The Traditional View of HRD Evaluation (The Four Levels)
The traditional view of HRD
evaluation, as proposed by Kirkpatrick in 1959-60, evolved in a
business context significantly
different from the current context. Like all business processes, it grew from a
set of assumptions that were likely
true at the time. As the Four Levels became more widely accepted over
time, the set of assumptions evolved
as well. The following list provides examples of these assumptions.
• The terms “evaluation” and
“evaluating effectiveness” are synonymous and can be used
interchangeably.
• Organizational decision making,
including decisions about HRD activities, is a rational process
based on objective facts.
• One approach to evaluating HRD
effectiveness (the Four Levels) is sufficient for all purposes; all
HRD interventions can be evaluated
exactly the same way.
• Stakeholders in the HRD
intervention and in its evaluation share the same agendas and outcomes
for the intervention and its
evaluation; all parties share a similar view of “success”.
• Positive results will best serve
all the agendas; positive results are more valuable than negative or
mixed results.
• Outcomes of each of the Four
Levels are related in a linear and direct manner; positive reaction
leads to positive learning which
leads to positive transfer which leads to positive results.
• All four levels are necessary for
effective HRD evaluation.
• Transfer (specific and immediate
application on the job) is the only relevant outcome of HRD
activities.
• Each “level” of outcomes is more
meaningful and valuable.
• Relevant categories of outcomes
(reaction, learning, etc.) are the same for all interventions and
purposes.
• The quantitative and/or financial
expression of outcomes is most effective and most valuable.