EMPLOYEE TRAINING EVALUATION MODEL

Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model

One of the most well-known and widely used evaluation models for training and development programs is the four-level evaluation model by Donald Kirkpatrick. Introduced in 1959, it has stood the test of critical review, gaining support over time to be one of the most widely accepted and influential models (Phillips, 2003b). Kirkpatrick formed a logical framework to examine results and impact from both individual and organizational performance perspectives (Setaro, 2001).

Kirkpatrick contends that training can be evaluated using four criteria or levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, job performance, and organizational impact (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Each of these levels have different emphases and are described based on Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006):

The reaction level determines the level of satisfaction of the participants or how they feel about the training program. Assessing how engaged the participant were, how they contributed, and how they responded assists evaluators to recognize how well the participants perceive the training program.

The learning level measures the level to of knowledge, skills, and values acquired by the participants from the program. This level measures what the participants think they will be able to perform the expected change, how assured they are that they can perform it, and how driven they are to perform it.

The behaviour level ascertains the changes in the behaviours of the participants in the work environment as a result of the program. The measurement of this level is an activity that should occur over weeks or months following the inputs that the participants received from the training program.

The impact level examines the institutional outcomes that demonstrate a good return on investment and can be attributed to the training program. Considering the institutional outcomes, a task that can be challenging is to design a method to evaluate these outcomes which are long term in nature.

 Importance of the Kirkpatrick Model:

• At Level 1, the focus is on the learner’s reactions to the program. The measurement instruments request comments about the training content, materials, instructors, facilities, delivery methods, etc. (Kirkpatrick, 1959a; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2005, 2006). This is important because positive reactions to a training program may encourage employees to attend future programs. In contrast, negative comments about the program may discourage learners from attending and/or completing the program. Both the positive and negative comments can be used to modify the program and to ensure organizational support for the training program (Reio et al., 2017). Kirkpatrick stresses that many organizations and HRD professionals are overlooking the importance of Level 1 evaluation (Kirkpatrick, 1959a; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2005, 2006).

• Level 2 is content evaluation, the examination of what employees learned as a result of participating in the training program (Reio et al., 2017). Kirkpatrick defined learning “as the extent to which participants change attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or increase skill as a result of attending the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 22). Level 2 evaluations remain the most popular level used to evaluate training programs (Bersin, 2003).

• Level 3 measures employees’ job performance by determining the extent to which employees apply their newly acquired knowledge and skills on the job (Kirkpatrick, 1960a). This level of evaluation is critical, as it addresses the issue of learning transfer. If employees do not apply what they learned to their job, the training effort cannot have an impact on the organizational results (Level 4). No final results can be expected unless a positive change in behavior (performance) occurs (Reio et al., 2017). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006) noted that the evaluation of behavior is more complicated, difficult, and time-consuming than the reaction and learning evaluations, Levels 1 and 2.

• At Level 4, organizations seek business results for their training efforts. At this level,  organizations attempt to measure actual organizational changes due to training, and place a monetary and/or numerical value on those changes (Reio et al., 2017). Programs that target increased sales, reduced accidents, lowered turnover, decreased costs, or increased production can often be evaluated in terms of results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2005, 2006).

By analyzing each of these four levels, a trainer can gain a thorough understanding of how effective the training was and how it can be improved in the future.

Implementation of the Kirkpatrick Model in the organization:

I worked at a leading international advertising agency and a key area focused in the organization HRD was employee training and development. On a monthly basis internal workshops as well as online LMS training sessions were conducted for employees, but at most times there was no such training evaluation model followed by the organization HRD, therefore I suggest the Kirkpatrick Model is a perfect model to follow.

The following Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation of training programmes to employees is recommended (Alsalamah, et al., 2021),

Levels	Learning in Training Programmes for employees	Measurement Instruments
Reaction	Trainees’ reaction to trainers, training delivery and training environment	Questionnaire immediately after completion of training
Learning	Direct measures of learning outcomes achieved by trainees (knowledge, skills and attitudes)	Questionnaire immediately after completion of training
Behaviour	Measures of change in performance of trainees after completing training	Questionnaire that includes both open-ended and closed-ended questions, as well as interviews or observations to collect data from trainees and/or their supervisors three months after the completion of the training programme
Results	Personal development, development of leadership skills, effect on job development and effect on client achievement	Interviews with supervisors, conducted three months after the completion of the training programme

Reference List: 

Alsalamah, A.; Callinan, C. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Criteriato Evaluate Training Programmes for Head Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11,116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11030116.

Bersin, J. (2003, June). E-learning analytics. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/jun2003/bersin.htm

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rded.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kirkpatrick D. L, & Kirkpatrick J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publication.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960a). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Behavior. American Society for Training and Development Journal, 19, 13-18.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959a). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Reaction. American Society for Training and Development Journal, 18, 3-9.

Phillips, P. P. (2003b). Training evaluation in the public sector. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, 2003). Dissertation Abstract International, A64/09, 215.

Setaro, J. (2001, June). Many happy returns: Calculating e-learning ROI. Retrieved December 6, 2004, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/jun2001/Elearn.ht

Thomas G. Reio, Jr., T. S. Rocco, D. H. Smith, E.Chang (2017). A Critique of Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development 29(2), pp.35-53.