What is Kirkpatrick Model?
The Kirkpatrick Model is a framework for evaluating training on four levels. Level 1 measures reaction, how participants felt about it. Level 2 measures learning, what knowledge or skill they gained. Level 3 measures behaviour, whether they apply it at work. Level 4 measures results, the effect on business outcomes the training was meant to change.
How Personal Academy handles it
Personal Academy covers the four levels with reaction forms for level 1, assessments for level 2, manager observations for level 3 and an ROI model for level 4 in its analytics area.
A worked example
Suppose a 300-person call centre runs a de-escalation course. Level 1: a short reaction form after the course. Level 2: a scenario quiz with a pass mark. Level 3: team leaders observe a sample of calls a month later using a checklist. Level 4: the team compares complaint escalations before and after, and enters course cost and estimated benefit into an ROI model to decide whether to roll the course out further.
Donald Kirkpatrick introduced the model in a series of articles in 1959, and it became the most widely used way to talk about training evaluation. Its strength is that it moves the conversation beyond attendance, asking at each level what evidence would show the training worked.
Level 1, reaction, asks whether participants found the training relevant, engaging and useful. It is easy to collect with a short survey, but a good reaction does not prove learning. Questions about relevance and intent to apply tend to be more useful than questions about enjoyment.
Level 2, learning, asks whether knowledge, skills or attitudes changed. Pre and post tests, scenario questions, practical demonstrations and graded assignments all provide evidence. Assessments should be aligned to the objectives of the course, not just its content.
Level 3, behaviour, asks whether people do things differently on the job. This is where many programmes fail, often because the work environment does not support the new behaviour. Evidence comes from manager observations, checklists, peer feedback and work samples, collected some weeks after training.
Level 4, results, asks whether the business outcomes the training targeted moved: fewer incidents, faster onboarding, higher sales, fewer complaints. Isolating the effect of training from other factors is hard, so evaluators use comparison groups, trend analysis or estimates agreed with stakeholders. Some practitioners add a return on investment calculation, comparing the monetary value of results with the full cost of the programme.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model, a later revision, recommends planning from level 4 backwards: agree the results first, then the behaviours that produce them, then the learning and the experience that support those behaviours.