image source -http://www.astdla.org/Resources/Pictures/Kirkpatrick%20Evaluation%20Model.png
The Kirkpatrick Model of
Training Evaluation
Donald
Kirkpartick has developed a very popular evaluation model that has been used
since the late 1950s by the training community. The focus is on measuring four
kinds of outcomes that should result from a highly effective training program.
Kirkpatrick’s
model includes four levels or steps of outcome evaluation:
· Level 1 Evaluation—Reaction
· Level 2 Evaluation—Learning
· Level 3 Evaluation—Behavior
· Level 4 Evaluation—Results
I
will discuss each of these steps in some detail, including how to design these
evaluations.
Level 1—Reaction
Here
your goal is to measure participants’ reactions to the training program. You
should measure their reactions immediately after the program. Level one
evaluation should not just include reactions toward the overall program (e.g.,
Did you like the program?); it should also include measurement of participants’
reactions or attitudes toward specific components of the program, such as the
instructor, the topics, the presentation style, the schedule, audiovisuals,
etc. Furthermore, each of these components can be further broken down into
sub-components for evaluation (e.g., you can ask participants to evaluate
specific characteristics of the instructor, the presentation, etc.). In short,
level one evaluation is far more than just the measurement of overall
customer satisfaction.
Learning
(Level two outcomes) and transfer of learning (Level three outcomes) are
unlikely to occur unless participants have positive attitudes toward the
training program. Therefore, it is important to determine participants’
reactions to the training program. Also, positive reactions are important
because managers are more likely to eliminate unpopular training programs.
Finally, the measurement of specific aspects of the training program can
provide important information about what aspects of the training program can be
improved in the future.
Level
1 evaluation relies on the measurement of attitudes, usually through the use of
a questionnaire. It is important to include closed-ended items (including
rating scales) as well as open-ended items on your questionnaire. Here are two
open-ended items that I like:
· In your view, what were the
three most important weaknesses of the program?
· In your view, what were the
three most important strengths of the program?
It
is important to learn the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, in order to
improve a program. Do not be afraid to ask about program weaknesses!
When
having participants fill out questionnaires, it is best not to have them put
their names on the instruments because of the advantages of anonymity over
confidentiality. If they do not put their names on the instruments, you can
assure anonymity and they may be more
likely to be more honest in their answers.
The
following point applies to all four levels of Kirkpartick’s outcome evaluation,
but I will only state it here: Evaluators should establish performance standards
on the outcomes, when possible, so that the four steps in the logic of
evaluation can be utilized and evaluative judgments can be made. Also, don’t
forget Kirkpatrick’s last piece of advice to communicate the results because
utilization of evaluation results will not happen without dissemination and
communication.
Here
are a few advantages of level one evaluation:
· You will know how the
participants felt about the training event.
· It may point out content
areas that trainees felt were missing from the training event.
· It will tell you how engaged
the participants felt by the training event.
· It can provide information
about overall participant reaction as well as participant feedback and
evaluation of specific aspects of the training event.
· Detailed level one
evaluation can provide formative evaluation information that can be used
to improve future versions of the training program (e.g., you can fix the
things the participants disliked about the program and add the things they felt
was missing).
Level 2—Learning
Here
your goal is to determine what the training program participants learned during
the training event. Because the training instructor should have specific learning
objectives, one hopes to find clear learning outcomes. Learning outcomes
can include changes in knowledge (e.g., What are the key differences
between Windows 95 and Windows ME?), skills (Can the participant upload
a new operating system to a computer), or attitudes (Have participants’
attitudes toward computers improved?). Some training events will emphasize
knowledge, some will emphasize skills, some will emphasize attitudes, and some
will emphasize multiple learning outcomes. The evaluation should focus on
measuring what was covered in the training event (i.e., the learning
objectives).
Level
two evaluation should be done immediately after the training event to determine
if participants gained the knowledge, skills, or attitudes. A couple of issues
here are (a) how shall one measure knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and (b)
what research design should be use to demonstrate improvement in level two
outcomes?
First,
let’s talk about the measurement of level two outcomes. Knowledge is
typically measured using already available or instructor constructed achievement
tests (i.e., tests designed to measure the degree of learning
that has taken place). In the training environment, these tests are usually
criterion-referenced. Note that norm-referenced tests are
traditional standardized tests that are constructed to maximize individual
differences and to allow comparison of individuals to an external norming
group. A normal curve often characterizes the performance distribution of the
norming group. In contrast, criterion-referenced tests are
constructed to determine whether learners have mastered one or more learning
objectives and these tests include a cutoff point (pass/fail). The results of
criterion-referenced tests often take the form of a negatively skewed
curve, where the vast majority of the learners have reached or surpassed the
criterion or cut-off point (i.e., the point at which one must reach in order to
pass the test) and only a few learners have lower scores. In constructing a
criterion-referenced test, you should develop a pool of items potentially
measuring the content, have a panel of experts examine the items, pilot test
the selected items, and analyze each item for item difficulty (i.e., the
percentage of people who answer the item correctly), item discrimination
(i.e., the high performers should be more likely to get the item correct than
low performers if it is a good item), and distractor effectiveness (are
the distractors working well?). Eliminate items with poor performance on
difficulty (i.e., items that are too hard or too simple), discrimination (i.e.,
items that the low/less knowledgeable performers are more likely to get correct
than the high/knowledgeable performers), and items whose distractors do not
work well (e.g., an item where all incorrect responses are for only one
distractor).
