Good to highlight no doubt. Question: Why "alternative" vs. "complimentary" method? Kirkpatrick's can give insight into specific training/learning protocol as it relates to KSAs, but SCM can give real specific case studies about performance that will include the impact of training but also take into account other external factors. SCM is limited by its self-reporting nature (very subjective), but pair that with a mixed method approach of Kirkpatrick and it's fine. Plus, this rounds our Kirkpatrick as well by providing a fuller picture of performance beyond just the training. Both/And, not either/or?
Great comment! You, you could certainly use Brinkerhoff's method alongside Kirkpatick. I find L&D folks (and our field) gets so entrenched in Kirkpatrick. I love this to broaden our thinking.
thank you hannah, very useful
Glad you found it helpful @robbarker3838!
Good to highlight no doubt. Question: Why "alternative" vs. "complimentary" method? Kirkpatrick's can give insight into specific training/learning protocol as it relates to KSAs, but SCM can give real specific case studies about performance that will include the impact of training but also take into account other external factors. SCM is limited by its self-reporting nature (very subjective), but pair that with a mixed method approach of Kirkpatrick and it's fine. Plus, this rounds our Kirkpatrick as well by providing a fuller picture of performance beyond just the training. Both/And, not either/or?
Great comment! You, you could certainly use Brinkerhoff's method alongside Kirkpatick. I find L&D folks (and our field) gets so entrenched in Kirkpatrick. I love this to broaden our thinking.