This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Purposes and Dimension Classification
by Sung Heum Lee, PhD and James A. Pershing, PhD
he evaluation scheme that many corporate training programs use is Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). However, surveys of the evaluation of corporate training programs show limited application of the levels other than at the reaction level (Alliger & Janak, 1989; American Society for Training and Development, 1996; Brinkerhoff, 1989; Dixon, 1990; Industry Report, 1996; Parker, 1986; Plant & Ryan, 1994). Training participants' reaction is the most commonly used criterion for determining the effectiveness of corporate training programs. Most corporate trainers evaluate their training programs by using a sim-
pIe end-of-course reaction form, often referred to as a "happy sheet" (Plant & Ryan, 1994), a "smile or whoopie sheet" (Robinson & Robinson, 1989), an "end-of-event questionnaire" (Bramley, 1996), or a "reactionnaire" (Newby, 1992). Based on a recent survey of corporate training programs using Kirkpatrick's four-levels of evaluation (American Society for Training and Development, 1996), only 4.3% of the organizations surveyed measured results, 13.7% measured behavior change, 27.9% measured learning, and 88.9% reported using participant reactionnaires. These findings indicate that the majority of the organizations evaluated the reactions and opinions of their training participants
immediately upon completion of training programs.
Reaction Evaluation of Training Program
Purposes The main purpose of reaction evaluation is to enhance the quality of training programs, which in turn leads to improved performance. The ultimate objective is to make training programs more efficient and effective for organizational performance improvement. Reaction evaluations are a type of formative evaluation when the results are used for program modification and the redesign of content, course materials, and presentations (Antheil & Casper, 1986; Robinson & Robinson, 1989). Generally, they collect information that
The responsibility of an evaluator of tion. mine the value. training materithe instructor alone. timing and use determine whether an evaluation is forma1991). value. questionnaires. 1987). This is crucial information. supported by external evaluators Timing and control for program improvement Reaction evaluations can also be summative in nature. expansion. be linked with the Performance Improvement. Instructors are far more likely to accept als. not to trainee. but in how. when. the goal of reacrevision. Summative Evaluation To determine program's worth. or quality To improve training program and correct errors Program process Tests. He indicates for reaction evaluations and for the rigorous design and that ideal reaction evaluations provide the maximum development of reactionnaires. expansion. Consequence such cases. modification. termination. supported by internal evaluators in unique cases Convincing information decisionmaking for observations. or adoption tion evaluation is to deterFigure 1. Reaction questionnaires amount of information and require the minimum amount of should be designed to supply valid and reliable information time to complete. 1987). 1986. value. howabout a program's worth or merit (Worthen. and even the training facilities. questionnaires. The evaluation of a training program. In Diagnostic for program modification. a reaction evaluation will. merit. The evaluation of training programs can play either a formative purpose to improve the program or a summative purThere are a number of different dimensions for training pose to decide whether a program should be continued or reaction evaluations. Basic Differences Between Formative and Summative Evaluation. 1990. decisions are necessary during the developmental stages of Guidelines for reaction dimensions can help practitioners a training program to improve it and-when it has been stadesign useful reaction evaluations for program modificabilized-to judge its final worth or determine its future. Therefore. instructional strategies. Although these two distinctive roles call for difsent a comprehensive set of dimensions. The kinds of questions to be addressed in to program evaluators. 1996. The tion. Worthen & In some organizations the primary purpose of reaction evalSanders. or redesign termination. or Fitzpatrick. interviews observations. Kirkpatrick (1994. & ever. 1991). the reaction evaluation of a training program should relate to an instructor's Any aspect of a training program can be evaluated: the instruction and the impact of the training program. not instructors or facilitators (Cangelosi. Keller. 1997). and improvement (Grove & Ostroff. Both forand applicable presents a formidable problem for corpomative and summative evaluations are essential because rate training evaluation practitioners (Mattoon. of course. impact of the training activity. If participants are not satisfied with the training experience. Formative Evaluation Purpose Use Focus Tools Time Audience User Major Characteristics To determine program's worth. interviews After training program Stakeholder or potential consumers External evaluators. there are few differselecting reaction evaluation dimensions that are valid ences in how trainers collect and analyze the data. Reaction evaluations provide program designers with insights about participants' degree of satisfaction with a program's design and implementation. value. effectiveness.1996) Bloomer. training programs is to evaluate a training program. 1997). or efficiency of a training program (Smith & Brandenburg. Volume 38 • Number 8 33 . During training program Program designer or team Primarily internal evaluators. termination. 