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation
,
1983
.
[2]
Eric A. Davidove,et al.
Demonstrating ROI of training
,
1992
.
[3]
Robert O. Brinkerhoff.
An integrated evaluation model for HRD
,
1988
.
[4]
Tom Barron.
A New Wave in Training Funding.
,
1996
.
[5]
J. Greene,et al.
The evolution of evaluation methodology
,
1991
.
[6]
Peter H. Rossi,et al.
Using Theory to Improve Program and Policy Evaluations.
,
1993
.
[7]
Alison A. Smith,et al.
The Tailor‐made Training Maze: A Practitioner′s Guide to Evaluation
,
1990
.
[8]
Jack J. Phillips,et al.
Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods
,
1987
.