1 / 7

Training Evaluation

Training Evaluation. TAB Mtg Update: 3/21/14. Training Evaluation Framework (in process; categories: Internal staff, relationships with agencies, eval curricula, trainers, trainees, and eventually, outcomes as a goal) Plan is to revise:

rianna
Download Presentation

Training Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Training Evaluation TAB Mtg Update: 3/21/14

  2. Training Evaluation Framework (in process; categories: Internal staff, relationships with agencies, eval curricula, trainers, trainees, and eventually, outcomes as a goal) • Plan is to revise: • PSS forms to better reflect participants’ learning and potential for applying on the job • Trainer Eval Rubric as part of improving trainer eval process Big Picture

  3. BAA • Demographics (from Nov 2013 semi-annual report, N=24): • Education Level: ~65% had MSWs as highest level • Title IV-E: ~66% participated • Ethnicity: Between 25-30% Latino/Hispanic, about 20% White, about 20% African American, 10% MultiRacial, 0% API • Role: About 90% were county CWWs, other 10% indicated working for nonprofit or “other” category • Have spvr/mentor: About 95%; of these, about 75% had discussed training needs with their supe/mentor Part of the Framework: Common Core Evaluation

  4. BAA • Testing Knowledge (July 2012-June 2013): • CYD (Pre-post): N=49; Statistically significant gains from pre to post. No significant demographic differences in testing this content. • CPCM (Pre-post, Temp Discont…): N=45; Statistically significant gains from pre to post. Significant demographic differences in testing this content: ethnicity/race and gender. • PP (Pre-post): N=42; Statistically significant gains from pre to post. No significant demographic differences in testing this content. Part of the Framework: Common Core Testing

  5. BAA • Testing Skill in Classroom (late Dec 2012-early 2013): • CMI1: N=18; In making a decision of whether or not physical abuse occurred in test scenarios, 100% of BAA trainees passed using criterion of 3 out of 4 correct decisions. Participants were more likely to make two correct decisions on non-abuse than abuse scenarios (94.4% vs. 88.9%). However, N is small and this difference represents one response. • CMI2: N=29; In making a decision of whether or not sexual abuse occurred in test scenarios, 89.7% of BAA trainees passed using criterion of 3 out of 4 correct decisions. Participants were more likely to make two correct decisions on non-abuse than abuse scenarios (89.3% vs. 79.3%). Appears to be due in part to a higher %age of missing responses on Warner (last of 4 scenarios tested), which is an abuse scenario. Part of the Framework: Common Core Testing

  6. Art of Coaching Institute: March 24 & 25, 2014, plus Day 3 April 29, 2014 Part of the Framework: Pilot Skill-Based Eval

  7. San Mateo County • Visitation • TDM County-Based Training Evaluation

More Related