Responses of 32 Officers and 1 Non Commissioned Officer, of the Royal New Zealand Navy, to three return on investment (ROI) training reports were investigated. The three report types were presented as a function of two ROI calculations: Critical Outcome Technique, and Utility Analysis - with Utility Analysis being used as the basis for two of the three reports. Participants were placed into one of three groups, each group consisted of 11 participants. Each participant group was presented with one of the three report types. Responses from participants were gained using a survey instrument for two constructs: perceived usefulness, and perceived understanding and clarity. The results of this study replicated the findings of previous studies in this area (i.e. Carson, Becker & Henderson, 1998; Macan & Foster, 2004). An analysis of quantitative data using Kruskal-Wallis statistical test failed to show significantly different perceptions of either perceived usefulness, or perceived understanding and clarity between the three groups. While the presented reports lacked high levels of support from participants, the findings of Latham and Whyte’s study (1994) are brought further into question (i.e. Cronshaw, 1997; Macan & Foster, 2004) as utility analysis based reports did not negatively influence participants on the uptake of the hypothetical training initiative. Content analysis of the qualitative data, revealed a number of potential factors which may have caused a lack of significance between report type preferences. Most critically these causes may not be limited to this this study alone, but may have implications for both previous and future studies into ROI acceptance.