Introductionand Methods Overview
Level 2 of the Kirkpatrick training evaluation model is designed to measure the extent to which training program participants have improved their knowledge and skills as a result of the training (Kirkpatrick, 1996). Measuring impact at Level 2 allows for determining the relevance and quality of trainings and the suitability of the assessments and evaluation instruments used as part of the trainings.Typically, Level 2 evaluations are conducted using pre- and post-training assessment; however, there are other approaches, including interviews, simulations, and on-the-job observations.
The objectives of the Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLC) Evaluation Working Group (WG) were to determine, share, and implement methods and/or measures that can be considered for use to consistently and uniformly assess learning, such as use of competency-based pre- andpost-testing assessed by knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs).As a result, the Level 2 sub-WG developed a matrix of evaluation approaches to measure specific KSAs within the Public Health Preparedness & Response Core Competency Model.
The WG conducted a review of the literature to develop the evaluation matrix to be as inclusive as possible to meet a wide variety of PERLC learning assessment needs. Input from evaluators from across the PERLC network was welcomed to ensure appropriate methods of assessment across PERLC and their unique learning projects and activities. The matrix presented on the following page is a collaborative effort of Evaluation WG members, with each member researching and reviewing appropriate assessment tools for items included in each of the four Level 2 domains. Evaluators have the option to select the assessment type, format, and mode of delivery that best fits the needs of each of their individual PERLC training programs.
