Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation Model IT 7150 Sara Kacin Joseph Palmisano Jason Siko
Background of Model <ul><li>Originated with Ph.D. dissertation research in 1952 </li></ul><ul><li>Published in four-articl...
Level 1 – Reactions  <ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Measures how participants react to a training program </li></ul><ul><li>T...
Level 2 – Learning <ul><li>Measures the extent to which students have increased their skills, knowledge, or desired attitu...
Level 3 – Behavior <ul><li>Measures whether the training is being used on the job  </li></ul><ul><li>If training was succe...
Level 4 – Results <ul><li>Measures the effect on what the organization cares about:  the BOTTOM LINE!  </li></ul><ul><li> ...
  Strengths of Model  <ul><li>Easily understood within and outside of the field </li></ul><ul><li>Well-established and uti...
Limitations of Model  <ul><li>Too simplistic </li></ul><ul><li>Causal relationship between levels has not been proven </li...
Donald Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Born March 15, 1924, in Richland Center, WI </li></ul><ul><li>Education: University of Wisconsi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Kirkpatrick's Four Levels Of Evaluation Model

31,276 views

Published on

Published in: Sports, Automotive
  • wow
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Sara, Joseph, and Jason have done an excellent job of explaining the origin and basis of the Kirkpatrick Four Levels.

    If you would like more information, visit Don’s website at Kirkpatrickpartners.com. If you register on the site you can download free white papers, articles, diagrams, and podcasts.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Kirkpatrick's Four Levels Of Evaluation Model

  1. 1. Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation Model IT 7150 Sara Kacin Joseph Palmisano Jason Siko
  2. 2. Background of Model <ul><li>Originated with Ph.D. dissertation research in 1952 </li></ul><ul><li>Published in four-article series titled “Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs” in 1959 </li></ul><ul><li>Developed to clarify evaluation concept in four  levels : reactions, learning, behavior, and results </li></ul><ul><li>Primarily used to evaluate traditional instructor-led training programs </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Sources: Dick, W., & Johnson, R. B. (2007). Evaluation in instructional design: The impact of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., 94-103). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 54-59. </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Level 1 – Reactions <ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Measures how participants react to a training program </li></ul><ul><li>This type of questionnaire is often called a “Smile Sheet” </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Data is collected and processed using a Likert scale </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick's emphasis on customer satisfaction </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Guerra-López, I. (2008). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
  4. 4. Level 2 – Learning <ul><li>Measures the extent to which students have increased their skills, knowledge, or desired attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Pretest – Participants are tested before the program </li></ul><ul><li>Posttest – Participants are tested after training is complete </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental Group – A group that receives the training </li></ul><ul><li>Control Group – A group that does not receive the training </li></ul><ul><li>Validity – Looks at how closely matched the test items are to the actual objectives </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>
  5. 5. Level 3 – Behavior <ul><li>Measures whether the training is being used on the job </li></ul><ul><li>If training was successful, new skills should appear on job </li></ul><ul><li>Data – Performance measures, observations, interviews, and questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>Data becomes harder to obtain </li></ul><ul><li>̶ Additional time and money </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>… and more difficult to trust, e.g., Hawthorne effect </li></ul>Sources: Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design . Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Guerra-López, I. (2008). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  6. 6. Level 4 – Results <ul><li>Measures the effect on what the organization cares about:  the BOTTOM LINE! </li></ul><ul><li> ̶ Sales, productivity, profits </li></ul><ul><li>Very difficult to assess </li></ul><ul><li>̶ but necessary to document </li></ul><ul><li>Important to establish baseline data in order to document change </li></ul>
  7. 7.   Strengths of Model <ul><li>Easily understood within and outside of the field </li></ul><ul><li>Well-established and utilized throughout industrial and other professional environments </li></ul><ul><li>Has been used as basis for other evaluation models including Kaufman and Keller’s Levels and Phillips ROI Model </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>Sources: Galloway, D. L. (2005). Evaluating distance delivery and e-learning: Is Kirkpatrick’s model relevant? Performance Improvement, 44(4), 21-27. Holton, E. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21. Kaufman, R., &, Keller, J. M. (1994). Levels of evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 5(4), 371-380.
  8. 8. Limitations of Model <ul><li>Too simplistic </li></ul><ul><li>Causal relationship between levels has not been proven </li></ul><ul><li>Levels 1 and 2 are subject to bias, which may lead to erroneous conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Many organizations implement only Levels 1 and 2, thereby ignoring learning transfer which is arguably the most important outcome </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of evaluation should be expanded beyond training to include performance improvement interventions </li></ul>
  9. 9. Donald Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Born March 15, 1924, in Richland Center, WI </li></ul><ul><li>Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison, B.B.A., 1948, M.B.A., 1949, Ph.D., 1954 </li></ul><ul><li>Memberships: ASPA, ASTD (president, 1975) </li></ul><ul><li>Career status: Professor emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison. </li></ul><ul><li>Consultant to business and government. </li></ul><ul><li>Publications: Numerous including Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 2006 (first edition,1994) </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Contemporary Authors Online (2009) . Donald Kirkpatrick. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/start.do?p=LitRG&u=litedi </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul>  Photo credit: Unknown   

×