1992). is a judgment about the quality. Summative evaluations provide program uation focuses on the course instructor or facilitator decisionmakers and potential customers with judgments (Phillips. Figure 1 summarizes the and make constructive feedback about what they do rather basic differences between formative and summative evaluathan who they are. Sanders.is specific enough to help make revisions and improvements in the training program. they may not use what they have learned and will probably advise others not to attend the training program. effectiveness. instructor. however none of the citations preterminated. Worthen & Sanders. Judgment for program continuation. and by whom it is used (Beer & In writing about level 1 evaluation. The main difference is not in the information. tive or summative. merit. or quality To make decisions about a program's future or adoption Program impact Post-tests. presents a few sample reaction forms but does not suggest This difference calls for the careful selection of dimensions guidelines for selecting reaction dimensions. Identifying and ferent uses of the evaluation results. 1991) and to make decisions Dimensions to Evaluate concerning program continuation. or adoption (Worthen.
helping to improve future programs. efficiency. Considerations include how well the training materials matched the real world of the trainee. quality of the program materials. facilities/accommodations. but ask more general questions about whether the training participants feel that they will be able to transfer what they have learned to the work environment and whether the organization is ready to support new skills. program materials. 1993. program relevance to job/work area. trainer. Phillips (1996) enumerates the most common dimensions of reaction evaluations as being program content. manuals. or textbooks-performed for participants. The purpose of evaluating the training materials is to determine their effectiveness. However. and any conflicts in concepts and terminologies used. and value (Hellebrandt & Russell. Some reaction forms might be very simple. developers should make every effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of content. 1993). The most important concept associated with program content is that of a performance objective. administrative details. 1993). and general comments. content. whether the 34 Performance Improvement. Schouborg. Instructional materials include published and unpublished print materials such as textbooks. effectiveness of the instruotorls). laboratory manuals. Robinson & Robinson. comprehensive dimensions for reaction evaluations can be summarized as follows: • Program objective(s)/content • Program materials • Delivery methods/technologies • Instructor/facilitator. gaps in content. Program designers select procedures. participatory materials. Program materials are the objects the trainer and instructor use in the training environment. Robinson and Robinson (1989) indicate that reaction evaluations should include some questions that are specific to the particular program being evaluated. and reaction evaluations can identify these weaknesses. Based on the results of an extensive literature review on reaction evaluations. and methods that are relevant to the training objectives. There are areas to assess during a reaction evaluation. methods. the course materials. whether the content was organized into manageable amounts. A performance objective is a detailed description of what trainees will be able to do when they complete a training program. and delivery methods. level of difficulty. 1992. and timeliness of the content presented can be judged by the participants' reactions. individualized instruction packages. During the design and development stages of training program materials. overall evaluation. training environment/facilities. the trainer. while others might be detailed and require a considerable amount of time to complete. handouts. They also suggest that the reaction evaluation of a training program should not only focus on the program itself. and recommendation for program improvement (Basarab & Root. discrepancies are bound to occur. instructor. & Cook. and planned improvements. Designing a training program starts with these factors. or decisionmakers (Payne. technological materials. 1994). The reaction questions should consider how well training materials-tutorial guides. such as the quality of classroom environment. The results of material evaluation can be used to revise the training materials and to make the materials as effective as possible (Dick & Carey. 1993). program coordinator/facilitator.information requirements of program designers. Forsyth et al. 1992). or approaches. 1989. In addition. and the learner's belief as to the overall effectiveness of the event. 1996). allowing for more precise information about a program's content and process. such as objectives. and helpfulness. (1995) suggest some guidelines for selecting dimensions of reaction evaluation. and relevance to the job or to intended changes. adaptability. trainee. Other areas incorporate logistical concerns. the use of media. content. The areas of feedback used on reactionnaires should be directly tied to the nature and scope of the training program and the purposes of the evaluation. manipulable materials. Faerman & Ban. Typically. Keller. Sanderson (1995) advocates dimensions such as the participants' opinion of the precourse briefing. SEPTEMBER1999 . etc. program value. techniques. reactionnaires inquire about participants' reactions to and interest in the usefulness ofthe program content. communication medium. level. resources. trainers. such as the size and comfort of the room and the tests or other performance measures (Wart. Cayer. various delivery methodologies. the appropriateness. class handouts. Sample reaction questions for objective(s)/content dimensions are as follows: • Did the program content meet the stated objectives? • Were the program topics effectively sequenced? • Was the program content up to date? • Was the course content at an appropriate level of difficulty? • Was the course content practical? Program Materials. 