Testing Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Hierarchy of Training Evaluation: Evidence from Thailand's Automotive Industry
AbstractSeveral studies of training evaluation have failed to confirm the hierarchy relationship of reaction, learning, and behavior to results because of the difficulty of evaluating training. Furthermore, research in this area has tended to downplay the importance of level one (reaction) evaluation. In this study, we proposed investigating Kirkpatrick’s four-level hierarchy of training evaluation, focusing specifically on two types of reactions, affective and utility, to predict training outcomes. The results of this study expand our understanding of the progressive causal relationship of reaction, learning, and job behavior to results. In particular, this study highlighted the utility reactions in predicting training effectiveness. Implications and future research directions suggested by the results are also discussed.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Hiroshima University, Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC) in its series IDEC DP2 Series with number 3-4.
Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: May 2013
Date of revision:
Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model; training effectiveness; training evaluation;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- M53 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Personnel Economics - - - Training
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bates, Reid, 2004. "A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keisuke Kawata).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.