How do you conduct a training evaluation? Here is a quick guide on some appropriate information sources for each level.

Level 1 (Reaction)

  • completed participant feedback questionnaire
  • informal comments from participants
  • focus group sessions with participants

Level 2 (Learning)

  • pre- and post-test scores
  • on-the-job assessments
  • supervisor reports

Level 3 (Behavior)

  • completed self-assessment questionnaire
  • on-the-job observation
  • reports from customers, peers and participant’s manager

Level 4 (Results)

  • financial reports
  • quality inspections
  • interview with sales manager

When considering what sources of data you will use for your evaluation, think about the cost and time involved in collecting the data. Balance this against the accuracy of the source and the accuracy you actually need. Will existing sources suffice or will you need to collect new information?

Think broadly about where you can get information. Sources include:

  • hardcopy and online quantitative reports
  • production and job records
  • interviews with participants, managers, peers, customers, suppliers and regulators
  • checklists and tests
  • direct observation
  • questionnaires, self-rating and multi-rating
  • Focus Group sessions

Once you have completed your evaluation, distribute it to the people who need to read it. In deciding on your distribution list, refer to your previously stated reasons for conducting the evaluation. And of course, if there were lessons learned from the evaluation on how to make your training more effective, act on them!

Our downloadable products can help you plan and implement your training evaluation project.

In the beginning, Donald Kirkpatrick set forth a four-level approach to the evaluation of training in a series of articles appearing in the journal of what was then known as the American Society of Training Directors. The first of these four seminal articles was published in November of 1959. The remaining three articles were published in the succeeding three months, with the fourth and final article appearing in February of 1960. These articles can be found in Evaluating Training Programs, a collection of articles compiled by Kirkpatrick from the pages of the ASTD Journal and published by ASTD in 1975. (Fred Nickols 2000)

This revolutionary work set the stage and gave training professionals a model by which to finally measure the effectiveness of training programs. Even today, almost 30 years after the collection of Kirkpatrick’s work was published, virtually all-training programs are still assessed using this model.

In recent years there has been growing criticism of Kirkpatrick’s approach to evaluating training programs. Kevin Kurse (the e-learning guru) points out “critics of the Kirkpatrick model say that it doesn’t take the business impact far enough and that the final step in any training program should be a "fifth level" of evaluation -- financial return. This ultimate evaluation determines the financial return on investment (ROI) of the training program”.

Many of Kirkpatrick’s detractors are they themselves trapped in what we will call the Kirkpatrick paradigm. In this exemplar, the training professional makes virtually all decisions about what is important, what should be measured, what should be reported, and what constitutes return on investment for training. Frequently these determinations occur as soon as a request for training is made, and prior to any serious discussion with the requesting party. The criteria are predetermined even before the training gets off the ground.
The reporting will correspond with, and the measurements fit into the context of Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation.


Kirkpatrick’s model fails to take into account many of the factors that contribute to identifying how return on investment is identified in other business processes. These factors, which include corporate goals, corporate culture, different audience types, and the position of the process in the organization, do not neatly fit into the Kirkpatrick model.

Other components of the Kirkpatrick paradigm encompass its methodology and language. Evaluation models based on Kirkpatrick use a legacy training approach to measure the “business” impact of the activity. These “business” results are then reported in a proprietary “training” language. A valid question to ask might be, if one is trying to show business results or impact; why not use a business model and business tools to measure, and business language to report?

From the perspective of many business people, this foreign language, unfamiliar methodology, and (what to them are) meaningless reports have long been a source of frustration. The advent of the electronic delivery of training programs, and the increased capital investment required to develop training programs, has expedited this frustration and may well have made the Kirkpatrick model and the Kirkpatrick paradigm obsolete.

This article discusses how to apply a business methodology and metrics to training programs. It will present a business model that (when applied to training) will identify the correct metrics to use, the appropriate language to speak, and the right reports to present to all stakeholders.