Skills typically require some kind
of motor or manual response on the examinee’s part, or some kind of
manipulation; therefore, a performance test is used. A
performance test is just a test that requires the test taker to create a
product or demonstrate a process. Obviously the goal is to determine whether
each person can perform the skills they have been taught in the training event.
For example, if the learning objective was to learn to make repairs to
computers, a performance test would be required to determine whether a person
can install a power supply or a computer chip in a computer. If the learning
objective was to learn how to make effective public speeches, the participants
would need to be evaluated on actual speeches that they give to the group. Some
performance elements can be included on
traditional paper-and-pencil tests (e.g., essay writing, drawing skills,
etc.). In the training environment, performance tests are likely to be
criterion-referenced (i.e., participants’ scores are compared to a cutoff
point).
Attitudes are measured with questionnaires
similar to the questionnaires described for level one evaluation. You will
typically have the participants give their ratings for various items
(responding with Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree
or with other rating scales), and you should include some open-ended items to
allow participants to respond in their own words (e.g., How do you feel about
diversity in the workplace?).
Second,
Kirkpartick also briefly discusses the issue of research design. He
suggests that you include a control group in your design when possible,
and he briefly mentions using a pretest measure when possible.
To
give you a better idea of the design issues here, I will review several experimental
research designs. For more information on these designs, go to Johnson/Christensen’s
Educational Research and/or read about them in the lectures on the homepage for
our textbook (at
http://www.coe.usouthal.edu/bset/Faculty/BJohnson/Homepage/Supporting/textbook.htm)
Visual
Depiction
of the Design Design Name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
X O2 Posttest-only
nonequivalent
O4 control group design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
O1 X O2 One-group pretest-posttest design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
O1 X O2 Pretest-posttest
nonequivalent
---------------- control group design
O3 O4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
R O1 X O2 Randomized
pretest-posttest
R O3 O4 control group design
(Note: this
design has random assignment
to
groups)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
O1
O2 O3 O4
X O5 O6 O7
O8 Interrupted time-series design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here
is the basic logic of analysis for each of the designs just listed. The counterfactual,
discussed in an earlier lecture, is estimated slightly differently in some of
these designs, which means that the comparison may be different from design to
design. Generally, you will check each of the following comparisons for
practical significance.
· For the posttest-only
nonequivalent control group design you compare the two posttest means (i.e., O2
with O4)
· For the one-group
pretest-posttest design you compare the pretest mean with the posttest mean
(i.e., O2 with O1)
· For the pretest-posttest
nonequivalent control group design you compare the change in the experimental
group (O2 minus O1) with the change in the control group
(O4 minus O3)
· For the randomized
pretest-posttest control group design you compare the change in the
experimental group (O2 minus O1) with the change in the
control group (O4 minus O3). The word “randomized” in the
title of this design means that the participants must be randomly assigned
to the groups, which “equates” the groups on extraneous variables.
· For the interrupted
time-series design, you compare the baseline series results (O1 O2
O3 O4) with the experimental series results (O5
O6 O7 O8), looking for differences in slope
and differences in level of outcome.
Note
that the posttest-only nonequivalent control group design is by far the weakest
of the designs shown above (because you have no idea what group differences
existed before the intervention), and the strongest design is the randomized
pretest-posttest control group design because the groups are formed through
random assignment (which makes the groups probabilistically equal on all known
and unknown extraneous variables).
With
the above review of the commonly used research designs, Kirkpartick’s
discussion of designs should make a little more sense. Kirkpartick tends to
take a very pragmatic stance toward design, claiming that one should use the
best design possible, but, at the same time, one should also consider what is
cost effective and practical to use in the organization undergoing evaluation.
He believes that some data are virtually always better than no data at all.
Here
are few advantages of level two evaluation:
· Demonstrating participant
learning should help trainers in promoting their training program.
· Knowledge of level two
evaluation can help in interpreting the results of level three evaluation
(e.g., if level three results do not occur, it may because of workplace factors
and not because of any flaw in the training program).
· Detailed level two
evaluation can provide formative evaluation information that can be used
to improve future versions of the training program (e.g., you may find certain
learning objectives that are not being met).
