Human resource development (HRD) evaluation has often been criticized for its limited function in organizational decision making. This article reviews evaluation studies to uncover the current status of HRD evaluation literature. The authors further discuss general evaluation theories in terms of value, use, and evaluator role to extend the discussion to more comprehensive multiple views of evaluation. The comparison of this literature suggests that evaluation in human resource development has been limited by narrow perspectives. The authors attribute this narrow notion of evaluation to a lack of theoretical consideration of the roles, value, and use of evaluation and a lack of analysis of paradoxical dynamics around HRD evaluation. This analysis provides several implications and future directions for HRD evaluation in the field.
AlkinM. C. (2004). Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influence.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AlkinM. C. & ChristieC. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In AlkinM. C. (Eds.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 12–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
AlvarezK., SalasE., & GarofanoC. M. (2004). An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 385–416.
4.
BoberC. & BartlettK. (2004). The utilization of training program evaluation in corporate universities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 363–383.
5.
BoruchR. F. (2004). A Trialist's notes on evaluation theory and roots. In AlkinM. C. (Eds.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 114–121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CampbellD.T. (1981). Introduction: Getting ready for the Experimenting Society. In SaxeL. & FineM. (Eds.), Social Experiments: Methods for Design and Evaluation (pp. 13–18). Sage: Beverly Hills.
7.
CampbellD.T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In ConnerR. F., AltmanD. G., & JacksonC. (Eds.), Evaluation Studies: Review Annual(Vol.9). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8.
CascioW. (2003). Invited reaction: the effects of alternative reports of human resource development results on managerial support. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 153–158.
9.
ChenH.T. (2005). Practical Program Evaluation: Assessing and Improving Planning, Implementation, and Effectiveness.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CollinsD. (2002). Performance–level evaluation methods used in management development studies from 1986 to 2000. Human Resource Development Review, 1 (1), 91–110.
11.
CookT. D. (2004). Causal generalization: How Campbell and Cronbach influenced my theoretical thinking on this topic, including in Shadish, Cook, and Campbell. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 88–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CousinsJ. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In KellaghanT., StufflebeamD. & WingateL. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. (pp. 245–266). Boston: Klewer.
13.
CousinsJ. B. (2004). Crossing the bridge: Toward understanding use through systematic inquiry. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 319–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CronbachL. (1980). Toward a Reform of Program Evaluation.San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
15.
DooleyK., LindnerJ., DooleyL., AlagarajaM. (2004). Behaviorally anchored competencies: evaluation tool for training via distance. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 315–332.
16.
HoltonE. (1996). The flawed four–level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5–21.
17.
HoltonE. & NaquinS. (2005). A critical analysis of HRD evaluation models from a decision–making perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 257–280.
18.
KaufmanR. (2000). Mega Planning: Practical Tools for Organizational Success.Thousand Oaks, CA.Sage Publications.
19.
KaufmanR. & WatkinsR. (1996). Costs–consequences analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 87–100.
20.
KirkpatrickD. L., & KirkpatrickJ. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler.
21.
LeeS. H., PershingJ.A. (2002). Dimensions and design criteria for developing training reaction evaluations. Human Resource Development International, 5(2), 175–197.
22.
MacphersonA., ElliotM., HarrisI., HomanG. (2004). E–learning: reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295–313.
23.
MadausG. F. (2004). Ralph W. Tyler's contribution to program evaluation. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 69–79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MattsonB. (2003). The effects of alternative reports on human resource development results on managerial support. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 127–151.
25.
PershingJ. & PershingJ. (2001). Ineffective reaction evaluation. Human Resource Development Quarterly,12(1), 73–90.
26.
PhillipsJ. (1996). How much is the training worth?Training and Development, 50(4), 20–24.
27.
PreskillH. (1998). Evaluative Inquiry for Learning in Organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
PreskillH. (2004). The transformational power of evaluation: Passion, purpose, and practice. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 343–355). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
RossiP. H. (2004). My views of evaluation and their origins. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 122–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
ScrivenM. (1993). Nature of evaluation. In ScrivenM. (Ed.), New Directions for Program Evaluation: Hard–Won Lessons in Program Evaluation (pp. 5–48).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
ScrivenM. (2004). Reflections. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), EvaluationRoots: TracingTheorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 183–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
ShadishW.R., CookT.D., & LevitonL.C. (1991). Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
ShadishW. R. & LuellenJ. K. (2004). Donald Campbell: The accidental evaluator. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 80–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
StakeR.E. (2003). Standards–based and Responsive Evaluation.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
StakeR. E. (2004). Stake and responsive evaluation. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 203–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
SteadV. (2004). Business–focused evaluation: a case study of a collaborative model. Human Resource Development International, 7(1), 39–56.
37.
StufflebeamD. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In KellaghanT., & StufflebeamD.L. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp 31–62). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38.
StufflebeamD. L. (2004). The 21st–Century CIPP Model: Origins, Development, and Use. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 245–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
SwansonR. & HoltonE. (2001). Foundations of Human Resource Development.San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler.
40.
TorracoR.J. (1997). Theory–building research methods. In SwansonR. A. & HoltonE. F. (Eds.), Human Resource Development Research Handbook: Linking Research and Practice (pp 114–137). San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler.
41.
TorracoR.J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
42.
TorresR. (2004). Invited reaction: The utilization of training program evaluation in corporate universities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 385–388.
43.
TylerR.W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492–501.
44.
WangG. (2003). On the two–way customer service model in HRD practice. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 453–458.
45.
WangG., DouZ., & LiN. (2002). A systems approach to measuring return on investment for HRD interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 203–224.
46.
WeissC. H. (2004). Rooting for evaluation: A cliff notes version of my work. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (pp. 153–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
