Hello everyone, my name is Shannon and I am currently a graduate student at James Madison University. At the moment, one of my graduate classes is geared toward the evaluation of training programs, social programs, and other programs. Throughout this course, the main focus has been Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. While this model is said to be the standard model of evaluation within the field of Human Resource Development, regardless of its flaws and limited grounding in empirical research, there are many other models which are grounded in research and cover areas such as ROI which Kirkpatrick’s model fails to cover that have been introduced with regard to evaluating programs.

I am interested in what other models besides Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model if any do your companies implement? What reasons, besides the obvious and overly stated considerations such as lack of research, failure to cover ROI, taxonomy (Holton III, 1996), do your companies or organizations give for using other evaluation models besides Kirkpatrick’s?

What professional thoughts do you hold with regard to Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model? and for other evaluations models?

Some theorists believe that continuing to implement an evaluation model with limited grounding in research is not only a shortcoming for the Human Resource Development field but also a potential harm to the professional growth of the HRD field (Holton III, 1996). What are your professional thoughts with regard to this notion? Why?

I greatly appreciate everyone’s time and consideration and look forward to your feedback!
Thanks,
Shannon

I have never understood the mass following of Kirkpatrick's model. The concept is nothing new - has been used by systems engineers for years and years. Plus, it's just basic common sense.

As for HRD as a field, they have enough to worry about as it is. Read an interesting article in Fast Company - "Why We Hate HR" - http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/97/open_hr.html

Just one more reason why training should not be in HR.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KaliKo,

As you have noted, Kirkpatrick's work has always been a source of serious discussion....on all sides of the argument. This is precisely what one would hope for since it forces us to test the theory and, in the process,better understand its appropriate applications.

Just to get the juices flowing you might want to take a look at evaluation...as part of an overall performance improvement system. The Shewhart Cycle (PDCA)has been a core part of the quality improvement process championed by Dr. Deming. It won't go into the detail you will find with Kirkpatrick...but it might help you discover what you seek in an entirely different area of inquiry.

Any evaluation system, including Kirkpatrick's model,can only take you so far. Depending on the process you use what you get back is often limited to quantitative data. Organizations that understand this use it to point them in a direction and follow it up with more in depth discussions....in search of qualitative information.

For me Kirkpatrick's thinking works just fine as a way to start that discussion.

One of the best critical examinations of Kirkpatrick I have ever seen is in Brinkerhoff - High Impact Learning. Please read it.