220:. Kirkpatrick adapted four steps he learned from influential industrial-organizational psychologist, Dr. Raymond Katzell, and applied them to his supervisory training program. The steps Kirkpatrick applied grew through organic worldwide usage and became known as The Kirkpatrick Model. Through decades of application and validation, it became the standard for demonstrating the effectiveness of training programs.
21:
167:
Level 1 solicits opinions of the learning experience following a training event or course. Typical questions concern the degree to which the experience was valuable (satisfaction), whether they felt engaged, and whether they felt the training was relevant. Training organizations use that feedback to
178:
Level 2 measures the degree to which participants acquired the intended knowledge, skills and attitudes as a result of the training. This level is used by instructors and training executives to determine if training objectives are being met. Only by determining what trainees are learning, and what
278:
is a "...time-tested method works in all sectors, such as government, military, corporate, consulting, services, and humanitarian... Popular topics for
Kirkpatrick program evaluation plans include onboarding, product and program launches, leadership development, diversity, equity, and inclusion
189:
Level 3 measures the degree to which participants’ behaviors change as a result of the training – basically whether the knowledge and skills from the training are then applied on the job. This measurement can be, but is not necessarily, a reflection of whether participants actually learned the
200:
Level 4 seeks to determine the tangible results of the training such as: reduced cost, improved quality and efficiency, increased productivity, employee retention, increased sales and higher morale. While such benchmarks are not always easy or inexpensive to quantify, doing so is the only way
201:
training organizations can determine the critical return on investment (ROI) of their training expenditures. One typical challenge is to identify whether specific outcomes are truly the result of the training. Level 4 requires both pre- and post-event measurement of the training objective.
168:
evaluate the effectiveness of the training, students’ perceptions, potential future improvements, and justification for the training expense. A variety of sources estimate that approximately 80 percent of training events include Level 1 evaluation.
248:
It is also difficult to directly link business results to specific training. Proving efficacy and return on investment (ROI) is hard since the causes are often complex and multifaceted. To do so accurately requires further resources and expertise.
89:
is probably the best known model for analyzing and evaluating the results of training and educational programs. It takes into account any style of training, both informal or formal, to determine aptitude based on four levels criteria.
190:
subject material. For example, the failure of behavioral change can be due to other circumstances such as individual’s reluctance to change. Level 3 evaluation involves both pre- and post-event measurement of the learner’s behavior.
156:
Each successive level of evaluation builds upon the evaluations of the previous level. Each successive level of evaluation adds precision to the measure of effectiveness but requires more time consuming analysis and increased costs
264:
was developed further by Donald and his son, James; and then by James and his wife, Wendy Kayser
Kirkpatrick. And in 2016, James and Wendy revised and clarified the original theory, and introduced the
245:
However, there are limitations and tradeoffs. The system can be time-consuming and requires costly investment to conduct all the pre-tests, post-tests, and analyses of learning outcomes.
69:
216:, the most recognized and widely used training evaluation model in the world. The four levels were developed in the 1950s, around the time he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation,
252:
When the
Kirkpatrick model is adapted in educational evaluation, there are pieces of evidence of the tendency to restrict evaluation to the lower levels of the model .
272:
in their book, "Four Levels of
Training Evaluation." One of the main additions is an emphasis on the importance of making training relevant to people's everyday jobs.
34:
242:
Additionally, its simple approach is highly flexible and adaptable across industries and applications, making it easy for trainers to implement the model.
179:
they are not, can organizations make necessary improvements. Level 2 can be completed as a pre- and post-event evaluation, or only as a post-evaluation.
49:
66:
Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in
Knowledge?
443:
Steele, Logan M.; Mulhearn, Tyler J.; Medeiros, Kelsey E.; Watts, Logan L.; Connelly, Shane; Mumford, Michael D. (2016-11-01).
228:
The
Kirkpatrick Model has a number of advantages that make it an attractive choice for trainers and other business leaders:
238:
Gives HR and business leaders valuable insight into their overall training programs and their impact on business outcomes
297:
367:
418:
445:"How Do We Know What Works? A Review and Critique of Current Practices in Ethics Training Evaluation"
60:
394:
39:
8:
490:
209:
472:
464:
342:
456:
334:
460:
30:
444:
322:
338:
468:
346:
56:
42:. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is
476:
223:
149:
Measures whether the application of training is achieving results
419:"How to Use the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model | Lucidchart Blog"
137:
Measures whether what was learned is being applied on the job
218:
Evaluating a Human
Relations Training Program for Supervisors
442:
125:
Measures what participants have learned from the training
491:"Kirkpatrick's Model: Analyzing Training Effectiveness"
298:"Kirkpatrick Model: Four Levels of Learning Evaluation"
113:
Measures how participants have reacted to the training
204:
235:
Works with traditional and digital learning programs
279:(DEI), safety, security, and succession planning.
