Description:
The Kirkpatrick Taxonomy is a globally recognised, four-level model used to evaluate the effectiveness of training and learning programmes. The levels are hierarchical and represent an increasing complexity of measurement.
Level 1: Reaction: This level measures how participants react to the training. It is typically assessed with post-training satisfaction surveys (e.g., 'happy sheets') to gauge their feelings about the content, instructor, and facilities.
Level 2: Learning: This level assesses the extent to which participants have advanced in skills, knowledge, or attitude. It is measured through tests, assessments, or practical demonstrations before and after the training.
Level 3: Behavior: This level evaluates the degree to which participants apply what they learned when they are back on the job. Measurement occurs through workplace observations, performance reviews, and feedback from managers.
Level 4: Results: This level measures the direct impact of the training on business outcomes. It focuses on tangible results such as increased productivity, reduced costs, improved quality, or higher profits.
Evaluation:
The model's primary strength is its logical, simple, and comprehensive structure, which has led to its widespread adoption. It provides a clear framework for demonstrating the value of training by linking it to tangible business results (Level 4).
However, the model faces significant criticism. A major weakness is its implied causal linkage; it assumes a linear progression where positive reactions lead to learning, which in turn leads to behaviour change and desired results. Research has shown this is not always the case. Furthermore, isolating the impact of training on business results (Level 4) is notoriously difficult due to numerous confounding variables. Finally, conducting evaluations at Levels 3 and 4 can be time-consuming, complex, and expensive.
Explanation:
The Kirkpatrick Taxonomy provides a four-level framework (Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results) to measure training effectiveness, from initial participant satisfaction to ultimate business impact. Its key strength is its simple, logical structure that helps organisations justify training expenditure by connecting it to tangible outcomes. However, the model is widely criticised for its flawed assumption of a causal chain between the levels (e.g., a positive reaction does not guarantee learning or behaviour change). Additionally, measuring the higher levels, particularly isolating the specific impact of training on business results (Level 4) from other influencing factors, is a significant practical challenge and can be resource-intensive.
References:
1. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. This is the foundational text outlining the model. The description of the four levels is detailed throughout Chapters 3-6.
2. Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331–342. This academic review provides a critical evaluation of the model. The authors question the hierarchical structure and the interrelationships between the levels, stating, "the levels are not arranged in any necessary causal order" (p. 339).
3. Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920070103 This paper critiques the model's simplicity and failure to account for other variables. Holton argues that the model is "incomplete because it fails to include factors such as individual motivation and environmental influences" which are critical for learning transfer (p. 10).
4. Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00200.x Bates critiques the model as more of a "taxonomy or classification heuristic" than a true evaluation model (p. 97). He highlights the difficulty and cost associated with implementing the higher levels of evaluation.
