Skip to main content

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