Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Common evaluation methods for each level of the Kirkpatrick model

From: Evaluations of training programs to improve human resource capacity for HIV, malaria, and TB control: a systematic scoping review of methods applied and outcomes assessed

Level of evaluation Common methods used Number of studiesa Percentage (%) Referencesa
Reaction (n = 16) Quantitative survey of trainees 9 56 [23, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]
Qualitative interview 5 31 [40,41,42,43,44]
Focus group discussion 4 25 [36, 38, 42, 45]
Pre- and post-training tests 2 13 [46, 47]
Learning (n = 44) Pre- and post-training tests 23 52 [27, 33,34,35, 37, 43, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]
Quantitative survey 16 36 [23, 45, 63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76]
Qualitative interview 4 9 [44, 69, 77, 78]
Focus group discussion 4 9 [51, 56, 78, 79]
Behavior (n = 30) Observation 11 37 [32, 33, 39, 42, 57, 63, 80,81,82,83,84]
Quantitative survey of trainees 9 30 [23, 45, 62, 64, 67, 70, 72, 77, 85]
Qualitative interview 7 23 [44, 69, 77, 78, 86,87,88]
Standardized patient 3 10 [56, 89, 90]
Review patient records 1 3 [85]
Pre- and post-training tests 1 3 [61]
Results (n = 38) Review patient records 26 68 [27, 28, 42, 57, 58, 66, 78, 80, 87, 91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107]
Patient exit survey 8 21 [35, 63, 67, 108,109,110,111,112]
Cost-effective analysis 8 21 [33, 35, 42, 57, 92, 97, 108, 109]
Quantitative survey of trainees 2 5 [113, 114]
Qualitative interview 1 3 [78]
  1. aArticles may be double entered in this column