224:Benefits and limitations of the Kirkpatrick Model
38:. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's
232:Provides clear evaluative steps to follow
320:
182:
171:
160:
389:
387:
362:
360:
358:
356:
295:
193:
15:
13:
205:History and Theoretical Background
14:
516:
384:
353:
314:
321:Bixler, Sarah Ann (2017-05-18).
48:Create or edit your own sandbox
19:
255:
483:
436:
411:
296:Kurt, Dr Serhat (2016-10-24).
289:
81:
1:
461:10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547
327:Journal of Youth and Theology
283:
71:Submit your draft for review!
7:
268:New World Kirkpatrick Model
44:not an encyclopedia article
10:
521:
449:Accountability in Research
212:is credited with creating
399:Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC
339:10.1163/24055093-01601003
323:"Reframing the Self(ie)"
395:"The Kirkpatrick Model"
368:"The Kirkpatrick Model"
302:Educational Technology
276:The Kirkpatrick Model
262:The Kirkpatrick Model
214:The Kirkpatrick Model
87:The Kirkpatrick Model
94:
423:www.lucidchart.com
210:Donald Kirkpatrick
184:Level 3 – Behavior
173:Level 2 – Learning
162:Level 1 – Reaction
93:
495:www.mindtools.com
372:Training Industry
195:Level 4 – Results
153:
152:
79:
78:
55:Other sandboxes:
53:
512:
505:
504:
502:
501:
487:
481:
480:
440:
434:
433:
431:
430:
415:
409:
408:
406:
405:
391:
382:
381:
379:
378:
364:
351:
350:
318:
312:
311:
309:
308:
293:
95:
92:
75:
74:
72:
61:Template sandbox
47:
23:
22:
16:
520:
519:
515:
514:
513:
511:
510:
509:
508:
499:
497:
489:
488:
484:
441:
437:
428:
426:
417:
416:
412:
403:
401:
393:
392:
385:
376:
374:
366:
365:
354:
319:
315:
306:
304:
294:
290:
286:
258:
226:
207:
198:
187:
176:
165:
155:
84:
70:
68:
67:
65:
64:
20:
12:
11:
5:
518:
507:
506:
482:
455:(6): 319–350.
435:
410:
383:
352:
313:
287:
285:
282:
281:
280:
273:
257:
254:
240:
239:
236:
233:
225:
222:
206:
203:
197:
192:
186:
181:
175:
170:
164:
159:
151:
150:
147:
139:
138:
135:
127:
126:
123:
115:
114:
111:
103:
102:
99:
83:
80:
77:
76:
45:
35:Khadene Barker
26:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
517:
496:
492:
486:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
439:
424:
420:
414:
400:
396:
390:
388:
373:
369:
363:
361:
359:
357:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
317:
303:
299:
292:
288:
277:
274:
271:
269:
263:
260:
259:
253:
250:
246:
243:
237:
234:
231:
230:
229:
221:
219:
215:
211:
202:
196:
191:
185:
180:
174:
169:
163:
158:
148:
146:
145:
141:
140:
136:
134:
133:
129:
128:
124:
122:
121:
117:
116:
112:
110:
109:
108:1 - Reactions
105:
104:
100:
97:
96:
91:
88:
73:
63:
62:
58:
51:
43:
41:
37:
36:
32:
25:
18:
17:
498:. Retrieved
494:
485:
452:
448:
438:
427:. Retrieved
425:. 2019-03-07
422:
413:
402:. Retrieved
398:
375:. Retrieved
371:
333:(1): 25–45.
330:
326:
316:
305:. Retrieved
301:
291:
275:
267:
265:
261:
256:Applications
251:
247:
244:
241:
227:
217:
213:
208:
199:
194:
188:
183:
177:
172:
166:
161:
154:
143:
142:
132:3 - Behavior
131:
130:
120:2 - Learning
119:
118:
107:
106:
101:DESCRIPTION
86:
85:
57:Main sandbox
54:
28:
144:4 - Results
82:Description
500:2022-10-05
429:2022-10-05
404:2022-10-05
377:2022-10-05
307:2022-10-05
284:References
469:0898-9621
347:1741-0819
40:user page
29:the user
477:27159494
27:This is
59:|
31:sandbox
475:
467:
345:
98:LEVEL
473:PMID
465:ISSN
343:ISSN
50:here
457:doi
335:doi
33:of
493:.
471:.
463:.
453:23
451:.
447:.
421:.
397:.
386:^
370:.
355:^
341:.
331:16
329:.
325:.
300:.
46:.
503:.
479:.
459::
432:.
407:.
380:.
349:.
337::
310:.
270:"
266:"
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.