1996. The selection of training objective(s)/content depends on the purposes of the training program and is largely a judgment procedure (Tracey. instructional activities • Program time/length • Training environment • Planned action/transfer expectation • Logistics/administration • Overall evaluation • Recommendations for program improvement Program Objective(s)/Content. objectives. duration. The content of a training program should be identified with recognition of some significant variables. ease of use. Answers can verify the consistency of the materials with the program objectives. quality of materials.
written assignments. Developers should consider several factors in selecting delivery methods/technologies that will help trainees reach objectives. Reaction questions should also cover how the instructors interpreted and used the training materials and whether they presented materials in a way that was stimulating. and the quality of any performance tests or examinations. to ensure content understanding and performance change. Consideration should be given to whether the instructor encouraged active participation through the use of examples and illustrations. the instructor/facilitator is one of the key components of an effective training program. The designer can choose from delivery methods such as lecture. objectives. Physical separation from the workplace distinguishes classroom instruction from on-the-job training. case study. ranging from listening to the instructor. problemsolving. 1990). To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of instructional activities. 1994). As a manager of the training situation. Group teaching distinguishes classroom instruction from individualized instruction. and whether the training materials were presented in a way that was both interesting and stimulating (Forsyth. Performance standards for instructors are the backbone of instructor excellence. After using delivery methods such as audio. there are 60 standards covering preparation.sequence was from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract. The selection of instructional activities for a training program has significant implications for course management strategies. Evaluation questions revolve around the instructor's ability to interact with the learners and his or her ability to deliver the training content in a meaningful way. 1995). Classroom instruction has two distinct attributes: the teaching of groups of trainees and the physical separation of the classroom from the workplace (Yelon. The instructors must possess the required technical and pedagogical knowledge. instructional staff variables can be one of the more important factors in attempts to account for variance in program outcomes and to distinguish a program's success. Seels & Glasgow. Determining whether the delivery methods will help trainees reach the stated objectives is an important issue in selecting appropriate delivery methods/technologies for different types of objectives (Dean. interesting. and helpful. Choices of delivery methods/technologies are based on selection criteria such as whether the delivery methods are appropriate for the trainee. programmed instruction. 1992). laboratory. visual. simulation. gaining participation. Training action begins with this person. Another important consideration is the degree of trainee involvement in the training activity. Sample questions about the instructor/facilitator dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Did the instructor present content clearly? • Was the instructor responsive to participants' questions? • Was the instructor well-prepared? Instructional Activities. and constraints before selecting methods or technologies. and equipment selected for a training program (Tracey. 1999. The instructional designer determines method/technology options to achieve the objectives of a training program. They must identify trainee characteristics. 1996). questioning techniques. In this sense. An instructional activity is a set of structured experiences designed to help trainees achieve one or more training objectives. the training situation. cooperative learning group. the evaluation might ask questions such as the following: • Were the course exercises relevant to the program objectives? Performance Improvement. tutorial. game. self-instruction. demonstration. Jolliffe. platform skills.. participant evaluation. 1992). and enthusiastically answered questions (Forsyth. skills. To be effective in using instructional activities to enhance job performance. Sample questions for program materials are as follows: • Were the materials consistent with the training objectives? • Were the program materials of high quality? • Was the level of difficulty of the materials appropriate? • Was the content of the handouts easy to understand? Delivery Methods/Technologies. 