The problem and the solution. During the past half-century, we have witnessed the initiation and flourishing of measurement and evaluation (M&E) in human resource development (HRD). Today, there appear to be more questions than answers to the challenges and opportunities concerning M&E in the field of HRD. The M&E research and practice is at a crossroads. In this article, the authors delineate M&E development into three stages, discuss the relative features in each stage, and propose an integrated approach for researchers and practitioners working together to further advance M&E in HRD. To this end, this issue is dedicated to addressing a gap in the HRD M&E literature by presenting a set of theories, models, and practical approaches as a starting point of the third stage of M&E development for HRD research and practices.
Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331-342.
2.
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.
3.
Bakken, D., & Bernstein, A. L. (1982). A systematic approach to evaluation. Training and Development Journal, 36(8), 44-51.
4.
Capeling-Alakija, S., Benbouali, A., Brewka, B., & Diallo, D. (1997). Results-oriented monitoring and evaluation. New York: United Nations Development Programs.
5.
Chalofsky, N. E. (1996). Professionalization comes from theory and research: The “why” instead of the “how to.” In R. W. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice(New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 72; pp. 51-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (1997). Handbook for mixed method evaluations. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
7.
Hatcher, T. (1999). Reorienting the theoretical foundations of human resource development: Building a sustainable profession and society. In P. K. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference(pp. 202-208). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
8.
Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-21.
9.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959a). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, 13, 3-9.
10.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959b). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 2—Learning. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, 13, 21-26.
11.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1960a). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 3—Behavior. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, 14, 13-18.
12.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1960b). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Part 4—Results. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, 14, 28-32.
13.
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159-178.
14.
Mott, V. W. (1996). Knowledge comes from practice: Reflective theory building inpractice. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating five critical questions of theory and practice(New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 72; pp. 57-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Mott, V. W. (1998). Professionalization and reflective theory building. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference(pp. 671-676). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
16.
Phillips, J. (1997). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods(3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf.
17.
Phillips, J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Butterworth-Heinemann.
18.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2002). Technology’s return on investment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(4), 512-532.
19.
Ruona, W. E. (1999). Theory in “theory to practice”: Voice of practitioners. In P. K. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference(pp. 888-896). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
20.
Ruona, W. E., & Lynham, S. A. (1999). Toward a philosophical framework for thought and practice. In P. K. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference(pp. 209-216). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
21.
Shortell, S. M., & Richardson, W. C. (1978). Health program evaluation. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
22.
Swanson, R. A. (1997). HRD research: Don’t go to work without it. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development handbook: Linking research and practice(pp. 3-20). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
23.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (1999). Results: How to assess performance, learning and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
24.
Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory-building research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development handbook: Linking research and practice(pp. 114-137). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
25.
Wang, G. G. (2002). Learning evaluation and ROI measurement: What’s the current industry status?West Chester, PA: PerformTek, LLC.
26.
Wang, G. G., Dou, Z., & Li, N. (2002). Asystems approach to measuring return on investment for HRD programs. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 203-224.
27.
Wang, G. G., & Li, J. (2003). HRD evaluation and measurement: Dilemma, challenge, and solutions. Performance Improvement, 42(10), 17-23.
