Testing Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Hierarchy of Training Evaluation: Evidence from Thailand's Automotive Industry
Several 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.
|Date of creation:||May 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/en/idec/|
More information through EDIRC
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, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hir:idecdp:3-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.