Over the past 25 years, scholarly interest in the transfer of professional development (PD) results into practice and the measurement of its effectiveness has increased significantly. Several influential models have been developed, including Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework (1956/2016), Guskey’s model of PD effectiveness (2000), Baldwin and Ford’s transfer model (1988), and Sims et al. (2023) IMTP model. Baldwin and Ford (1988) conceptualize transfer as the sustained application of learning in the workplace, emphasizing the interaction between individual characteristics, training design, and work environment support as key facilitating factors. Sims et al. (2023) model aims to measure the impact of teacher professional development through student outcomes by identifying testable indicators and focusing on specific PD interventions (insight, motivation, techniques, and practice). Although different models and frameworks are developed and applied to characterize effectiveness of PD programs and practices, consensus related to effective PD have not reached yet, and measuring its impact remains problematic (Nīmante et al, 2025).

While these models provide a conceptual foundation, they also highlight that transfer is a multi-level and multi-dimensional process, involving cognitive, behavioral, affective, and technical outcomes (Lai, 2020). For PD to generate long-term added value, organizational conditions and systemic support are essential (Hughes et al., 2020). However, despite extensive theoretical development, the measurement of transfer effectiveness remains fragmented, with limited consensus on indicators, methods, and levels of analysis (Blume et al., 2010).

Existing studies demonstrate that PD outcomes are often assessed at the individual level, while organizational and longer-term impacts are less consistently measured. This lack of empirical synthesis and standardized measurement approaches complicates both evaluation and policy-level decision-making. As Boylan et al. (2023) argue, transformative professional learning requires grounding not only in theory but also in systematic evaluation practices. Therefore, further empirical research is needed to explore how PD results are transferred into practice and how transfer effectiveness is understood and measured across different contexts and countries. 

Research addresses two main questions:

RQ1 What have been used in practice to determine transferring results of professional development into practice?

RQ2 How is transfer effectiveness measured?

The study used a qualitative research approach to analyze in-depth adult professional development practices, with special attention to the transfer of learning outcomes to practice and measuring its effectiveness. Data collection took place between November and December 2024, through 14 focus group discussions. A total of 129 participants from three target groups participated in the study: adult professional development service providers (n=33), service recipients (n=68) and experts (n=28). Participants represented all regions of Latvia and three sectors – public, private and non-governmental. The majority of respondents were from the public sector (n=75), while the private sector was represented by 37 participants, and the non-governmental organization sector – by 8. In terms of regional distribution, the largest number of participants was from Riga (n=55), while the other regions were represented relatively evenly. The gender distribution was dominated by women (n=105), which corresponds to the sectors and sectoral structure represented in the study. The recipients of adult professional development services represented eight sectors with the largest proportion of employees in Latvia, including public administration, education, health and social care, transport, agriculture, manufacturing, trade and construction. Enterprises of various sizes – small, medium and large – were represented in six sectors. The service provider group included schools as learning organizations, higher education institutions, training centers and VET institutions. The expert group included representatives of state institutions, social partners and sectoral expert councils. All focus group discussions were recorded on MS Teams or Zoom platforms, with prior informed consent from the participants, and transcribed using digital transcription tools. Data analysis was performed in the NVivo program, based on a theoretically grounded coding system. Transcripts were analyzed in six thematic blocks, of which this abstract examines the block 4 in detail – quality and effectiveness monitoring, with a particular focus on transfer to practice and measuring its effectiveness. The study has been approved by the UL Ethics Committee for Research in Humanities and Social Sciences (24.09.2024., Nr. 71-43/121).

According to the coding analysis results, the subcategories “transfer to practice (what is changing)” (87 statements) and “measurement of transfer effectiveness” (35 statements) together represented only 3.26% of the total number of coded statements (3,747) within six thematic blocks. The subcategory “transfer to practice” is dominated by statements concerning changes in employees’ practices and in employees themselves, emphasizing the application of acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as their impact on employees’ attitudes and behavior. Relatively little attention is paid to the impact of transfer on the organization, clients, or wider society. The analysis shows significant differences between target groups. Schools as learning organizations consistently emphasize the importance of transfer at all levels – individual, organizational, client and state. Representatives of state institutions emphasize more the benefits of the macro level, while in many sectors transfer is not considered a priority or is not measured at all. Participants most accurately identify structural shortcomings, but experts lack a common understanding of goals and indicators at the policy level. In general, it can be concluded that transfer to practice and measuring its effectiveness in Latvia is poorly developed and insufficiently understood. A systemic approach, clearly defined goals, methodology and common tools are needed to ensure the assessment of the importance and impact of transfer at all levels. This research is funded by the Ministry of Education and Science Republic of Latvia, project “Elaboration of evidence-based solutions for effective professional competence development of adults and assessment of the transfer of its results into practice in Latvia”, project No.VPP-IZM-Izglītība-2023/4-0001.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. https://doi-org.datubazes.lanet.lv/10.1177/0149206309352880 Boylan, M., Adams, G., Perry, E., & Booth, J. (2023). Reimagining transformative professional learning for critical teacher professionalism: a conceptual review. Professional Development in Education, 49 (4), 651-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2022.2162566 Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2008). A study of best practices in training transfer and proposed model of transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1230 Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press. Hughes, A. M., Zajac, S., Woods, A. L., & Salas, E. (2020). The Role of Work Environment in Training Sustainment: A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors, 62(1), 166-183. https://doi-org.datubazes.lanet.lv/10.1177/0018720819845988 Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K., (2016). Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation. ATD Press, Alexandria, VA. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs: Pt.1. Reactions. Journal of the American Society for Training and Development, 13(11), 3–9. Lai, C. L. (2020). Trends of mobile learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 721–742. Nīmante, D., Kokare, M., Baranova, S., & Surikova, S. (2025). Transferring results of professional development into practice: A scoping review. Education Sciences, 15(1), 95.