Designing for Impact: How Evidence-Based Instructional Design Ensures Measurable Learning in Insurance and Risk Education

This post is part of a series sponsored by Risk & Insurance Education Alliance.

In corporate education, completion certificates alone do not prove mastery of the curriculum or competency on the job. For risk and insurance professionals, learning outcomes must involve sharper judgment, improved client results, and measurable growth in day-to-day performance, or the investment in education has failed to deliver real value.

Effective learning isn’t accidental; it is the result of purposeful instructional design and disciplined review of psychometric data. At the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance, we approach course design with intentionality and evidence-based frameworks. Every program begins with a clear vision of what success should look like for the learner, taking into account job role, organization size, and tenure-related competencies. From that foundation, our curriculum progresses from understanding to application, guiding participants to think critically, solve complex problems, and apply knowledge directly to their professional practice.

We continually review learning data to ensure that our programs are creating measurable improvement for both individual participants and the organizations they serve. Using evaluation tools such as pre- and post-assessment comparisons, item analysis, and reliability testing, we ensure that every program delivers both educational integrity and performance impact. The result is learning experiences that empower professionals to serve clients, team members, and the broader insurance community with greater confidence and competence.

Backward Design – Beginning with the End in Mind

Truly effective course design begins with purposeful reflection on desired learning outcomes. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe’s Backward Design model popularized this approach, encouraging educators and training professionals to consider what they want the learner to be able to DO post-program.

This is an especially important tactic when designing curriculum for insurance and risk professionals, where technical acumen has a direct impact on account performance. Yet too often, low-cost continuing education providers prioritize volume and compliance over learning best practices, focusing on fast and convenient content delivery instead of competency development. While this content may satisfy the requirements of state regulators, it rarely precipitates the behavioral change or financial results necessary to justify the return on investment.

The Risk & Insurance Education Alliance builds every course around defined competencies that align with industry standards and employer expectations. This approach guarantees that learning outcomes are not theoretical but directly tied to performance metrics. By treating curriculum planning as a form of risk management, we reduce the risk of wasted learning time and increase the probability of meaningful professional results.

Bloom’s Taxonomy – Defining and Structuring Learning Outcomes

A companion to the Backward Design framework, Bloom’s taxonomy, provides a six-level classification system for crafting learning objectives to assess content mastery at different levels of cognition. This framework helps educators to differentiate between basic and advanced competencies, tailoring instruction to the target audience of the program. Consider how this progression works for insurance and risk management courses, from simple recall of information to applying and evaluating it in real-world insurance scenarios:

• Level 1 – Remember: Identify and define common property coverage terms.
• Level 2 – Understand: Describe how insurance impacts claim settlement under a commercial property policy.
• Level 3 – Apply: Interpret a policy’s exclusions to determine whether a loss scenario will be covered.
• Level 4 – Analyze: Compare two policy forms to identify differences in coverage scope.
• Level 5 – Evaluate: Assess competing coverage options to determine which best aligns with the client’s risk portfolio.
• Level 6 – Create: Develop a comprehensive risk management plan for a client that integrates multiple lines of coverage and risk control strategies.

Once expected outcomes have been defined, assessments accompanying the curriculum must be balanced to mirror the rigor established within the learning objectives. As a best practice, post-program exams should include a range of question types to evaluate understanding, application, and analysis. Scenarios and case-based questions may be leveraged to measure critical thinking, beyond simple recall.

Emily Bentley, Instructional Designer III at the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance, illustrates how we employ Bloom’s taxonomy in the course design process: “When developing assessments, instructional designers work closely with subject matter experts to ensure that each question directly addresses one of the course learning objectives and that the difficulty of the exam is appropriate for the level of the course. Instructional designers carefully review every exam item to verify that questions and answer choices meet internal standards and educational best practices. Our goal is never to write ‘trick questions,’ but rather to create rigorous exams that accurately measure learners’ abilities to meet the desired outcomes for each course.”

Learning Metrics – Evaluating the Effectiveness of Instruction

Evidence-based instructional design must be matched by equally rigorous evaluation after learning takes place to quantify impact and ensure the fairness, accuracy, and validity of the assessment. Item-level analytics are the foundation of this process, illuminating how learners have engaged with the material and how effective the instruction is in building the desired skills and competencies.

• Item Difficulty (p-value): Gauges how challenging each question is, helping educators to balance the rigor of the assessment with a mix of easy, moderate, and difficult questions.
• Distractor Analysis: Evaluates how the incorrect choices within a multiple-choice assessment perform; distractors should appear to be reasonable choices to learners who have not achieved full mastery of the content.
• Item Discrimination: Reveals whether high-performing learners consistently answer certain questions correctly while low-performing learners do not. High discrimination values indicate that a question effectively differentiates levels of learning.

Assessment-level analytics, which examine how an assessment functions holistically, provide evidence of the instrument’s overall quality, reliability, and measurement precision.

• Reliability (Cronbach’s α / KR-20): Measures the internal consistency of an assessment. A high reliability coefficient is evidence that the test produces stable and dependable results across different groups of learners.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Reflects the precision of test scores by providing an estimate of how much a learner’s observed score may vary from their true ability.
• Test Validity Evidence: Confirms that assessment results can be interpreted as meaningful evidence of learning, rather than accidental or misleading outcomes.
• Pass Ratio: Represents the percentage of learners who meet or exceed the required performance standard. When viewed alongside item difficulty, the pass ratio helps to confirm that assessments are both rigorous and appropriately calibrated to measure true competence.

