Workforce Training Evaluation

In 1959, Donald Kirkpatrick addressed the American Society of Training and Development, where he proposed a four-level model for training evaluation—reactions, learning, behavior, and results. The levels offer a practical solution for evaluating training effectiveness, providing guidance on measuring multiple metrics and ensuring that evaluation efforts contribute to business. However, Kirkpatrick’s framework has been criticized for being atheoretical, and the model’s assumptions have been disproven repeatedly over the past twenty-five years. Yet Kirkpatrick’s framework is still the most frequently cited approach for evaluating training and continues to impact research and practice. To advance the field beyond Kirkpatrick’s framework, researchers such as the authors of Sitzmann and Weinhardt 2019 (in “Approaching Evaluation from a Multilevel Perspective: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Indicators of Training Effectiveness,” cited under Attrition from Training) have proposed a more comprehensive training evaluation framework. Capturing a breadth of effectiveness indicators is essential to understanding the reasons behind ineffective training and to optimize its impact. However, it is improbable that any evaluation endeavor will encompass all possible metrics. According to Kraiger 2002 (in Decision-Based Evaluation, cited under Training Reputation), the initial step in any evaluation effort is to question the purpose of the evaluation. For instance, is the aim to determine which employees have achieved task proficiency, identify changes in learners, assess the overall organizational benefits of training, pinpoint areas for training improvement, or achieve another objective? Once the purpose is established, the training evaluation should begin by addressing the specific construct that aligns directly with that objective. For example, if the goal is to determine which employees have achieved task proficiency by the end of the training, learning assessments should be conducted to compare post-training skill levels. However, if the purpose is to understand why employees are not proficient in trained skills by the end of the course, learning should be measured over time to identify when the learning deficiency occurred. After evaluating a single outcome, this framework can be used to determine if other benefits have also been derived from the training. In the following sections, we review the indicators of training effectiveness. We first focus on training utilization, attrition from training, and training reputation. Next, we review affective outcomes: satisfaction, self-efficacy, and motivation. Subsequently, we turn to additional outcomes of training: learning, human capital, training transfer, organizational and team performance, and financial impact.