1995). and instructional constraints. designers adhere to many instructional principles derived from learning and instructional theories (Yelon. Volume 38 • Number 8 35 . training aids. 1992). and course evaluation. discussion. and technology-based instruction (Davies. as well as each aspect of the total instructional activity. & Stevens. Based on the performance standards for instructors (Powers. Jolliffe. particularly for the use of class time (Dick & Carey. Heinich et al. Reaction evaluation of program materials should also include gathering data regarding the relevance of reading materials. explained concepts. or multimedia for a training program. role play. The designers of training programs strive to be effective in creating each element of classroom instruction. Sample questions for the evaluation dimension of delivery methods/technologies are as follows: • Were the audio learning aids helpful? • Were the presentation technologies used in class effective? • Were the visual aids helpful? InstructorlFacilitator. Various instructional activities can take place in a classroom. & Stevens. the evaluator can evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of the delivery methods in helping learners understand the content of a training program. to multimedia-mediated instruction. and attitude and be successful in using the strategies. content and sequencing. training objectives. discovery. drill and practice. Several of these standards can be assessed using reactionnaires. 1981. materials. and tutorials. to group-based activities. 1992).
To ensure quality programs for performance improvement. noise. and special events such as registration procedures. or car. seating arrangements. and how well the program is managed once underway. Too little time or too much time can negatively affect training effectiveness.• Were the group discussions helpful to participants in exchanging ideas with each other? • Was the homework helpful in understanding the course content? Program Time/Length. office. and extracurricular activities associated with the program. 1988). These questions function as a type of administrative audit that assesses administrative aspects such as personnel practices. how well pretraining enrollments are executed. adequacy of the learning environment. heating. the evaluators of a training program can assess the length of sessions and/or entire training program and use the results for schedule changes and considerations of overall program length. effectiveness of the instructor. kinds of activities in which people are engaged. Time-on-task and the efficient use of time are important in planning a training session. accessibility. reaction evaluations can include questions about operations. Sample questions for the program timellength dimension are as follows: • Was the amount of time in the program sufficient? • Was the length of the program appropriate for program objective(s)? • Was there enough time for practice of course content? Training Environment. 1992). The place could be a classroom. Questions related to this fact would focus on understanding and awareness of ergonomics as applied to the logistics and physical adequacy of the training environment (Faerman & Ban. planned action/expectation for job trans- 36 Performance Improvement. From this point of view. Peterson & Bickman. travel arrangements. 1988). The quality of large training programs depends on how well the objectives and content of the program are marketed. To find and remove the barriers for planned action and transfer of training content. This dimension of reaction evaluation is used to measure the participants' overall reactions about the usefulness of the course content. and overall flexibility in terms of training event demands. The logistics and administrative sides of program planning are important. study facility-meet your needs? • Was there enough workspace for class activities? Planned Actionlfransfer Expectation. Sample questions regarding the planned action/transfer expectations dimension for reactionnaires are as follows: • Was the training content relevant to your job? • Do you expect the organization to support your use of the skills learned in this program? • What factors will encourage job transfer of the training content? • What factors will inhibit job transfer of the training content? Logistics/Administration. If participants have to report to their managers about their training experiences and their intended transfer actions. living room. 1995). arrangements. Sample questions for the training environment dimension are as follows: • Was the training environment appropriate for the learning? • Were the environmental conditions-comfort. room temperature. Training participants' perceptions of classroom environments can have a significant influence on both cognitive and affective learning outcomes (Haertel & Walberg. When evaluators are considering questions in this area. measuring participants' perceptions regarding the likelihood of their being able to transfer training content to the work environment may be particularly important (Baldwin & Ford. To help the participants implement the results of the program on the job. division of duties and responsibilities. it may be more likely that they will implement what they learn (Sanderson. facilitator or coordinator. Sample questions for this dimension of reaction evaluations are as follows: • Was the scheduling for this course efficiently administered? • Was the process of registration for this course easy? • Was the assistance with extracurricular activities helpful? Overall Evaluation. An understanding of logistical and administrative support undergirds the effective team-building effort that is necessary in conducting successful programs. 1988). The facilities of the learning environment include the furnishings. and program procedures and policies (Miringoff. 