Do you think you gain additional information if you keep evaluation forms anonymous?

Do you think it limits feedback if participants are asked to put their name on the evaluation.

I'm asking because we're trying to streamline our processes/forms - right now we have two forms one to document training attendance, the other to assess effectiveness (Kirkpatrick level 1 type)...I'd like to eliminate the 'roster' by making ppl put their name on evals to get credit.

I'm getting some pushback that we won't get accurate, point-blank feedback if people have to put their name on the evaluation...what do YOU think?

If you aren't going to follow up on individual comments and evaluations, why ask for names?

If you are, and people are 'afraid' to be honest, you have a bigger issue to worry about than the evaluations - you have a dysfunctional culture - a measure of improvement here may be over time the number of evaluations you get with names on!

What will the level 1 evaluations enable you to do to add value to the client?

And if you have a boss who won't accept evaluations without a name, I guess you have an issue there with your relationship.

I guess my message is to be clear about what you want out of the evaluations.

Finally why not just try each out - 1 with names required, 1 without, and see what happens?!

Cheers

Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Schmalenbach:

If you are, and people are 'afraid' to be honest, you have a bigger issue to worry about than the evaluations - you have a dysfunctional culture - a measure of improvement here may be over time the number of evaluations you get with names on!

A very pertinent point that sometimes makes us queasy to bring into the open.

Martin if you're UK based have you tried the new ITOL site?

MH

I think you might want to also consider the nature of a "level 1" eval. It reflects immediate reaction based on the participant's emotional state. It's purpose is to provide the facilitator and ISD with some basic input from the people experiencing the "event" but it's not particularly useful as legacy data. It doesn't necessarily correlate to any need for changing anything... for example, I know one trainer who was absolutely amazing, yet when she was sick one day, some of the participants gave poor feedback because they didn't like that she was sneezing through class (meanwhile there were participants who empathized with the trainer and really appreciated that she was there despite her being sick).

In short, I see no reason to require that people put their names on this type of eval. Knowing who said what is not the purpose of this type of summative evaluation.