The best critical examination of Kirkpatrick I have seen to date is in High Impact Learning (Brinkerhoff). I have yet to see anyone explain it better.

I'm with ShoreGirl. I've been asked to use L1-L4 evaluations, but most of the time, we stopped at L3. It's not because we didn't want to proceed, but just because it's way more complicated. We are talking about human beings, whose learning results can be impacted by a varity of factors, of which training is one.
We always want to measure the result in both quantitative and qualitative ways, but does the measurement really reflect the outcome? I don't know, but I guess Kirkpatrick provided a relatively easy and feasible way to evaluate training results.

Please read Brinkerhoff. I'm begging everyone in this profession or considering it to read his critique of Kirkpatrick.

I am a consultant working with several organizations -- mostly government related. I will offer some responses below:[quote] Are there any other factors that your organization evaluates in addition to reaction, learning, behavior, results, and return-on-investment? Everything important can fit in these categories -- but you have to modify/add/emphasize depending on the context and goals. For example, LOI - level of implementation is critical on many projects (related to transfer/behavior, but goes beyond the individual to include management support, changes in processes, etc.). The trainee may be using all the newly learned skills, but the environment may present obstacles preventing results from being achieved. So, you must look at all factors in the implementation environment. Where does that fit in the model – somewhere top/middle.

Do you think the measurement and evaluation field is in need of a new standard evaluation model? We have plenty of models -- we just need to synthesize more and criticize less. Kirkpatrick, with the addition of ROI and whatever the context requires is just fine

What are a few reasons why organizations do or do not use Kirkpatrick's four levels? I guess because it is so dated -- got to have something new! The real problem is that Training & Development is undergoing a transformation to HPT and Performance Improvement, including lots of consideration of systems factors and non-training solutions. Training is not the Main Event -- it is just one component of a family of interventions. So let's stop putting so much emphasis on evaluating training and start evaluating interventions. A good start in modeling that kind of thinking is found in Judith Hale's book: The Performance Consultant's Fieldbook.

Agree with Performgrp in that training is ungoing a transformation(not a would I would use)and its been going on for some time.
Agree with FF that you should not use these boards
for your question. Rather contact your local chapter
it will be far more fruitful.

Regards to evaluation think of it this way. There are many many pills and treatments for high blood presssure. After due assessment which one(s) in what combination , duration etc are suitable. Apply this to training.

Nero Wolfe