1980. they need to ask specific questions regarding learning space. Environmental psychologists recognize the environment as a persistent and powerful influence on human learning and behavior. Broad and Newstrom (1992) report that there is a positive relationship between favorable organizational climate and management support of training and the participants' ability to apply classroom learning to the work environment. 1993. social and special events. lighting. patterns of work. visibility-conducive to learning? • Did the arrangements-food. and the location of the placers) where learning occurs (Tessmer & Harris. the program evaluator could ask participants about their plans and expectations for applying the content of the program when they return to their jobs. developers can use program time/length as an evaluation dimension. To improve future training programs. acoustics. computer lab. 1996). SEPTEMBER 1999 . reaction evaluation should include questions on planned actions and anticipated organizational barriers. Positive transfer is highly contingent on factors in the trainee's work environment. Using this dimension. sleeping accommodation. the conditions. McVey.
They are the results References of many factors. such as training content and methods." Personnel Psychology. Dimensions of Reaction Evaluation.. as specified in the participants to express their own thoughts without being purpose of reaction evaluation. throughout the training program. Therefore. and quality of materials for the training program. Sample questions for recommending one reaction evaluation for all its training programs. forced into a set of choices (Keller. training location. ventions for improving human performance. the training program. Sample questions of this dimension for reaction evaluation are as follows: • Was the overall instructional environment conducive to learning? • Was there enough time to cover the program content? • Did the training program meet your intended needs? • Would you recommend this training program to others? Dimension Program Objectives/ Content Program Materials Delivery Methods/ Technologies InstructorlFacilitator Instructional Activities Program Time/ Length Training Environment Purpose To evaluate the program objectives with participants' expectations and the appropriateness. 1989). • What would you suggest to improve the training program? Reaction evaluation. G.A. ing more effective in meeting customer requirements." is being used in the best-practice companies to make train• Please make any comments for changes that would improve the program. Participant reactions may vary 42(2). preparation. but it takes longer to It is a common mistake for a training department to create summarize the results.fer. the training context. evaluators must decide not only what Performance Improvement. E. lodging.and/or out-of-class activities To assess the length of session and/or entire training program for schedule change and considerations of program length To evaluate the adequacy of the physical training environment. "Kirkpatrick's levels of trainee's perceived success at achieving some of the goals of training criteria: Thirty years later. structure. 1996). including classroom. At least program improvement are as follows: a portion of each evaluation should be specific to the program it is designed to evaluate (Robinson & Robinson. & Janak. and effectiveness of the trainer or facilitator in leading the program To evaluate the appropriateness and helpfulness of in. reaction evaluation can be a more useful and valuable tool in the evaluation of training programs and perConclusion formance improvement programs in general. The idea of selecting dimensions for the reaction evaluation of A total of 11 dimensions and their purposes are summarized training programs also can be applied to evaluate other interin Figure 2. level. 1992). and leisure facilities Recommendations for ProPlanned Action! To evaluate the participants' plans/expectations and anticipated barriers for gram Improvement. training (Patrick. (1989). nature. and timeliness of the program content To determine the effectiveness. or feelings about a specific training program are complex. dining room. (1996). attitudes. This approach can produce very helpful information for program improvement and decisionmaking for future training. some being transitory in American Society for Training and Development. and other logistical and administrative matters Administration ment of the training program and provide an open forum To determine overall participant satisfaction and feelings about the training Overall Evaluation for the participants to share program their opinions. When the Recommendations for To receive suggestions/recommendations for improving similar or future evaluator wants more sponProgram Improvement training programs taneous feedback about participants' attitudes toward Figure 2.M. With appropriate dimensions. Volume 38 • Number 8 37 . but also when they should be assessed. and usefulness of written material and other aids To judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivery methods. including media/technologies To rate the ability. other trainees. 331-342. recognized as "customer satisfaction. 11\ Each participant's reactions. and the Alliger. Logistics! tinuous quality improveregistration. Questions Transfer Expectation applying the content of the training program on the job in this dimension collect useful information for conTo evaluate the smoothness and effectiveness of the scheduling. it is best to use a series of open-ended questions that allow the aspects of these reactions are of interest. efficiency.
