Effective HRD evaluation: An expanded view of Kirkpatrick's Four Levels (Donald L. Kirkpatrick).

摘要

In 1959–60, Kirkpatrick introduced a prescriptive framework for evaluating the effectiveness of corporate training programs. Although widely accepted as the dominant model for evaluating training, the Four Levels framework has received sharp criticism in recent years. The most severe criticism states that Kirkpatrick's framework is not grounded in theory.; This research expands Kirkpatrick's framework and proposes a larger and more appropriate foundation for developing groups of useful theories to guide research and practice in evaluating corporate HRD activities.; The methodology for expanding the Four Level framework follows Kuhn's approach to improving a theory: to look for anomaly in both research and practice and to then revise the base theory according to these novel modifications. Concurrently, the novel ideas and practices are discussed in a manner consistent with Dubin's framework for a useful theory. A comprehensive review of literature from business management and corporate training/instructional technology provide source materials for this research. The data were analyzed using the constant-comparative method, and the software application EndNote was used to manage and sort the data.; This research suggests that effective evaluation includes a socially-negotiated process of organizational sense making as well as the technical process of defining and measuring relevant variables. First-order decisions guide the organizational sense making process and consider the purpose of the evaluation, the relevant stakeholders and their agendas (positive or negative). Second-order decisions guide the more technical process of determining the relevant units, measures, and analysis methods.; This research also suggests that effective HRD evaluation requires a much broader theory base than the Kirkpatrick framework provides. A more utilitarian view of effective HRD evaluation would consider four layers of evaluation theories: micro theories that address individual people, processes, or interventions; meso theories that look at groups of people, processes, or interventions; macro theories that look at systems of people, processes, or interventions, and mega theories that look at extra-organizational factors. The proposed framework would also consider a wider range of goals, methods, and stakeholders, as well as a wider set of inputs, processes and outcomes as appropriate topics for evaluation of HRD interventions.