Training needs assessment: where we are and where we should go
The aim of this article is to systematically review Training Needs Assessment (TNA) scientific literature. Based on two research questions (where are we? where should we go?), we hoped to evaluate the current state of scientific production on TNA and to point out some possible developments. The following databases were consulted: Web of Knowledge, Ovid, Proquest, Wiley Online Library, Emerald, PsycNet, CAPES Database and Scielo. Fifty-One articles were analyzed. The results show that: (a) there is little agreement on how to measure training needs; (b) most of the current TNA models and methods are reactive and do not consider contextual factors and multiple levels of analysis in a proactive way; (c) there are gaps in TNA and a need for theoretical definitions; (d) there is little concern with building theories and concepts related to TNA. Based on these findings, we point out that TNA practice and research should: (a) be based exclusively on measurable human competences gaps, in multiple possible levels of analysis; (b) not focus only on individual professional roles, but also on internal and external contextual factors that can be important in the future; (c) discuss and criticize in depth what work needs, training needs and training needs assessment mean; (d) elaborate and test TNA theories, concepts, models and methods.
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Digital revista |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração
2013
|
| Online Access: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-76922013000100006 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The aim of this article is to systematically review Training Needs Assessment (TNA) scientific literature. Based on two research questions (where are we? where should we go?), we hoped to evaluate the current state of scientific production on TNA and to point out some possible developments. The following databases were consulted: Web of Knowledge, Ovid, Proquest, Wiley Online Library, Emerald, PsycNet, CAPES Database and Scielo. Fifty-One articles were analyzed. The results show that: (a) there is little agreement on how to measure training needs; (b) most of the current TNA models and methods are reactive and do not consider contextual factors and multiple levels of analysis in a proactive way; (c) there are gaps in TNA and a need for theoretical definitions; (d) there is little concern with building theories and concepts related to TNA. Based on these findings, we point out that TNA practice and research should: (a) be based exclusively on measurable human competences gaps, in multiple possible levels of analysis; (b) not focus only on individual professional roles, but also on internal and external contextual factors that can be important in the future; (c) discuss and criticize in depth what work needs, training needs and training needs assessment mean; (d) elaborate and test TNA theories, concepts, models and methods. |
|---|