(1993). "Program personnel: The missing ingredient in describing the program environment. DC: The Bureau of National Affairs. 294-312. Heinich. J. Haertel. Malabar. & Ostroff. Training. classroom instruction.F. Designing instruction for adult learners. & Walberg.. (1986). (1992). J. J.S. (1996).. ---. Newby. I. J. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. NJ: Prentice-Hall.C. "Sumrnative evaluation in training and development. T. Upper Saddle River.J. Miringoff. Phillips. 44.R. Washington. K. (1991).L.K.G. R. S. --..L. D. Evaluating diversity training: 17 readyto-use tools. lecturers and trainers.." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis." In K. "Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. D.. & Bickman. Jonassen [Ed. Faerman. New York: Macmillan. J. handbook. The systematic instruction (4th ed.).L. 16(3)." Public Productivity &. Craig (Ed.A. "The relationship between trainee responses on participant reaction forms and post-test scores. (1996). & Bloomer. 1(2). "Confirmative evaluation of instructional materials and learners.." In R.D. S.. Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. & Stevens. (1997). (1996). Antheil.J. "Evaluation. (1988). I. TX: Gulf. L. San technique. (1986).). Grove. I. The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed. Training: Research and practice. Designing educational project and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. (1999). G. "Assessing social-psychological classroom environments in program evaluation.. W. Evaluating New York: Longman. P. C. N. J.M.S. Accountability in human resource management: Techniques for evaluating the human resource function and measuring its bottom-line contribution. Davies.N. Molenda. (1994). 45-61.). Brinkerhoff. 38 Performance Improvement. "Trainee satisfaction and training impact: Issues in training evaluation. London: McGraw-Hill.). Forsyth. J. Instructional McGraw-Hill.D. & Root. (1989)." New Directions for Program Evaluation. VA: Author.The 1996 American Society for Training and Development report on trends that affect corporate learning &. Broad. 32(6). J. Payne. 5-185-5-220. "Program evaluation. G. (1981). New York: McGraw-Hill.K. Evaluating training and educational programs: A review of the literature. M. Evaluating courses: Practical strategies for teachers." New Directions for Program Evaluation.E. London: Academic. (1992). San Diego: Pfeiffer. (1980). A. & Russell. Management in human service organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.J.H.). Evaluating training effectiveness: Benchmarking your training activity against best practice (2nd ed.C. Handbook of training evaluation and mea- Dixon. 8(4). (1995). Boston. D.. 23(2). M. SEPTEMBER 1999 . Cangelosi. Dick. J. C. Brooks. Developing human resources. 83-92. & Ford. v.. "Using evaluation to transform training. J. (1990). (1992).. 40. 335-345. TX: Air Force Material Command. (1992). & Smaldino. & Casper. & Carey. Jolliffe. (1996). 129-137. Boston." Innovative Higher Education. G.). A. Reading. J. Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th ed." Personnel Psychology. Wexley & J. FL: Krieger. MA: Kluwer Academic. (1996). H. (1996).A." New Directions for Program Evaluation. 5-20. (1993). D. A. (1992).A. "Ergonomics and the learning environment. Patrick. London: Kogan Page.. 1045-1104. Bramley. New York: Dean. 11(1). (1994). Peterson.Management Review. (1986). (1988). 33(10). Beer. Hellebrandt. Mattoon. & Ban. (1988). 299-314. D. L." Performance &Instruction. "Comprehensive evaluation model: A tool for the evaluation of nontraditional educational programs. Hinrichs (Eds. M." In D. 41(1). D..). McVey. Keller.J.K. (1991). B." Human Resources Development Quarterly. design of Parker.M." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. Baldwin.L. (1994).T.performance (2nd ed. 40. New York: HarperCollins. The training evaluation process: A practical approach to evaluating corporate training programs. 22-27.L.W. "Levels of evaluation. Russell. Houston. MA: Addison-Wesley. 55-64. "Industry report: Who's learning what?" (1996). 63-105. Basarab.). 29-55. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Kirkpatrick. 53-65. & Newstrom.. MA: Kluwer Academic.D.H. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Alexandria. RO. Training evaluation Diego: Pfeiffer.