Level 3—Behavior
Here
your goal is to find out if training program participants change their
on-the-job-behavior (OJB) as a result of their having attended and participated
in the training program. If the behavior change does not occur, you also want
to find out why the change did not occur. The level three question is, Did the
training have a positive effect on job performance? Level three evaluation
specifically involves measuring the transfer of knowledge, skills,
and attitudes from the training context to the workplace.
Remember
that level one and level two outcomes are still important because participants
generally need to react positively to the training program (level 1 outcome)
and they need to learn the material (level 2 outcome) if they are going to be
motivated and able to apply what they have learned when they return to their
jobs.
Learning
is likely to transfer only if the conditions in the work setting are
favorable for transfer. In addition, there are obviously many things that
trainers can do to increase the likelihood of transfer. In other words,
transfer is affected by “training factors” before trainees go back to their
workplace as well as “workplace factors” that operate in their workplace when
they return. Here are two sets of factors that make transfer more likely to
occur:
A.
These are some factors in the training program or event that can help
facilitate transfer of learning:
· The training or learning
environment or context or culture is made to be similar to the actual work
environment or context or culture of the organization (this is called situated
learning). Learning that takes place in “authentic” contexts is more
likely to by used later.
· Provide real world examples
and actual experience performing and practicing the behaviors.
· Make sure trainees
understand the general principles behind the behaviors (called “transfer
through principles”).
· Explain the importance and
applicability of the future on-the-job behaviors (i.e., motivate the trainees)
B.
These are some factors in the receiving organization that can help
facilitate transfer of learning:
· The organizational culture
and climate support change.
· The participant’s direct
supervisor and others with whom he or she works support and/or facilitate the
participant’s new behaviors through direct extrinsic rewards such as
help, encouragement, praise, increased freedom and responsibility, pay
increases, and recognition.
· The participant gains intrinsic
reinforcement from applying his or her new knowledge, skills, or attitudes
(i.e., he or she likes what was learned and enjoys performing the new related
behaviors).
· The participant has the opportunity
to use his or her new knowledge or skills on the job.
So
how does one design a level three evaluation? Here are Kirkpartick’s
recommendations:
1.
Use a control group if possible. That is, use the strongest design that is
feasible.
2.
Allow time for the behavior change to take place.
3.
Evaluate both before and after the program if practical. Again, use the
strongest design that is feasible.
4.
Survey and/or interview one or more of the following: trainees, their immediate
supervisor,
their subordinates, and others who often observe their behavior. The more the
evidence, the better.
5.
Get 100 percent response or a sampling.
6.
Repeat the evaluation at appropriate times.
7.
Consider cost versus benefits.
Level
three is often harder than level one and level two evaluation because behavior changes
at the workplace are often harder to measure than reaction and learning
directly after the training event. You must give the behavior time to transfer
and collect data at the workplace.
Probably
the most common design used for level three evaluation is the one-group
pretest-posttest design (i.e., get a baseline measure of the behavior you
plan on training, train the participants, and then measure the participants’
behavior again after the training). If you are able to include a control group,
you will be able to use the pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group
design (i.e., in addition to measuring the training participants before and
after the training, you also find a set of similar people, who do not undergo
training for the control group, and you measure these control group
participants’ behavior before and after the training program). Earlier (above)
I showed the comparisons you make for the different designs during data
analysis.
In
the one-group pretest-posttest design the estimate of the counterfactual
(i.e., what would have happened to the participants if they had not
participated in the training) is the participants’ pretest measure. In the
pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group design, the estimate of the
counterfactual is the change taking place in the control group. Remember: you
want the change in the training group to be greater than the counterfactual
change.
Note
that it would be really nice to be able to use the randomized
pretest-posttest control group design; however, usually, random assignment to
the training and nontraining groups will not be feasible.
Kirkpartick
also discusses another popular design for measuring transfer of learning (i.e.,
for measuring level three outcomes). He never labels the approach, but it is
formally called the retrospective survey design. He points out
that you can survey (using questionnaires or interviews) the training
participants, the participants’ supervisors or managers, and the participants’
subordinates. The design is called a “retrospective” design because you are
asking the participants (or the others) to think back (i.e., in retrospect) to
their behavior before the training program and then compare it to their
current level of behavior, and, finally, to decide if the behavior has changed.
You should ask for specific examples behavior changes. You can also use the
retrospective survey design with the training participants’ managers and
subordinates, asking them if the participant’s behavior has changed. The more corroboration
you get across the different sources, the stronger the evidence of transfer.
The
retrospective survey design is generally is a weaker design than the
experimental designs discussed earlier because the actual pretest behavior is
not measured directly. However, the retrospective survey can still provide
useful and sometimes convincing data. Kirkpatrick speaks highly of the
retrospective design, probably because it is so simple to carry out and because
it tends to be cost effective (i.e., it doesn’t cost a lot of money to
administer questionnaires).
