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