Evaluating a training programme involves far more than collecting post-session feedback. It means measuring what actually happens afterwards: the skills acquired, the behaviours changed on the ground, the results produced. This is precisely what the Kirkpatrick model offers — one of the most widely used evaluation frameworks in the professional training world. Pragmatic and adaptable to all sectors, it provides HR and learning teams with a structured tool to draw concrete links between training activities and operational outcomes.
The Four Levels of the Kirkpatrick Model
The Kirkpatrick model is built around four levels of evaluation. Each level is more rigorous than the previous one and feeds into the next, without the four necessarily forming a strictly hierarchical relationship. Together, they contribute to a results-driven culture in which skills are genuinely assessed.
Level 1: Reaction
This first level measures participant satisfaction at the end of a training programme. It draws on reaction sheets, feedback surveys, or verbal responses gathered from learners. Often referred to as "immediate evaluation", it is typically collected as soon as the session ends in order to ensure a satisfactory response rate.
Whilst the real-world impact of this first level is sometimes debated, it forms an essential foundation: a participant who is dissatisfied with their training will not retain lasting learning from it. Satisfaction is the minimum condition for meaningful engagement in the learning process. Without it, the subsequent levels of evaluation will inevitably yield negative results.
Level 2: Learning
This second level measures the effective acquisition of skills. It relies on pre- and post-training assessments to quantify knowledge progression, self-assessment exercises, personal action plans, and where necessary the use of a control group to compare participant performance.
Tracking the real impact of training has become a central concern for those in the sector, particularly with the rise of Qualiopi certification. Quantifying and measuring the development of participants' skills now lies at the heart of the HR strategies of organisations that wish to manage their training plans with rigour.
Level 3: Behaviour
This third level measures the concrete application of skills in the workplace, once the training has ended. It draws on observations of learner behaviour over time, and on interviews with their line managers to assess changes in day-to-day performance and conduct.
A collaborative tool is essential to gather these observations reliably: it enables participants to engage genuinely in the process, streamlines field-level reporting, and makes evaluation an ongoing practice. Simplifying this feedback is fundamental to assessing the concrete performance of training activities and informing any adjustments required.
Level 4: Results
This fourth level measures the operational outcomes produced through training. It involves collecting data over a defined period and comparing key performance indicators (KPIs). This data is often the most challenging for learning teams to obtain, yet it is also the most valuable: linking skills development data to productivity gains makes it possible to demonstrate a tangible ROI that can be communicated to decision-makers and operational teams alike.
The Evolution of the Model: Criticism and the Kirkpatrick Partners Update
The Kirkpatrick model has been a reference framework since its creation, but it has not been immune to criticism. It is precisely through this scrutiny that it has continued to evolve and remain relevant across an increasingly diverse range of training contexts.
The Alliger and Janak Critique (1989)
In 1989, Alliger and Janak published a widely cited paper challenging the model's hierarchical and causal structure: the four levels, they argued, are not necessarily correlated with one another, nor do they follow a strict order of causality. These criticisms sparked a deeper reflection on the limitations of the original framework and paved the way for its revision.
The Contributions of the 2010 Updated Version
In 2010, James and Wendy Kirkpatrick of Kirkpatrick Partners proposed a significant update. Level 1 is no longer limited to participant satisfaction alone: it now incorporates participant engagement throughout the training, as well as the relevance of the content to learners' actual working situations. Level 3 is enriched with four key levers for promoting the transfer of skills in the workplace: monitor, reinforce, encourage, reward.
Like the Hamblin or Phillips models, the Kirkpatrick model has both strengths and limitations. It offers a flexible approach, adaptable to all sectors and readily integrated into the practice of learning teams. It does, however, require a genuine investment of time to build a culture conducive to training evaluation.
The Kirkpatrick Model in Practice Today
Training Programmes Increasingly Designed by Operational Teams
Several solutions are emerging today to facilitate the implementation of training that is firmly grounded in workplace reality. Increasingly sophisticated training programmes are now being designed directly by operational staff themselves. This shift makes it easier to align and integrate these programmes with the Kirkpatrick model, enabling more straightforward ROI tracking through direct access to field-level data.
A Reference Framework That Continues to Evolve
The Kirkpatrick model is not fixed. Since its creation, it has been continually enriched, refined, and adapted to the various contexts in which it is deployed. This is precisely what underpins its robustness: its pragmatism and its capacity to incorporate the operational realities of organisations. For HR and learning teams seeking to move from a training-as-cost logic to one of measurable, demonstrable value, it remains one of the most comprehensive frameworks available today.
