Best places to start researching

Hello everyone,

I have been working in L&D for a few years now and started my CIPD level 5 in L&D last year to gain a more in depth and strategic knowledge of the subject. 

Within the qualification I have come across a number of concepts that appear to be industry standards/current wisdom but I haven't, yet, seen any compelling evidence that they are true. They are often stated as true but not referenced or the references that I can find refer to secondary sources that don't link to original research. Alternatively, I have found original, and preliminary research but none following that.

Some examples:

  1. 70:20:10 model of learning
  2. 7%, 38%, 55% model of communication (Albert Mehrabian)
  3. VAK learning preferences 
  4. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

I am trying to be an evidence based practitioner, which I feel means that I should consult primary literature and assess its merits, withholding my judgement until such a time as that bar for evidence has been reached. However, I am finding it hard to find these primary sources to assess the veracity of these claims.

I would really appreciate it if anyone could recommend:

  1. Some research journals/locations on the internet that are good to get primary literature on topics similar to those above.
  2. Any research specific to the topics I mentioned above 
  3. Any other advice for locating/assessing evidence within the HR/L&D field.

Thank you all very much for your time, have a great week.

Tom Boyesen-Corballis

Parents
  • Hi Tom
    Just to add to Elizebeth's great advice, if you wish to interrogate psychometric testers on the notion of "validity" don't neglect to push on the specific aspect of "predictive validity" - the degree to which the test consistently predicts behaviour in line with what it claims to measure, usually invoking a "correlation coefficient" of some sort.
Reply
  • Hi Tom
    Just to add to Elizebeth's great advice, if you wish to interrogate psychometric testers on the notion of "validity" don't neglect to push on the specific aspect of "predictive validity" - the degree to which the test consistently predicts behaviour in line with what it claims to measure, usually invoking a "correlation coefficient" of some sort.
Children
No Data