<![CDATA[Public universities may formally adopt risk frameworks while frontline officers remain unable to enact them. This study developed RISK-TRAIN to address symbolic adoption, capacity deficits, and contextual misalignment. The model extends conventional training by treating risk as both the object of learning and the governing logic of needs analysis, design, delivery, evaluation, transfer, and follow-up. A design and development study in an Indonesian public service university combined preliminary diagnosis, five-expert validation, a seven-participant limited trial, a 30-participant one-group pretest-posttest evaluation, and stakeholder review. RISK-TRAIN targets six domains: risk governance, process-risk identification, risk assessment, risk response and key controls, residual-risk monitoring, and risk communication. Expert groups reported complete item-level content relevance (I-CVI = 1.00; S-CVI/Ave = 1.00), and field implementation and practicality were rated very highly. In the main field test, mean scores increased from 61.94 to 81.39 (mean difference = 19.44), t(29) = 18.11, p < .001, Cohen's dz = 3.31. Participants practised locating risk hotspots, constructing risk registers, prioritizing likelihood and impact, selecting key controls, preserving audit trails, and monitoring residual risk. The findings provide preliminary, context-bound support for strengthening short-term capability; causal attribution and long-term workplace transfer require controlled follow-up studies.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
