Organisational Culture and Work Performance

The Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model is perhaps the best-known model for analysing and evaluating training results and educational programs. The model was developed by Donald Kirkpatrick, a former Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, and it was first published in 1959. The model was then updated in 1975 and 1993 after Kirkpatrick published “Evaluating Training Programs.” Each successive level of the model represented a more precise measure of the effectiveness of a training program. It was developed further by Donald and his son, James and then later on by James and his wife, Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick. However, in 2016, James and Wendy revised and clarified the original theory which introduced the “Four Levels of Training Evaluation” in their book “New World Kirkpatrick Model”. A primary addition was the significant emphasis on the training relevance. This model takes into account any style of training, both informal or formal, to determine aptitude based on four (4) levels criteria.

According to the Kirkpatrick Partners (2018), the four levels can be detailed as follows:

Results at Level One are typically measured by means of post-training questionnaires which encourage participants to appraise criteria such as the topic, materials, and instructor. Reaction level evaluation is popular with training professionals as it is relatively easy to administrate and provides immediate information to managers and supervisors about how valuable participants found the programme. Reaction is performed to measure the level of reaction designed to know the opinions of the participants on the training program. Indeed, participants’ subjective responses may be influenced by a wide variety of personal factors, from a lack of interest in the topic to personal problems and distractions. Clearly, organisations need to consider further, complementary levels of evaluation to generate a more holistic view of training’s impact.

Level 2: Learning:

Learning results are frequently measured either by end-of-training examination or by participants’ self-assessment about whether learning expectations have been met. Thus, a Pre-Test given prior to the training session and the Post-Test after a program, will be able to gauge the absorption extent of the participants. This is provided the content of both tests are similar with the exact number of questions and sequence, and the training implication and impact can be further acknowledged by running a statistically significant t-test. The evaluation method remains open to criticism about participants’ subjectivity and whether participants can transfer and apply their training knowledge to the workplace. Thus, Level Two, like Level One, remains a useful source of information, but is not substantiated by hard facts and therefore cannot be relied on exclusively as a measure of effectiveness.

Level 3: Behaviour:

The 3^rd level aims to measure the continuity between learning and practice by assessing how training participants apply their new knowledge and skills in the workplace. Conventionally, this would be assessed subjectively by supervisors, whose evaluation skills and working relationships with the employee would inevitably vary greatly. However, now being in the Industrial Revolution 4.0 era and adoption of Big Data analytics and Internet of Things (IoT), technological solutions are instead used to objectively and consistently assess if a participant can apply their knowledge and skills to perform tasks, take actions and solve problems.  Thus, Level Three evaluation attempts to address the barriers that Levels One and Two both disregarded. By this, it contributes to an organisation’s understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of its training and development process.

The Return of Investment (ROI) is evaluated at Kirkpatrick’s fourth level by producing evidence of how training has a measurable impact on an organisation’s performance. Hard data, such as sales, costs, profit, productivity, and quality metrics, are used to quantify the benefits and to justify or improve subsequent training and development activities. For business leaders, this is arguably the most important level of evaluation. Yet, it is also the most difficult level to understand, define and execute well. Not only is it necessary to identify the most relevant measures, but it is also essential to attribute any change in those measures to the intervention of training.

Kirkpatrick’s four-level framework is a simple, flexible and comprehensible means of evaluating the business impact of training. Its enduring influence on evaluation methods used by training professionals today is a testament to its adaptability and practicality.  Each level of evaluation is intended to fulfil the fundamental requirement of the training program, with an overview of the whole-business impact. All levels are important as they contain diagnostic checkpoints enabling root cause analysis of any problems identified. Thus, if the model is correctly applied, the evaluation framework is definitely beneficial to an organisation.

By
Dr. Dayana N. H. Chaskar