The problem and the solution. Much of the human resource development (HRD) evaluation literature focuses on the Kirkpatrick four-level approach and emphasizes the importance of measuring the return on investment (ROI) of HRD initiatives or programs. This article argues that, in many cases, ROI does not provide the kind of information needed by decision makers. What is needed is a systems model that examines the effect of organizational and environmental factors on the intended outcomes of an HRD initiative or program. Such a model can help to frame any evaluation, including one that focuses on ROI.
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341-358.
2.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Bassi, L. J., & Lewis, E. M. (1999). Linking training and performance: Benchmarking results. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
4.
Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2003). Fundamentals of financial management(4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western College.
5.
Brown, S. M., & Seidner, C. J. (1998). Evaluating corporate training: Models and issues.Boston: Kluwer.
6.
Chelimsky, E. (2001). What evaluation could do to support foundations: A framework with nine component parts. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(1), 13-28.
7.
Holton, E. F., III. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-21.
8.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959a). Techniques for evaluation programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors (Training and Development Journal), 13(11), 3-9.
9.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959b). Techniques for evaluation programs—Part 2: Learning. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors (Training and Development Journal), 13(12), 21-26.
10.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960a). Techniques for evaluation programs—Part 3: Behavior. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors (Training and Development Journal), 14(1), 13-18.
11.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960b). Techniques for evaluation programs—Part 4: Results. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors (Training and Development Journal), 14(1), 28-32.
12.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
13.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Reaction to Holton article. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 23-25.
14.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
15.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Phillips, J. J. (1998). Systematic evaluation: Trends and practices. In J. Phillips (Series Ed.), In action: Implementing evaluation systems and processes(pp. 1-12). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
17.
Phillips, J. J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs(2nd ed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
18.
Preskill, H., & Russ-Eft, D. (2003). A framework for reframing HRD evaluation, practice, and research. In A. M. Gilley, J. L. Callahan, & L. L. Bierema (Eds.), Critical issues in HRD(pp. 199-257). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
19.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (2005). Evaluative inquiry for learning within organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
21.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (1999). Results: How to assess performance, learning, and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
22.
Torres, R. T., Preskill, H., & Piontek, M. (1996). Evaluation strategies for communicating and reporting: Enhancing learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002). State of the industry: ASTD’s annual review of trends in employer-provided training in the United States. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
24.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2000, October). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://www.wkkf.org
25.
Wholey, J. S. (1994). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical programevaluation(pp. 15-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
