The Kirkpatrick model is a four level framework for evaluating training programs. It assesses: 1) participants' satisfaction with the training, 2) the increase in knowledge and skills from pre- to post-training, 3) whether participants apply the new knowledge and skills on the job 3-6 months later, and 4) the overall results and impact on the organization such as financial or performance outcomes. Critics argue an additional level is needed to evaluate external outcomes beyond the participant's organization.

1. Kirkpatrick model
Four Levels of Learning Evaluation
The Kirkpatrick learning evaluation model was developed by Donald Kirkpatrick and
presented in four journal articles in 1959-60. This is a four level model focusing successively
on:
1. Reaction - what participants think and feel about the training, focused on participant
satisfaction with the training provided, including the trainers and the environment in
which it was provided. The pre- and (immediately) post-event/module questionnaires
used at this level are sometimes referred to as reactionnaires.
2. Learning - any increase in knowledge and/or skills, or attitude change. This level of
evaluation usually happens during the training and may take the form of a test,
assignment or other means of demonstrating knowledge. [Comment by David
Streatfield - However, such measures do not capture slow knowledge gain, which may
only be apparent to the participant some time after the event or module completion.]
3. Behavior - transfer of knowledge, skills, or attitudes from the training setting to the
job (change in work behavior which may be attributable to the training program). This
level of evaluation is usually conducted at a minimum 3–6 months after the training,
through observation of the participant at work or through interviews with the
participants and their line-managers and peers.
4. Results - the final outcomes that occur following attendance and participation in a
training program. This change can be financial, performance-based, or manifest itself
at organisational level.
(Some critics of this model have suggested that a further level of evaluation is needed,
looking outside the immediate organisational context of the participant.)