| Course | IOP-6200 Unearthing and Enhancing Organizational Talent Through Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: training evaluation |
| Length | About 515 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IOP 6200 Module 3
Did It Work at the Counter? An Evaluation Plan for Deli Clerk Training
Student Name
Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Thomas Edison State University
IOP-6200: Unearthing and Enhancing Organizational Talent Through Psychology
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Did It Work at the Counter? An Evaluation Plan for Deli Clerk Training
What to Measure
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe four levels of training outcomes: reactions, how participants feel about the training; learning, what knowledge and skill they gained; behavior, whether they apply it on the job; and results, the organizational outcomes the training was meant to improve. Many organizations stop at reactions because they are easy to collect.
Alliger et al. (1997) examined how training criteria relate to one another in a meta-analysis and found that reaction measures, especially ratings of how much trainees liked the training, had weak relationships with learning and with behavior on the job. Ratings of how useful trainees found the training related somewhat better. A satisfaction survey cannot show that training worked.
| Level | Measure for deli training | When |
|---|---|---|
| Reactions | Two questions on usefulness, not enjoyment | End of day 2 |
| Learning | Food safety knowledge test; slicing to weight trials; slicer sanitizing check | Before and after training |
| Behavior | Unannounced audits of temperature logs, date marks, slicer sanitizing and allergen steps | 30 and 90 days after |
| Results | Inspection findings, deli shrink, deli service complaints | Quarterly for a year |
Design
To attribute changes to training, the evaluation needs a comparison. The chain will train clerks in six stores first, selected to match the other six on size and past inspection results, and train the remaining stores four months later. During those four months, the second group serves as a comparison. Changes in audits, shrink and complaints in the trained stores, beyond any changes in the waiting stores, can be credited to training with more confidence than a before-and-after comparison alone. Noe (2016) notes that such designs trade some convenience for much stronger conclusions.
Transfer
Behavior on the job is where training succeeds or fails. The 30- and 90-day audits will be done by district food safety staff who do not know which clerks attended, using the same checklist supervisors use. If learning scores rise but audit scores do not, the problem lies in the work environment, such as staffing or supervisor support, not the training content.
Return on Investment
Training costs about $310 per clerk in wages, trainer time and materials, or about $124,000 for 400 clerks. If deli shrink falls from 9.2 to 8.0 percent of deli sales, about $11 million a year, the chain saves about $132,000 a year, before counting fewer violations and better service. The return will be reported with a range, since shrink also depends on ordering and seasonality.
Reporting Results
Results will be reported to store managers and the vice president of operations in a one-page summary after 90 days and again after a year, showing each level's measures for trained and waiting stores side by side. If the program does not improve audit scores, the summary will say so and recommend changes rather than presenting reactions as proof of success.
Conclusion
An evaluation that measures learning, on-the-job behavior and results, compares trained with waiting stores and treats reactions cautiously will tell the chain whether deli training works at the counter, not only in the classroom.
References
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Jr., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Noe, R. A. (2016). Employee training and development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Reading the IOP 6200 Module 3 assignment instructions
Training evaluation is the third module of IOP-6200, and this page shows one of the written assignments placed in it. You will choose outcomes at several levels, select a design that lets you attribute changes to training, plan how to measure transfer to the job and estimate the training's value in business terms. Noe's chapter on evaluation is the base, and research on how evaluation criteria relate to each other helps you decide what counts as evidence. Use figures for costs and expected results, and be cautious about what reactions can show. Say who will see the findings. Note what the comparison stores make possible.
How this IOP 6200 Module 3 example is built
The plan opens by naming the four levels and the habit of stopping at reactions. Alliger and colleagues' meta-analysis shows why liking ratings say little about learning or behavior, so reactions are limited to two usefulness questions. A four-row table assigns a measure and a time to each level. The design staggers training so six waiting stores serve as a comparison, which Noe notes strengthens conclusions. Blind audits measure transfer, and a gap between learning and audit scores is read as a work environment problem. A return on investment estimate with a range closes the plan. A reporting plan promises a side-by-side summary for managers after 90 days and a year. Blind audits keep the behavior measure honest.
Reading the IOP 6200 Module 3 grading rubric
Mentors look for outcome measures at more than one level, an evaluation design that supports conclusions about cause, attention to transfer and an estimate of value that admits uncertainty. Using research on training criteria to decide what counts as evidence shows judgment. A comparison group, even a delayed one, shows methodological care. Interpreting possible patterns of results, such as learning without behavior change, shows understanding of why training fails. Tidy tables and correct APA references round it out. Mentors also look for honest reporting plans that would show a program's failure as clearly as its success. A clear statement of what the comparison group controls for strengthens the design.
IOP 6200 Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students lose points by relying on satisfaction surveys, by measuring only before and after without a comparison or by claiming a return on investment with no assumptions shown. Choose measures at each level, plan a comparison, decide who will observe behavior and when, and calculate value with stated assumptions and a range. Say what you will conclude from different results. A free first sample of your IOP-6200 Module 3 evaluation plan can be prepared on the program you are evaluating. Decide in advance what you will conclude if learning improves but behavior does not, and say whom you will tell. Keep the audit checklist the same for trained and waiting stores so results can be compared fairly.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More IOP 6200 and Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology sample papers
- IOP 6200 Module 1: Written Assignment: Why Training Matters to a Supermarket Chain's Fresh Departments
- IOP 6200 Module 2: Written Assignment: A Needs Assessment and Design for Deli Clerk Training
- IOP 6200 Module 4: Written Assignment: Choosing Methods to Teach Service, Safety and the Path to Department Manager
- IOP 6200 Module 5: Final Project: A Training Intervention for Fair, Calm Handling of Self-Checkout Problems
- IOP 6100 Module 8: Final Paper: An Integrated Plan to Select, Appraise and Keep Bus Operators
- IOP 7100 Module 2: Written Assignment: Why Two Audit Managers Get Such Different Results
IOP 6200 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IOP 6200 Module 3 sample paper?
The paper above plans a four-level evaluation of deli clerk training at a supermarket chain.
What are Kirkpatrick's four levels?
Reactions, learning, behavior and results.
Do trainee reactions predict learning?
Alliger and colleagues found that how much trainees liked training relates weakly to learning and behavior.
Why use a comparison group in training evaluation?
Stores that wait their turn show what would have happened anyway, so the training's own effect can be isolated.
How do you calculate training return on investment?
Compare the training's total cost with the value of measured improvements, stating assumptions and a range.