Knowledge of the Human Performance Technology Practitioner Relative to ISPI Human Performance Technology Standards and the Degree of Standard Acceptance by the Field

Abstract

A s a fi eld, human performance technology (HPT) can be defi ned as the systematic approach to analysis and improvement of productivity and competence of human performers, traditionally in work settings. And as is the case with professional knowledge and competency standards for instructional design practice (e.g., the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction standards), similar standards of HPT knowledge have been provided by a number of professional societies oriented to the HPT fi eld, such as the International Society for Performance Improvement and the Association for Talent Development, though varying focuses in the standards are evident upon close examination. Despite the availability of the HPT fi eld and practitioner competency and knowledge standards, the degree to which practitioners within HPT resemble or practice the standards has not been the subject of signifi cant empirical research.As of the time of this writing, there has been some research into the qualitative beliefs and agreement among practitioners regarding the content and coverage of certain sets of HPT practitioner standards (e.g., Klein & Jun, 2014 ), but little has been published in the way of quantitative skills and knowledge assessment of practitioners as measured against the published standards. Th e present study is intended to examine both the qualitative and quantitative questions about the acceptance and ability Despite the availability of the human performance technology (HPT) competency standards, the degree to which practitioners within HPT practice the standards has not been the subject of signifi cant empirical research. The present study examines whether the International Society for Performance Improvement HPT standards accurately describe the threshold of competency within HPT and the degree to which practitioners apply and utilize the competency standards.

Challenges Faced by Certified Performance Technologists in Conducting Needs Assessment

“…Participants noted a lack of sufficient time, access, and support to simply perform needs assessment. These findings align with earlier research which found that many solutions are implemented without reference to needs assessment, project sponsors do not value thorough assessments of need, and analysis to specify the features of a pre‐determined solution is often substituted for needs assessment (Carliner et al, 2015; Hoard & Stefaniak, 2016; Leigh et al., 2000; Watkins et al, 1998).…”

“…Finally, even when practitioners can approach needs strategically, they may be constrained by their job roles such that they cannot evaluate the results of the needs assessments they conduct. Hoard and Stefaniak (2016) noted that there is little empirical evidence evaluating the actual skills and knowledge of HPT practitioners against standard competencies accepted by the field. The authors surveyed HPT practitioners to determine their perceptions of the HPT standards published by the ISPI and their actual use of those standards in the workplace.…”

“…However, there is general agreement on some best practices, such as assessing both current and desired states and obtaining data from multiple sources (Leigh, Watkins, Platt, & Kaufman, 2000; Watkins & Altschuld, 2014). Practitioners face a number of challenges when they conduct needs assessments, such as job role limitations (Carliner et al, 2015; Hoard & Stefaniak, 2016) and political influences (Wedman, 2014). As a result of such challenges, needs assessments described in published cases often fail to employ best practices (Kang, 2012; Witkin, 1994).…”

An Exploration of the Challenges Instructional Designers Encounter While Conducting Evaluations

“…In addition to the studies reporting insufficient knowledge of evaluative practices (Klimczak & Wedman, 1996; Sleezer et al, 1992, Guerra‐Lopez & Leigh, 2009; Chyung, 2015), employers have reported that novice instructional designers lacked the skills to conduct summative evaluations, create evaluation plans, and conduct pilot tests after instruction had been designed and developed (Villachica, Marker, & Taylor, 2010). Hoard and Stefaniak (2016) found that human performance technology practitioners benefited from the standardization of professional competencies as they reported attaining a high level of accomplishment in the competency standards set forth for their field; however, the study also reported that responsibilities for design implementation and evaluation events were delegated to others within the organization. Standardization of the evaluation process for the instructional‐design field could lead to a common understanding of evaluation through shared language, process, and, ultimately, data (Schatz, 2003).…”