From DSC:
I especially appreciated the following excerpt of the dialog between Donald Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels*) and Jack Phillips (another well-known evaluator of training).  Kirkpatrick proposes the following series of questions:

Many people see evaluation as something to be done after training. But the art is to arrange your training in such a way that success is guaranteed. We launch a series of questions to see whether we can build a chain of impact up front: How can we make sure people learn? How do we ensure people use their newly acquired skills on the job? How do we know that the application of these skills returns the desired effect?

That’s very simple. Let me give an example. At Intel, they said, “Let’s take your four levels, start with the last one, and work backwards. What results are we looking for? What behaviors are needed to accomplish those results? What knowledge, skills, and attitudes do people need in order to behave in that way? And how can we do it in such a way that they’ll react favorably?” Answering those questions in that order is at least one less headache.

Excerpt from:

Diederick Stoel.  (2004, January). The evaluation heavyweight match. T + D, 58(1), 46-48.  Retrieved February 18, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 535013771).

* Per Wikipedia:
The four levels of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model essentially measure:

  • Reaction of student – what they thought and felt about the training
  • Learning – the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
  • Behavior – extent of behavior and capability improvement and implementation/application
  • Results – the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance