Donald Kirkpatrick’s ‘Four Level Evaluation Model’
The importance of each level
Emma Taylor
201007376
Human Resource Management
November 28, 2013
Dr. S. Litz
Research question:
How is each level of Donald Kirkpatrick's ‘Four Level Evaluation Model’ equally
important in determining the success of workplace training?
Donald Kirkpatrick's 'Four Level Evaluation Model', published in 1959, is an evaluation
methodology used for both training processes and learning processes. "Each successive level of
evaluation builds upon the evaluations of the previous level adding precision to the measure of
effectiveness but requires more time consuming analysis and increased costs" (Newman & Tan,
2013). The levels begin with with reaction; a measurement of how participants reacted to the
training, followed by learning; a measurement of what participants learned from the training,
behaviour; a measurement of how of the information is being applied to the workplace, and
finally, results; a measurement of whether or not the training achieved results. Freitag (1998)
states that no matter how small or large your organization is, you will be able to apply one or
more levels in evaluating your programs. Any organization, looking to either change the
behaviour of employees or improve overall results can use Kirkpatrick's evaluation model "…the
end result is simply to increase knowledge, improve skills and change attitudes" (Freitag, 1998).
In order for Donald Kirkpatrick's evaluation model to be most effective, managers must
encourage employee training. As stated by Levinson (1988), managers are the leader in any
organization. If they do not support the training, employees will not want to participate which
promises a negative reaction before training begins. Kirkpatrick (2006), actually encourages
managers to participate in the training and will therefore evaluate themselves along with others.
By allowing the so called 'evaluators' to participate in the training, they can better understand
why and how the other trainees react as they do, which then further leads to the next three levels.
When the managers or 'evaluators' comprehend the importance of the initial reaction, they then
develop understanding of why each level serves importance in the overall evaluation. Managerial
involvement decreases the craving for immediate results and instead, promotes the full, four
level evaluation to best assess the effectiveness of the training (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
The primary level of Kirkpatrick's model is termed reaction. Though it is the least
complex of the four levels, it holds importance to the overall assessment of the training. It has
been illustrated that when participants have a positive response to the program, their chances of
learning are improved (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Depending on if the employee has a positive or
negative reaction to the training program it can have overreaching affects. By having a positive
reaction, they are more likely to be motivated to apply what they have learned in the workplace.
Yet, if an employee has a negative reaction to the training, they are less likely to apply any new
knowledge to the workplace and typically will not recall what they have been taught. Proceeding
this primary level, employees evaluate the value of their training. However, this level cannot
prove the training performance potential as it is near impossible to identify whether trainees were
able to obtain new knowledge and skills that they would then apply into the work environment.
Nonetheless, trainees' interest, attitude and motivation often illustrate the success of the program.
At the end of the training, every employee is presented with the opportunity to assess its
importance. As a result, the assessment is reflected in the employees' motivation in the
workplace (Enkuzena & Kliedere, 2011).
In level two of Kirpatrick's model, learning, the question of "whether the employee
learned anything" should be answered. (Freitag, 1998). This is often measured by giving a pretraining quiz to identify the employee’s prior knowledge, along with a follow-up quiz to
determine exactly what they learned from the training session. Not only does this indicate which
parts of the training were successful, it will often reflect the effort set forth by the trainees to
acquire new information, which could be applied in the workplace. As a manager, it is important
to determine a 'training goal'. Using this goal as a guideline will simplify the process of
identifying what knowledge has been obtained, what skills have been developed or improved and
how attitudes have changed. Freitag (1998) states that learning has taken place when one or more
of the following have occurred: attitudes are changed, knowledge is increased, and skills are
improved. Learning, though not the most complex to evaluate of the four levels, may be the most
important. Without increasing knowledge, changing attitudes or improving skills, a behavioural
change will not occur, therefore results will remain unchanged.
Behaviour, level three of Kirkpatrick's model stresses importance to observe whether the
trainees behaviour on the job has changed as a result of the training program (Chhinzer et al,
2013). Managers will likely be able to detect a positive change if employees begin to apply new
knowledge into the workplace. These positive behavioural changes are key in determining
whether or not the training program was useful in accordance to the trainees. Behaviour will not
necessarily reveal a change in results for the company, but will reveal a change in employee
attitudes and actions. "Set objectives in terms of behaviours they will have when they return and
results that you expect" (Kirkpatrick, 2006). By implementing objections, they will work as a
guideline for employees and help change their behaviour to better themselves and the company.
In order to evaluate if these goals have been met it is important to hire evaluators. Many
companies do not understand the power of an evaluation and simply compare the trainees preknowledge to their post-knowledge. Not only can these evaluators improve the training
programs, they can reinforce mission-critical behaviour on the job and demonstrate the value of
their efforts (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007).
The final level of Kirkpatrick's model, results, is the most complex and arguably the most
important of the four levels as it is where effectiveness of the training is evaluated. At this level,
the measurement of the gains in the units of money, effectiveness, moral and teamwork occur
(Enkuzena & Kliedere, 2011). When observing the evaluation process of the primary level,
reaction, to the final level, behaviour, the evaluation process becomes more complex and
increasingly important. Though evaluating the previous levels are more simplistic, they are
necessary in order to continue onto the evaluation of the next three. It is impossible to determine
whether the results were an outcome of the training without assessing levels one through three.
That being said, Enkuzena & Kliedere (2011) state that the evaluation of the fourth level proves
the most significant as it evaluates business results achieved in relation with the training received
by employees. It is important to closely scrutinize results to assess if they reflect your
implemented goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007). With these results, managers can either
continue, adjust or even eliminate the training depending on the overall company impact.
In conclusion, all four levels of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model are substantial when
assessing workplace training effectiveness. Each level of the model, though considerably
different, are equally important when determining whether or not the training was successful.
Kirkpatrick (2006), states that you cannot skip a level in this evaluation, though it is typical for
managers to skip immediately to results. A common misinterpretation by employers is that the
levels are presented in an order of succeeding importance, when actually, the previous level is
necessary in determining the effectiveness of the next level. For example, without indicating
exactly what a trainee has learned from a training session, it is impossible to determine whether
their behaviour change is relevant to the training or be it coincidental (Freitag, 1998). All levels,
though different in terms of complexity, have proven to be equally effective and important, with
each level justifying a different purpose or function. Kirkpatrick's 'Four Level Evaluation Model',
when assessed in order from level one through four by proper evaluators, has proven to be an
useful measurement tool of workplace training effectiveness.
References
Dessler., Cole. (2014): Human Resources Management in Canada. Toronto: Pearson .
(12E) 172-175
Freitag, H. (1998). Identifying the four levels. Evaluating sales training. 7-19.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2006). Prepare for Evaluation. 1-2.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training . The Four Levels, 2(2), 3-15.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2007). Implementing the four levels. The Four Levels ,
1(1), 1-8.
Levinson, H., (1988). Managers and leaders . Designing and Managing Your Career, 1(2), 3035.
Newman, E., & Tan, K. (2013). The evaluation of sales force training in retail. 30(2), 692-702.
O'Toole, S., , , & , (2009). Kirkpatrick on evaluation . 1-3.