For insurance organizations, aggregate metrics often offer the most actionable data because they demonstrate how knowledge translates to performance. This empowers leaders to make informed decisions about where to focus future training investments.

• Paired t-Test: Compares pre- and post-assessment scores to determine whether learning gains are statistically significant (p < 0.05). This analysis provides evidence that observed improvements are not due to chance but result from the learning experience itself.
• Cohen’s d: Measures the magnitude of learning improvement, offering a sense of how meaningful the change is, small (0.2), medium (0.5), or large (0.8+). Cohen’s d complements the Paired t-test by translating statistical significance into practical impact.
• Behavioral and Financial Outcomes: Represent the highest level of learning impact, where education yields observable business results. Improvements such as stronger client relationships, fewer E&O claims, better risk decisions, and higher retention demonstrate that learning has moved beyond knowledge into measurable performance.

The most credible method to evaluate the effectiveness of learning requires triangulation of item-level, assessment-level, and aggregate metrics. This involves linking assessment data with observable performance and business metrics to confirm that education drives real operational value. Triangulation parallels recognized evaluation models such as Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation and the Phillips ROI framework, extending learning measurement to include behavioral change, business performance, and financial return.

Evidence in Action – A Mission Measured by Impact

Guided by a commitment to empower insurance and risk management professionals through practical, relevant education, the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance continuously evaluates the impact of our learning programs to ensure that our mission is being fulfilled in meaningful and measurable ways. For more than five decades, the Alliance has elevated professional excellence across the industry through rigorous curriculum delivered by experienced practitioners and tenured subject matter experts.

Our course design process begins with clearly defined outcomes, is structured around Bloom’s cognitive framework, and is continuously validated through psychometric evaluation. Christina Loffredo, the Alliance’s Director of Instructional Design, affirms this approach: “Our role on the design team is to make learning meaningful, measurable, and transferable. Every course we curate begins with the end in mind: what success looks like for the professional and the organization, in addition to designing intentionally to achieve it. What distinguishes our work is that our education does not simply inform; it transforms how people think, advise, and lead.”

The Alliance conducts regular, detailed reviews of assessment and program evaluation data to ensure our courses continue to meet the evolving needs of the industry and deliver measurable impact. In recent years, we have enhanced our quarterly review process by incorporating aggregate metrics such as the Paired t-test and Cohen’s d to verify that learning gains are both significant and meaningful. With data from over 10,000 participants, results show a p-value of 0.00 and a Cohen’s d of 0.90, reflecting strong mastery of the curriculum and measurable improvements in workplace accuracy and decision-making confidence.

This measurable evidence of learning illustrates something deeper than educational effectiveness; it reflects the fulfillment of our mission at the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance. Our role is not simply to teach the language of risk and insurance, but to empower professionals to think critically, act ethically, and perform confidently where it matters most.

Join thousands of professionals who trust the Alliance for meaningful, measurable education. Explore our offerings at Risk & Insurance Education Alliance.

References

ATD Research. 2025. 2025 State of the Industry: Talent Development Benchmarks and Trends. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development. https://www.td.org/product/research-report–2025-state-of-the-industry-talent-development-benchmarks-and-trends/192507.

Ben-Hur, Shlomo, Bernard Jaworski, and David Gray. 2015. “Aligning Corporate Learning with Strategy.” MIT Sloan Management Review, September 1. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/aligning-corporate-learning-with-strategy/.

Brassey, Jacqueline, Lisa Christensen, and Nick van Dam. 2019. “The Essential Components of a Successful L&D Strategy.” McKinsey & Company, February 13. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-essential-components-of-a-successful-l-and-d-strategy.

Casselbury, Kelsey. 2025. “How to Measure the ROI of Leadership Development.” HR Magazine, June 12. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/how-to-measure-roi-leadership-development.

Herrholtz, Kevin. 2021. “Extend Your Training Evaluation to Include the Phillips ROI Model.” eLearning Industry, May 12. https://elearningindustry.com/extend-training-evaluation-include-phillips-roi-model.

LinkedIn Learning. 2025. ROI of Learning Playbook. Accessed October 16, 2025. https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/ld-success-metrics/roi-playbook.

LinkedIn Learning. 2024. Workplace Learning Report 2024. https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-learning-report-2024.

Pittman, Matt. 2024. “How to Measure the Business Impact of Learning.” Brandon Hall Group, June 10. https://brandonhall.com/how-to-measure-the-business-impact-of-learning/.

Rudy, Bruce C. 2023. “Evaluating ROI on Your Company’s Learning and Development Initiatives.” Harvard Business Review, October 16. https://hbr.org/2023/10/evaluating-roi-on-your-companys-learning-and-development-initiatives.

Training Magazine Network. 2025. The ROI Shift: Proving the Value of Corporate Learning in 2025. https://www.trainingmagnetwork.com/lessons/147545/overview?gref=TMN_WP_10012025.

Topics Training Development