The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The flawed four‐level evaluation model
Abstract
The lack of research to develop further a theory of evaluation is aglaring shortcoming for human resource development (HRD). In this paper, 1 argue that the four‐level system of training evaluation is really a taxonomy of outcomes and is flawed as an evaluation model Research is needed to develop a fully specified and researchable evaluation model. Such a model needs to specify outcomes correctly, account for the effects of intervening variables that affect outcomes, and indicate causal relationships. I propose a new model based on existing research and accounts for the impact of the primary intervening variables such as motivation to learn, trainability, job attitudes, personal characteristics, and transfer of training conditions. A new role for participant reactions is specified. Key studies supporting the model are reviewed and a research agenda proposed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Cited by
The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612436661 · Cited by 1,104
A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS AMONG TRAINING CRITERIA
ALLIGER, G. M., TANNENBAUM, S. I., BENNETT, W., TRAVER, H., & SHOTLAND, A. (1997) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x · Cited by 948
A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence
Bates, R. (2004) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011 · Cited by 623
Surr, C. A., Gates, C., Irving, D., Oyebode, J., Smith, S. J., Parveen, S., Drury, M., & Dennison, A. (2017) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654317723305 · Cited by 327
Learning and Satisfaction in Webinar, Online, and Face-to-Face Instruction: A Meta-Analysis
Ebner, C., & Gegenfurtner, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00092 · Cited by 213
Human resource development and its underlying theory
Swanson, R. A. (2001) · Human Resource Development International · doi:10.1080/13678860126440 · Cited by 193
Virtual training: Making reality work?
Bertram, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cress, U. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.032 · Cited by 137
Surr, C. A., & Gates, C. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.08.002 · Cited by 107
FORMATIVE EVALUATION: AN INTEGRATIVE PRACTICE MODEL AND CASE STUDY
BROWN, K. G., & GERHARDT, M. W. (2002) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00137.x · Cited by 86
Bierema, L. L. (2001) · New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education · doi:10.1002/ace.40 · Cited by 73
Gkioka, M., Schneider, J., Kruse, A., Tsolaki, M., Moraitou, D., & Teichmann, B. (2020) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-200741 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Holton, E. F.
- Venue
- Human Resource Development Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-21
- ISSN
- 1044-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1096
- OpenAlex
- W2084253178
- Cited by
- 960
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
