A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence
By Reid Bates. 2004
644 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Applied Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5d83f13b38a3dedc44decb79d646bc86d1d6ea2c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Applied Psychology
In Management Science and Operations Research
- Aljawharah Alsalamah
- Carol Callinan
- Anna Grohmann
- Michael Bobias Cahapay
- R. Peccei
- Simone Kauffeld
- R. Meyers
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Citations in the corpus
- Kirkpatrick Model: Its Limitations as Used in Higher Education Evaluation (2021, background): “…higher education fields and aspects (see Quintas et al., 2017 on instructional approach; Baskin, 2001 The reviews of Alliger and Janak (1989), Bates (2004), and Reio et al., (2017) help understand the current state of the Kirkpatrick model by overtly tackling its inherent limitations in the…”
- Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Criteria to Evaluate Training Programmes for Head Teachers (2021, methodology): “Although Holton [43], and Alliger and Janak [49], have criticised the hierarchical nature of the model, studies and empirical results do not provide sufficient evidence to support this assumption of its hierarchical nature [40].”
- Evaluating Training Programs: Development and Correlates of the Questionnaire for Professional Training Evaluation (2013, background): “In organizations often broader evaluation issues, such as exploring determinants of successful training transfer, have to be addressed in order to optimize future training courses (e.g. Bates, 2004).”
- Trainees' reactions to training: an analysis of the factors affecting overall satisfaction with training (2009, background): “…Allan and Birdi 1999; Blanchard, Thacker and Way 2000; Tracey, Hinkin, Tannenbaum and Mathieu 2001), including a few criticisms (e.g. Clement 1982; Alliger and Janak 1989; Tannenbaum and Woods 1992; Bates 2004; Brown 2005), and a muscular confrontation between Holton (1996) and Kirkpatrick (1996b).”