Abstract
In a critique on the research of C.A. Bowers, F. Jentsch, E. Salas, and C.C. Braun published in this journal issue, P.M. Sanderson and P.J. Benda suggest several concerns with Bowers and colleagues' characterization and utilization of the exploratory sequential data analysis (ESDA) approach. In this response, the authors consider each of the concerns in the context of training needs analysis. They conclude that the ESDA framework appears to hold promise as a training needs analysis tool. However, further dialogue between the experts in the ESDA approach and those in training is required to realize this potential.