Pretest-posttest Design

In his discussion of evaluative research, Vecchio (1991) notes that many companies and industries have designed training programs for both new and old employees. Commonly, the purposes of these programs include: increasing employee knowledge of job-tasks, improving job performance, and so forth.

However, Vecchio (1991) notes that companies need a way to evaluate whether their training programs have met the objectives set for them. One method of evaluation used by many companies is the pretest-posttest design (Vecchio, 1991).

In terms of the ability to pinpoint the significance or success of training, the pretest-posttest design can be utilized by companies; however, it is important to note that the pretest-posttest is associated with various levels of precision depending upon the nature of the design. In other words, the ability of the design to pinpoint the significance of training can vary depending upon the experimental controls put into place with respect to its use.

The lowest level of precision, according to Campbell and Campbell (1969), is the level were a single group of employees is given a test prior to training, t

. . .
rms of pinpointing the effects of treatment (training) can be gotten if a control group is added to the design--yielding the two-group pretest-posttest design (sometimes called "the control group pretest-posttest design"). The control group would be given both the pretest and the posttest but, unlike the experimental group, those in the control group would not be given any training. The posttest scores of both groups could then be compared. If the experimental group's scores are significantly higher than the control group's scores, training would be said to be effective. Once again, the magnitude of the effect (usually calculated using a test for specific association) would be used to assess the effectiveness of training. According to Best (1981), the addition of the control group would overcome the alternative explanations of sensitization and history (changes in the organization responsible for the change in performance). These explanations would be overcome because the assumption can be made that if these factors increased or improved performance, they distributed this effect equally across groups. Therefore, any differences between the two groups at posttest would have to be due to a variable other than these factor
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Kiess Bloomquist, According Vecchio, Pretest-Posttest Design, Campbell Stanely, Campbell Campbell, , pretest-posttest design, Stanley JC, Bloomquist DW, significance training, Vecchio RP, training effects, References JW, control pretest-posttest design, pinpoint significance, alternative explanation, control pretest-posttest, vecchio 1991, design pinpoint, alternative explanations, job performance, pinpoint significance training, pinpoint training effects, design pinpoint significance, two-group pretest-posttest design,
Approximate Word count = 1421
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Pretest-posttest Design