What is Kirkpatrick model?
Also called: Kirkpatrick four levels · Kirkpatrick evaluation model · New World Kirkpatrick ModelDefinition
The Kirkpatrick model is a framework for evaluating training, introduced by Donald Kirkpatrick in 1959, that measures impact at four levels. Level 1, Reaction: did participants find it engaging and relevant? Level 2, Learning: did they gain the intended knowledge and skills? Level 3, Behaviour: do they apply it on the job? Level 4, Results: did it improve business outcomes? Jack Phillips later added a fifth level, return on investment (ROI), which compares monetary benefits with programme costs.
Each level asks a harder question and needs different evidence. Level 1 uses feedback forms. Level 2 uses tests, skills assessments and pre and post comparisons. Level 3 uses observation, manager reports, work samples and delayed re-assessment weeks or months later. Level 4 uses business metrics such as sales, error rates, cycle time, safety incidents or attrition. The later New World Kirkpatrick Model, from James and Wendy Kirkpatrick, recommends planning from Level 4 backwards: decide the result first, then the behaviours that drive it, then the learning needed.
For corporate L&D, the model is the common language for training evaluation. Most organisations measure Level 1 thoroughly and rarely go beyond Level 2, so reports show satisfaction and completion but not change. Bodhih’s method targets Levels 2 and 3 directly: a diagnostic before training, graded practice on the learner’s own work, and the same diagnostic re-run at 90 days.
Common mistakes: treating high Level 1 scores as evidence of impact; skipping Level 3, the link between learning and results; and claiming Level 4 results without isolating the effect of training from other factors.
Key points
- Level 1 Reaction, Level 2 Learning, Level 3 Behaviour, Level 4 Results.
- Introduced by Donald Kirkpatrick in 1959.
- Phillips added Level 5: return on investment.
- New World Kirkpatrick Model: plan from Level 4 backwards.
- Most organisations stop at Level 2; Level 3 is the critical link.
An example at work
A Chennai BPO evaluates a customer empathy programme: agents rate it 4.5/5 (Level 1), call-handling assessment scores rise (Level 2), quality analysts observe more empathy statements in live calls at 60 days (Level 3), and the client’s customer satisfaction score for trained teams improves compared with untrained teams (Level 4).
Where this is used at Bodhih
Related terms
Training ROI
Training ROI is the net monetary benefit of a training programme divided by its total cost, expressed as a percentage.
Pre and post assessment
Pre and post assessment is measuring the same skills before and after training, using equivalent instruments, to show how much learners changed.
Diagnostic assessment
A diagnostic assessment is a test taken before training to measure a learner’s current level and identify specific gaps, so training can target them.
Training needs analysis
Training needs analysis (TNA) is the process of identifying the gap between the skills people have and the skills they need, and whether training can close it.
ADDIE model
The ADDIE model is a five-phase instructional design process: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation.
More about Kirkpatrick model
What are the four levels of the Kirkpatrick model?
Level 1, Reaction: how participants felt about the training. Level 2, Learning: the knowledge and skills they gained. Level 3, Behaviour: whether they apply it at work. Level 4, Results: the effect on business outcomes such as productivity, quality, sales or safety.
What is Level 5 of the Kirkpatrick model?
Level 5 is not part of Kirkpatrick’s original model. It was added by Jack Phillips as return on investment: the net monetary benefit of a programme divided by its cost, expressed as a percentage. The combined approach is often called the Kirkpatrick–Phillips model or Phillips ROI Methodology.
What are the limitations of the Kirkpatrick model?
It describes what to measure but not how to prove training caused the change. Higher levels are harder and costlier to measure, so many organisations stop at Level 2. Critics also note that the levels are not strictly causal: positive reactions do not guarantee learning, and learning does not guarantee behaviour change.