Examining the Evaluation Process :

1. Examining the Evaluation Process : The KirkPatrick Model and the Beneficence Principle Mary Kobusingye

2. Overview • Purpose of this paper is to examine the KirkPatrick's model, the reasons for its popularity in organizations, its limitations and potential risks it raises for evaluation clients and stakeholders. • Evaluation models such as the KirKPatrick’s model need to be subjected to fundamental ethical questions about evaluation: Is the right thing being done and is it being done well? • The extent to which the KirkPatrick’s model is consistent with the principle of the beneficence.

3. KirKPatrick’s four levels of evaluation

4. Popularity of the four level model • It has addressed the need of training professionals to understand training evaluation in a systematic way • Emphasis on level 4 as providing the most important information • Simplifies complex process of training evaluation

5. Limitations of KirkPatrick’s four level model • The incompleteness of the model • The assumption of casual linkages • Importance of information across ascending levels

6. Beneficence principle • It is the role of every training profession to advance the welfare of all individuals and organizations for whom they work. • It is an ethical duty to help others further their important and legitimate interestsand to confer benefits to clients and stake holders when possible. • Training evaluators should help organizations in determining if the program was effective and what can be done to improve the training process. • Failure to provide a benefit when in position to do so is a violation of professional ethics.

7. KirkPatrick’s Model and beneficence principle • The principle could be used to assess the potential risks versus benefits associated with the KirkPatrick’s model • Limitations of the model could prevent the evaluators from adequately addressing the principle of the beneficence • Model assumes evaluator can measure one of four levels and it would provide adequate information,;key conceptual factors are left out and may lead to misleading judgment • The casual linkage assumption infers a connection between reaction measures and unmeasured outcomes at other levels that could lead to inaccurate view of training effectiveness and pause a risk to clients

8. Continued • Assumption of level 4 being most crucial pauses substantial risk for clients and stakeholders as any other factors could cause changes in financial and other performance measures at the organizational level • The assumption also ignores the potential differences in the views of stake holders about training outcomes and what is important to measure in assessing the effectiveness of training outcomes. The risk that could be faced by an organization that utilizes such an assumption has the likely hood of undermining one of the main consequences of training evaluation; the utilization of evaluative findings

9. Suggestions • Training evaluators have ethical obligations to improve their models and practice in ways that increase capacity to more meaningfully benefit clients and stake holders. • Kauffman extended the level one of the KirkPatricks model to include the valuation of resources and the fifth level that is concerned with societal impact. • Utilizing valid reliable and easy to use assessment scales and instruments that compliment such models can help training evaluators examine a range of key input variables , eg.

10. Continued • Research has developed instruments for measuring pre-training factors, factors affecting learning transfer and other contextual factors influencing training effectiveness • Kraiger et al.(1995 )used a method for assessment of individual trainee’s domain specific knowledge and skills where as other researchers have provided tools for more accurately assessing the multidimensionality of participant reaction measures and models for thinking about multiple dimensions of job performance.

11. References • References • 1. Alliger, G. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training Criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331-342. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x • 2. Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27(3), 341-347. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011 • 3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1983). Principles of biomedical ethics (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press. • 4.  Goldenstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. • 5.  Kaufman, R., & Keller, J. M. (1994). Levels of evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(4), 371-380. Doi: 10.1002/hrdq.3920050408