Author
Listed:
- Faisal-E-Alam, Md.
- Islam, Abu Reza Md. Towfiqul
Abstract
Training evaluation plays a vital role in determining the effectiveness of programs to enhance employee performance and achieve organizational goals. The Kirkpatrick Model, widely used across industries, offers a structured framework for evaluating training outcomes through its four levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. However, there is a significant lack of empirical validation of this model in developing economies, especially in the banking sector of Bangladesh. Furthermore, the existing literature often lacks evidence of causal relationships between the levels of the Kirkpatrick model. This study aims to examine the hierarchical relationships within the Kirkpatrick Model of training evaluation in the context of private commercial banks (PCBs) in Bangladesh. Using a quantitative research design and stratified random sampling, we tested three hypotheses concerning the interconnections between the four levels of the model. Data was collected through a questionnaire assessing trainee reactions, learning outcomes, behavioral changes, and results. The collected data was analyzed using Partial Least Squares (PLS)-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The findings reveal that positive trainee reactions significantly influence learning outcomes, leading to behavioral changes in the workplace. These behavior changes ultimately lead to improved individual and organizational performance. The study highlights the importance of a hierarchical approach in training evaluation and validates the applicability of the Kirkpatrick Model in the banking sector. Overall, the findings provide both theoretical and practical implications, reinforcing the hierarchical relationships in the Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model and ensuring training effectiveness.
Suggested Citation
Faisal-E-Alam, Md. & Islam, Abu Reza Md. Towfiqul, 2025.
"Exploring the hierarchical framework of the Kirkpatrick model in training evaluation from a developing country,"
Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:epplan:v:113:y:2025:i:c:s0149718925001636
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102696
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:113:y:2025:i:c:s0149718925001636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.