Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?

IMF Working Papers, June 27, 2018

Source details

Canonical URL

Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?

Other formats

• Markdown version
• Structured JSON version
• Bundle manifest

Bibliographic details

• Authors: Hali J Edison, Dimitre Milkov, Josephat Koima
• Published: June 27, 2018
• Series: IMF Working Papers
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484347027.001

Overview

• Title: Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?
• Authors: Hali J Edison, Dimitre Milkov, Josephat Koima
• Date: June 27, 2018
• Core summary:
  • The IMF provides training to its membership in its core areas of expertise mainly through its Institute for Capacity Development (ICD) or formerly the IMF Institute (INS).
  • This paper analyzes the methods ICD used to evaluate training and the data collected over the period 2006–13.
  • Since 2015, ICD has undertaken a review of its curriculum and revamped its courses and evaluations; the paper therefore provides a detailed analysis of the situation prior to that review.
  • The study’s novel feature is its attempt to distill information from all evaluation sources in one place and to explain evaluation results using participant demographic information.

Methods and Scope

• Evaluation period and context:
  • Data analyzed cover the period 2006–13.
  • Analysis focuses on ICD training evaluations prior to the ICD curriculum and evaluation revamp undertaken since 2015.
• Analytical approach:
  • Consolidation of all evaluation sources into a single analysis.
  • Use of participant demographic information to explain variation in evaluation results.

Key Findings

• General assessment:
  • ICD’s training program is well liked across the surveys examined.
• Variations in evaluation outcomes:
  • Notable differences in results emerge when sorting evaluation results by:
  • Course type.
  • Geographic location.
  • Whether evaluations were completed by participants or by their sponsoring managers.

Implications and Recommendations (as implied by analysis)

• Maintain consolidated evaluation practices to preserve the ability to analyze cross-cutting patterns across evaluation sources.
• Use participant demographic information systematically to interpret evaluation outcomes and tailor course design.
• Account for heterogeneity by course type and geographic location when assessing training effectiveness and designing improvements.
• Incorporate perspectives from both participants and sponsoring managers to obtain a fuller picture of training impact.

Content in this bundle

• Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?, WP/18/151, June 2018
  • Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?, WP/18/151, June 2018 (Markdown version)
  • Evaluating IMF Training: What Can We Learn?, WP/18/151, June 2018 (PDF)