Ld Training Evaluation Form

---
name: ld-training-evaluation-form
description: Writes a Training Evaluation Form with performance-focused questions on relevance, confidence to apply and after-training support, open prompts on barriers, and an aggregate summary template that rates the programme, never the trainer. Use for "run ld-training-evaluation-form", "better smile sheet", "end of course survey", "training feedback form", "post-training evaluation questions", "level 1 evaluation form", "our survey says everyone loved it", "course evaluation questionnaire", part of the AI for L&D and Corporate Training Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Training Evaluation Form

## When To Use
The smile sheet says everyone loved it and tells you nothing: high scores, no idea what to fix, no sign anyone will use it. Use this to build the end-of-course form and its summary, answering one question: did the programme give people something they can and will apply, and what stands in their way?

## When Not To Use
If you have not agreed what the programme should change, the form cannot fix that; run Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan first. If you need proof people actually used it on the job, a form filled in on the last day cannot give it; run Success Case Study.

## Inputs
- The programme's objectives or the critical behaviours from your Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan
- Your current form, if there is one, and how it is delivered (paper, LMS, survey tool)
- The minimum group size below which results are not reported
If you have none of this, I start from the programme title and its objectives as you remember them, and mark the output as a first draft.

## Approach
LTEM, the Learning-Transfer Evaluation Model from Work-Learning Research, sets eight tiers from attendance up to the effects of transfer. Learner perceptions sit at tier 3, and the model is blunt that tiers 1 to 3 cannot validate learning on their own. So the form asks about what predicts effectiveness (comprehension, realistic practice, motivation to apply, support after the course), with answer options that describe a concrete state instead of a 1 to 5 agreement scale. The failure it prevents: a form full of "the trainer was engaging" items that reads as a verdict on a colleague and tells you nothing about the course.

## Workflow
1. Ask three questions: what should people be able to do after this, what will you change based on the answers, and what is the minimum group size for reporting?
2. Audit the current form, if any. Mark each item: rates the trainer (remove), measures satisfaction or reputation (cut or keep one), measures something that predicts use (keep and sharpen).
3. Write four to six closed items, one each on relevance to the job, comprehension, realistic practice, confidence to apply, and the support people expect back at work. Each answer option describes a concrete state ("I could do this now without help", "I would need more practice first"), never "agree" or "strongly agree".
4. Write two or three open prompts on barriers: what could stop you using this in the next [period], what was missing, what should we cut.
5. Add a line on the form itself saying these answers help fix the programme and say nothing about any person, and that it is anonymous by default.
6. Build the summary template: counts per option for each item, themes from open comments, groups under [minimum group size] suppressed, no names or quotes that identify someone.
7. Point beyond the form: note which tier 5 and tier 6 measures (decisions and tasks, checked after a delay of [days the user sets]) would validate learning, and where they live in the evaluation plan.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Training Evaluation Form
Programme: [name] | Anonymous by default | Results help fix the programme and say nothing about any person
## Questions
| # | Item | What it tells you | Answer options (concrete states) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How relevant is this to the work you do? | Relevance | [option A] / [option B] / [option C] / [option D] |
| 2 | How ready are you to do [objective] at work? | Confidence to apply | [could do it now] / [need more practice] / [...] |
## Open prompts
- What could stop you using this in the next [period]?
- What was missing, and what should we cut?
## Summary template
| Item | Responses per option | Themes from comments | Change to make |
|---|---|---|---|
| [#] | [counts, or suppressed under [minimum]] | [theme] | [action for the course] |
## Limits
- A form sits at LTEM tier 3; it cannot show learning or use. Tier 5 and 6 checks: [where they live]
## Decision
[L&D lead name] reviews the summary by [date] and decides which changes go into the next run.
```

## Done When
- No item rates the trainer, the venue's charm, or a named person
- Every closed item's options describe concrete states, not agreement levels
- The summary template reports counts and themes only, with the suppression threshold set
- The form's limits are written on the summary, not left in the designer's head

## Quality Bar
- Fewer items, answered honestly, beat a long form finished in a rush
- Every item earns its place by pointing to a change you could make
- Open comments are summarised as themes; no quote that identifies someone
- Refuse trainer ratings, trainer league tables and named comment reports
- The form rates the programme, never the trainer or a learner

## Next
Run ld-success-case-study (Success Case Study) for evidence of use the form cannot give.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).