Evaluation of In-Service Training Programs at the Agricultural Extension and Training Center in Kirkuk for the Period 2022–2024 from the Trainees’ Perspective

• Wisam. H. Khudhur1, Sahab. A. Yousif2

  Author

The study aimed to determine the level of training evaluation from the trainees’ perspective in general and within each evaluation domain, as well as to identify the variation in training outcomes, as a dependent variable, according to selected trainee characteristics. The study population included all agricultural employees in Kirkuk who participated in the training programs implemented at the Agricultural Extension and Training Center during the period from 2022 to 2024, totaling 150 trainees. Data were collected through personal interviews using a questionnaire specifically designed for trainees. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part addressed the trainees’ personal and occupational characteristics, while the second part included seven domains for training evaluation. The instrument was presented to a panel of experts to establish face validity and content validity. Reliability was assessed using two methods: the split-half method with correction by the Spearman–Brown formula, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The collected data were statistically analyzed using several statistical techniques, including percentage weight, the Karl Pearson correlation coefficient, the Spearman correlation coefficient, the Mann–Whitney U test, and the Kruskal–Wallis test.The results indicated that the overall level of training was moderate with a tendency toward a high level. The training outcomes domain ranked first, with an achievement percentage of 79.61%, whereas the training environment and its requirements domain ranked last, with an achievement percentage of 73.43%. The findings also revealed no variation in the level of training outcomes according to the following variables: gender, age, length of service, specialization related to the training course topic, previous participation in training, and nomination for training. In contrast, variation in the level of evaluation was observed with respect to educational attainment, occupational ambition, willingness to innovate, and training motivation.

• pdf