The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Course evaluation using questionnaires and assessment of participant satisfaction are level 1 criteria of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model of training programs (subjective evaluation).”
From Neurosurgery resident training using blended learning concepts: Course development and participant evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“it remains to be evaluated whether these skills will be transferred actively into clinical practice where they can have an impact on patient outcome (level 3).18”
From Neurosurgery resident training using blended learning concepts: Course development and participant evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Analysis of objective, automated measures of the e-learning account for level 2.”
From Neurosurgery resident training using blended learning concepts: Course development and participant evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Training Programs : The Four Levels
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2009) · Cited by 4,720
Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
(1984) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-100-1-168_1 · Cited by 4,559
Utilization-Focused Evaluation
(2018) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n729 · Cited by 2,315
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 · Cited by 1,831 · cited 1×
“Kraiger, Ford and Salas (1993) have forwarded a multidimensional model of learning outcomes from training and have described a process training evaluators could use to developing learning evaluation measures (Kraiger & Jung, 1997).”
BackgroundThe science of training: a decade of progress
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471 · Cited by 1,703
Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1975) · Training and development journal · Cited by 1,234
Training and Development in Work Organizations
Tannenbaum, S. I., & YUKL, G. A. (1992) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002151 · Cited by 1,023
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1973) · Cited by 970
The flawed four‐level evaluation model
Holton, E. F. (1996) · Human Resource Development Quarterly · doi:10.1002/hrdq.3920070103 · Cited by 965
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childless, J. F. (1991) · International Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/00004850-199100620-00013 · Cited by 964
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ford, 1995, The application of cognitive constructs and principles to the instructional systems design model of training: Implications for needs assessment, design, and transfer, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 1
- Grider, 1988, Evaluating valuations, Training and Development Journal, 42, 11
- Schwandt, T. A., (1998). How we think about evaluation practice. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67
FRYE, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.668637 · Cited by 641
Thieme, A., Belgrave, D., & Doherty, G. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3398069 · Cited by 406
“The principle of beneficence however does not only entail encouraging human flourishing and wellbeing by doing the right thing, but also suggests to ‘do it well’ [13].”
BackgroundSurr, C. A., Gates, C., Irving, D., Oyebode, J., Smith, S. J., Parveen, S., Drury, M., & Dennison, A. (2017) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654317723305 · Cited by 327
“Kirkpatrick’s (1979, 1984) “Return on Investment” model developed specifically for evaluation of training consists of four levels and is widely adopted in the evaluation of training and education provision (Bates, 2004).”
A Critique of Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model
Reio, T. G., Rocco, T. S., Smith, D. H., & Chang, E. (2017) · New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development · doi:10.1002/nha3.20178 · Cited by 227
“, Bates, 2004; Holton, 1996; Swanson, 1994). Some researchers, however, have developed their own models based on Kirkpatrick’s. Bushnell (1990) and Hayes, Scott, Braczinskas, Scaccia, Stout, and Wandersman (2016) contend that Kirkpatrick’s model focuses only on what happens after the training, and therefore is not suf…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSanches, P., Janson, A., Karpashevich, P., Nadal, C., Qu, C., Roquet, C. D., Umair, M., Windlin, C., Doherty, G. J., Höök, K., et al. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300475 · Cited by 248
“Others argued for the value of increasing user’s feeling of control by augmenting tracking technologies with support for reflection [18], or increasing user’s engagement with technology through DIY approaches to design [148].”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Bates, R.
- Affiliations
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bates, Reid
- Venue
- Evaluation and Program Planning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 341-347
- ISSN
- 0149-7189 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097592370
- Cited by
- 623
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 4.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation and Program Planning (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- Kirkpatrick model, training evaluation, beneficence, moral obligation, formative assessment, summative assessment, training effectiveness, human resource development, evaluation limitations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