Here
are a few advantages of level three evaluation:
· Provides measurement of actual
behavior on the job, rather than only measuring or demonstrating positive
reaction and/or learning. This is important because you want to have actual on-the-job
results from the training program.
· Level three outcomes are
required for level four outcomes (i.e., they are the intervening variables or
factors that lead to level four outcomes); therefore, it is good news when
level three outcomes are found.
· Most level three outcomes
are intrinsically useful, even if level four outcomes (i.e., final organizational
or business results) are never fully demonstrated (e.g., it is useful to have
managers who are effective listeners and supportive, or employees who know how
to do basic work on their computers, or employees who act respectfully toward
employees from different ethnic or cultural groups).
·
In many situations, evidence of level one outcomes, level two outcomes,
and level three outcomes will be sufficient evidence of the merit and
usefulness of a training program. This is especially true when all of these
provide evidence of positive results of the training program.
Level 4—Results
Here
your goal is to find out if the training program led to final results,
especially business results that contribute to the “bottom line” (i.e.,
business profits). Level four outcomes are not limited return on training
investment (ROI). Level four outcomes can include other major results that
contribute to the well functioning of an organization. Level four includes any
outcome that most people would agree is “good for the business.” Level four
outcomes are either changes in financial outcomes (such as positive ROI or
increased profits) or changes in variables that should have a relatively direct
effect on financial outcomes at some point in the future.
Here
are some examples of different kinds of level four outcomes:
· Improved quality of work.
· Higher productivity.
· Reduction in turnover.
· Reduction in scrap rate
(i.e., less wasted resources).
· Improved quality of work
life.
· Improved human relations
(e.g., improved vertical and horizontal communication)
· Increased sales.
· Fewer grievances.
· Lower absenteeism.
· Higher worker morale.
· Fewer accidents.
· Greater job satisfaction.
· Increased profits.
Here
are Kirkpartick’s recommendations for level four evaluation:
1.
Use a control group if practical. In other words, use the strongest
experimental design that is feasible.
2.
Allow time for results to be achieved. In other words, many level four outcomes
will take some time to occur.
3.
Measure both before and after the program if practical. Again, use the
strongest experimental design that is feasible.
4.
Repeat the measurement at appropriate times. Repeated measurement (e.g., using
the time-series design) can provide data on the long term pattern of results.
5.
Consider costs versus benefits. You may not want to perform a level four
evaluation if the costs of that evaluation are high in comparison to the
potential benefits or impacts of the training program.
Level
four evaluation is difficult in the sense that it is quite difficult to
establish firm evidence that a training program was the key or only
source that produced the level four outcomes. For example, time has to elapse
after the training program in order for these outcomes to occur. Other factors
may also occur during that time period. Second, it is hard to isolate the
effect of the training program because there are usually many additional causal
variables operating on the level four outcome variables (i.e., the training
event is just one of many potential causes). Level four outcomes are often more
distal outcomes, rather than proximal outcomes of a training
program. For these reasons, the evidence obtained from level four evaluation is
usually weaker than the evidence obtained from lower level evaluations, especially
levels one and two which are relatively easy to document.
For
an example of distal, level four outcomes (increased productivity and profits)
here is a potential outcome line that ends with the level four results:
Program
à Reactions à Learning à Behavior à Productivity à Increased profits.
Level
four outcomes tend to fall far down outcome lines, which means that many
intervening factors must take place in order for the level four outcomes to
take place. This means that we should not be overly optimistic in
expecting large level four outcomes from
single training programs.
In
general, we should try to develop an impact theory to help us to
understand the operation of level four outcomes. If you really want a training
program to have a positive level four outcome, it is probably wise to make
the training program a component of a larger organizational performance program
package that is designed to produce level four changes.
A
common design for documenting level four outcomes is the interrupted
time-series design, although the other experimental designs with control
groups are also frequently called for, depending on the kinds of outcomes you
want to measure. For example, some data are frequently recorded at regular
intervals (sales, turnover, accidents) making these variables easy to measure
over time forming time-series data (you just have to get these secondary data).
Other level four results will be more difficult to obtain because pre-training
data may not be available (e.g., data on worker morale, quality of work life,
improved communication). If pre-training data are not routinely recorded, you
will have to make sure the data are recorded at least once before the training
event is implemented. If the data are recorded multiple times before the
training event, the interrupted time-series design may be used. If data
are recorded only once before the training event, the one group
pretest-posttest design is possible, or, even better, the pretest-posttest
nonequivalent control group design may be feasible.
Related link - http://www.wa.gov/esd/training/toolbox/tg_kirkpatrick.htm