edu. Bloomington. Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Designing training and development systems (3rd ed. training evaluation. Keeps (Eds..R. Robinson. PhD.. Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed. M. (1997). IN 47405-1006. & Glasgow. He has presented such as the Association Society for Training & Technology.). Haertel (Eds. Pershing. Truelove (Ed. PhD. associations the American instruction/training. Plant.G. Oxford: Blackwell. He may be reached at the Office of Education and Training Resources.V. Smith. 35-58. is a Research Associate with Education and Training Resources at Indiana University. B. or fax: James A. M. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. B. IN 47408. Analyzing the instructional setting: Environmental analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. S. & Ryan. & Cook. "Who is evaluating training?" Journal of European Industrial Training." Performance Improvement Quarterly. Sanderson. computer-based several topics in professional Educational Performance Communications Improvement. (1989).. New York: Pergamon. J. 113-14. D. & Brandenburg. Flex: A flexible tool for continuously improving your evaluation of training effectiveness. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Instructional Systems Technology and Director of Education and Training Resources at Indiana University He teaches courses and conducts research in the areas of performance technology. email: pershin@indianaedu. Sanders. New York: AMACOM. He holds a PhD in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University.L.). D. Tessmer. Houston. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.e. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. & Harris. MA: HRD. Handbook of training and development for the public sector: A comprehensive resource. Yelon. Smith Research Center. This article was accepted for publication before James A." In H. J. Sung Heum Lee. Training for impact: How to link training to business needs and measure the results. G. Room 101.E. Columbus.e. New York: Longman. N. London: Kogan Page. Stolovitch & E. Pershing was selected to replace Martha Dean as the new editor of Performance Improvement. (1992). RA. training evaluation. Exercises in instructional design. His research focuses on the fields of performance analysis. Worthen. for and and theory of instructional and performance technology. OH: Merrill.).). (1990). (1991).. B.org Performance Improvement. or fax: (812) 339-8792. S. He may be reached at Wendell W. & Sanders. Powers.D. TX: Gulf.R. "Classroom instruction.lspl.J.).pn? • Check Out the ISPI Bulletin Boards at WWW.).. Amherst." In S. "Summative evaluation.). (1992). 42-47. B.." In H.I§. Z. (1995).J. and the business impact of training and development. Bloomington. Cayer. 4(2). Walberg & G. Schouborg. D. "Objectives and evaluation. New York: Longman. M. (1993). (812) 855-8545. 2805 EastTenth Street. Wright Education Building #2230..D. the International Society for Development. Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. Seels.R (1992).surement methods: Proven models and methods for evaluating any HRD program (3rd ed. & Fitzpatrick.R (1987).R. 383-411. Handbook of training and development (znd ed. Tracey. needs analysis. (1993). B. Volume 38 • Number 8 39 • . 27-30. Instructor excellence: Mastering delivery of training. 18(5). J. Got a Performance Qu. The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. J. email suhlee@indiana. and the International Federation of Training and Development Organisations over the last three years. & Robinson. W. RJ. 201 North Rose Avenue. the Worthen. Wart. "Program evaluation. Worthen. (1992). (1994). J. G.L.R (1990).