Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation

Assessing training effectiveness often entails using the four-level model developed by Donald Kirkpatrick (1994). According to this model, evaluation should always begin with level one, and then, as time and budget allows, should move sequentially through levels two, three, and four. Information from each prior level serves as a base for the next level's evaluation. Thus, each successive level represents a more precise measure of the effectiveness of the training program, but at the same time requires a more rigorous and time-consuming analysis.

In Kirkpatrick's four-level model, each successive evaluation level is built on information provided by the lower level.

Level 1 Evaluation - Reactions

Just as the word implies, evaluation at this level measures how participants in a training program react to it. It attempts to answer questions regarding the participants' perceptions - Did they like it? Was the material relevant to their work? According to Kirkpatrick, every program should at least be evaluated at this level to provide for the improvement of a training program. In addition, the participants' reactions have important consequences for learning (level two). Although a positive reaction does not guarantee learning, a negative reaction almost certainly reduces its possibility.

Level 2 Evaluation - Learning

Assessing at this level moves the evaluation beyond learner satisfaction and attempts to assess the extent students have advanced in skills, knowledge, or attitude. Measurement at this level is more difficult and laborious than level one. Methods range from formal to informal testing to team assessment and self-assessment. If possible, participants take the test or assessment before the training (pretest) and after training (post test) to determine the amount of learning that has occurred.

To assess the amount of learning that has occurred due to a training program, level two evaluations often use tests conducted before training (pretest) and after training (post test).

Level 3 Evaluation - Transfer

This level measures the transfer that has occurred in learners' behavior due to the training program. Evaluating at this level attempts to answer the question - Are the newly acquired skills, knowledge, or attitude being used in the everyday environment of the learner? For many trainers this level represents the truest assessment of a program's effectiveness. However, measuring at this level is difficult as it is often impossible to predict when the change in behavior will occur, and thus requires important decisions in terms of when to evaluate, how often to evaluate, and how to evaluate.

Level 4 Evaluation - Results

Frequently thought of as the bottom line, this level measures the success of the program in terms that managers and executives can understand - increased production, improved quality, decreased costs, reduced frequency of accidents, increased sales, and even higher profits or return on investment. From a business and organizational perspective, this is the overall reason for a training program, yet level four results are not typically addressed. Determining results in financial terms is difficult to measure, and is hard to link directly with training.

Level four evaluation attempts to assess training in terms of business results. In this case, sales transactions improved steadily after training for sales staff occurred in April 1997.

Source: Elaine C. Winfrey, SDSU Graduate Student, Educational Technology; < http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/k4levels/start.htm >; < http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Admin/Biblio/index.htm >.

Keywords: higher order skills, intersubjectivity in technologies, levels of evaluation, program success, team assessment, business, Donald Kirkpatrick

Português: avaliação em educação

Donald Kirkpatrick. Available from < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kirkpatrick >. access on 22 February 2016.

KRUSE, Kevin. Evaluating e-Learning: Introduction to the Kirkpatrick Model. Disponível em < http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_8.htm >. Acesso em 1 jun. 2009.

-- GregorioIvanoff - 29 Mar 2020
to top