| This study investigated the value and feasibility of employing a periodic auditing approach to the conduct of confirmative training evaluation in an applied setting. Besides individual course differences, the associated factors studied included grouped courses (by prerequisite level), survey mode, time since training, and the number of questionnaires received.;The population studied consisted of 759 course participants (automotive graphic designers) who had attended CATIA training classes during the last three-quarters of 1998. A survey was distributed to all participants through either electronic- or paper-mail. Responsiveness to the survey was analyzed along multiple dimensions.;Analysis of the resulting data found that collectively evaluating several courses at the same time enabled the comparison of individual courses against each other. It also provided a unique perspective for evaluating the overall curriculum impact within the organization, raising several curriculum deficiencies that transcended individual courses.;Among the factors studied that might preclude periodic program audits were survey mode, time-since-training, and the number of questionnaires received. Electronic mail (e-mail) did not differ from paper-mail (p-mail) responsiveness in most regards except in the area of open-response items. The time-since-training related significantly to the percentage of surveys returned, but not to the content of responses. The number of questionnaires received did not demonstrate any important responsiveness differences.;The use of an auditing approach for conducting post-training evaluation is discussed, and the limitations and benefits are specified. In general, such an approach appears to possess positive possibilities as a means of augmenting traditional confirmative training evaluation, by providing valuable program-level insights. |
