KAUFMAN’S MODEL

OF LEARNING
EVALUATION
Overview of Kauman’s model
• Roger Kaufman and John M. Keller published Levels of evaluation: Beyond
Kirkpatrick in the winter 1994 edition of Human Resource Development
Quarterly.
• Kaufman’s Five Levels of Evaluation is a response, or reaction to, Kirkpatrick’s
model and aims to improve upon it in various ways
• Kaufman’s model mirrors the four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model. 
• Kaufman divides Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 (Reaction) into two sections: “Input”
and “Process.”  
• Kaufman’s fifth level evaluates results for both the customer and society in
general.  
• Kaufman’s model is positioned as “more practical” than Kirkpatrick by some
authors.  
Kaufman’s five levels
• Level 1a: Input 
This covers the training materials such as digital resources that are used to support the training or
coaching.  
• Level 1b: Process 
The second part of the first level measures process acceptability and efficiency. In other words, the
actual delivery of the learning experience. 
 
Level 2: Acquisition 
Kaufman’s second level studies the payoffs for both individuals and small groups. The ‘micro-level
client’ would usually be the learner, so you would be studying whether they acquired the learning
and whether they used it on the job.  
• Level 3: Application 
The third level evaluates how well participants utilize what they learned in their on-the-job
performance.  
• Level 4: Organisational payoffs 
Kaufman’s fourth level measures payoffs for the organization as a whole. The ‘macro-level client’
would typically be the business or organization undertaking the evaluation. This level includes
performance improvement evaluations and a cost-benefit and/or cost-consequence analysis.  
• Level 5: Societal Outcomes 
Kaufman’s fifth level focused on what he termed ‘mega-level clients’. This could refer to a
business’ clientele and/or to society as a whole.  
Differences between the Kirkpatrick Model
and Kaufman’s work
• Kaufman divided Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 into “Input” and “Process.” 
• He grouped Kirkpatrick’s Levels 2 and 3 as ‘Micro’ levels.   
• He added a fifth level that evaluates results for both the customer and
society. 
Change 1. Division of Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 into “Input” and
“Process”

• Separates the evaluation of resource quality and availability from

evaluation of its delivery. 
• It is important to assess the quality of resources, whether they are out-
sourced or within the workplace. An otherwise well-run course could
fall down due to low quality or insufficient resources. For example,
the course material could be the wrong level for the learners. 
• Or perfectly robust materials could be poorly delivered.
• By separating resources from delivery, Kaufman’s model makes it far
easier to see which factor was responsible for the success or failure of
a course.   
Change 2. Grouping Kirkpatrick’s Levels 2 and
3 as ‘Micro’ levels  

• Using Kirkpatrick’s model, a Level 2 assessment would measure the

learning that took place on a course while a Level 3 assessment records
whether the learning had an impact on the participant’s on-the-job
performance. This approach provides useful data that will help resolve
any issues.
• By grouping these as ‘micro’ levels, Kauffman’s model places less
emphasis on the reasons why learning isn’t making its way to the
workplace.  
• This is less helpful as there are different reasons why course participants
may or may not obtain new skills and knowledge from a course compared
with the extent to which they apply what they learned on the job.
Change 3. Adding a fifth level that evaluates results for
both the customer and society

• societal consequences and customer benefits are evaluated

• This is in contrast to Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation, which only
look at benefits to the business itself.
• Obtaining robust data at this level would be too expensive for most
organizations.
• This would most likely result in the collection of lower quality,
anecdotal evidence, with questionable results.
• Less practical