ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on Critics of Kirkpatrick assert that the four-level training evaluation process. It may be more appropriate to convert this and other jargonistic terminology into acceptable lingua franca for colleagues as appropriate, such as Staff Development Analysis or Professional Development Analysis. Effective evaluation should, it is argued, measure more than the Kirkpatrick levels of reaction, learning, behaviour, and results. The UK Industrial Society recommends this method of evaluation. An overview of the organisational benefits of investing in learning is set out and works through a model of the process of investing in learning and evaluating the impact of that investment. Critics of Kirkpatrick assert that the four-level training evaluation process may not always produce genuinely meaningful, long-term results. Consequently, planning with regard to evaluation may operate within inappropriately limited parameters. The result is a reduction in the institution's ability to conduct relevant and useful evaluations.
