The Kirkpatrick model is one of the best-known and widely used training evaluation models.

The Kirkpatrick Model is a four-level evaluation model that was developed by Don Kirkpatrick in the 1950s. It's one of the most widely used training evaluation models today, and it provides an overall picture of the effectiveness of training by measuring trainees' reaction to training, what they learned from it, whether they applied their new skills on the job (behavior), and if this resulted in improved business results.

The Kirkpatrick model is one of the best-known and widely used training evaluation models.

One of the best-known and most widely used training evaluation models is the Kirkpatrick model. It was originally developed by Don Kirkpatrick in the 1950s and has since been updated to include a fifth level: Results.

The four levels of this model are Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results.

The model was originally developed by Don Kirkpatrick in the 1950s and has since been updated.

The Kirkpatrick model is a commonly used evaluation model. It was first introduced in the 1950s, but has since been updated. The model was originally developed by Don Kirkpatrick in the 1950s and has since been updated multiple times. The most recent update occurred in 2018, which included a new requirement for more frequent training sessions to help employees stay current on procedures and policies that may change over time.

The four levels of the Kirkpatrick model are Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results.

The four levels of the Kirkpatrick model are Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. Each level measures a different aspect of the training and can provide an overall picture of the effectiveness of training.

Each level focuses on a different dimension of evaluation; when considered together, these dimensions can provide an overall picture of the effectiveness of training.

Each level focuses on a different dimension of evaluation; when considered together, these dimensions can provide an overall picture of the effectiveness of training.

• Level 1: Reaction (Is the reaction positive?)
• Level 2: Learning (Does the learner know what was taught?)
• Level 3: Behavior Change (Did they change their behavior as a result of learning?)

Level 1: Reaction. This level measures trainees' reactions to training.

The level 1 evaluation is the reaction to the training. This is not necessarily a good measure of effectiveness, as it only indicates how much trainees liked the training. It may also be an indication of how much they learned from it. The more positive reactions you get, the more likely it is that your trainings are effective in terms of delivering their intended messages and objectives.

Level 2: Learning. This level measures what trainees have learned during training.

Reactions to training are a good indicator of what people have learned, but not necessarily how much. For example, if you're looking for a measure of learning, you might use a test before and after the training to measure change in knowledge or skill. Another option is to ask participants about their perception of how much they learned during the training period.

However, there are some limitations with these methods when trying to measure the difference between reaction and learning levels:

• Reaction level measures only what trainees thought they learned while they were in training (or at any time prior). This isn't very helpful because it doesn't take into account whether or not that information stuck around long enough for them to apply it later on.
• Learning level measures what trainees actually did learn during training; however this may be difficult because we do not know what they retained from previous experience and/or exposure outside school/work settings (i.e., reading books or watching videos).

Level 3: Behavior. This level measures whether trainees apply their new skills and behaviors on the job.

Level 3: Behavior. This level measures whether trainees apply their new skills and behaviors on the job.

• Frequency of use
• Degree of improvement
• Satisfaction
• Effectiveness
• Impact on performance (i.e., cost savings or quality of work)

Level 3 is assessed by the following factors: frequency of use, degree of improvement in skill area(s), satisfaction with training results, effectiveness on the job and impact on performance (i.e., cost savings or quality of work).

Level 4: Results. This level measures whether training affected the organization's bottom line (e.g., increased productivity or decreased costs).

The results level is the ultimate goal of training. It measures whether a training program has resulted in changes that affect the bottom line (e.g., increased productivity or decreased costs).

Results are the reason why training is done, funded and planned. This level is also evaluated to determine if your program was worth all the time, effort and money you put into it during phases 1–4.

Training should improve business results

In the context of training and assessment, Kirkpatrick defines learning as a process that improves business results. This is why it's so critical to evaluate training programs based on their impact on performance and results.

• Training should not be an end in itself; it should be a means to improve business results.
• Evaluation outcomes can include increased sales, decreased costs or lower employee turnover rates - but they should also include measures such as improved customer satisfaction scores and greater efficiency levels among employees who undergo training programs designed specifically for them.

Conclusion

The Kirkpatrick model is a theoretical framework for evaluating training that has been very influential in the field. It's based on four distinct levels of evaluation: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. Each level focuses on a different dimension of evaluation; when considered together, these dimensions can provide an overall picture of the effectiveness of training. It's important to keep in mind that this model is not without its limitations (and some people even consider it outdated), but it still serves as an appropriate starting point for many organizations looking to improve their training programs by determining whether or not trainees have learned what they need to know before moving forward with implementation plans