Since the 1990s evaluation gained weight as a function of educational controlling. Two interests intersect in this field: the development of further education quality through evaluation and the estimation of further education gain through evaluation. This exciting ratio is constitutive for the in-plant further vocational training and reproduce its logic in the applied forms of evaluation: (1) development of further training quality with formative assessments, which is particularly process data oriented. (2) control of further training gain with summative assessments, which is particulary output data oriented.

The widely used model for evaluating training programmes output originate from Donald Kirkpatrick. It was developed in the 1960s and has retained its original structure until the present. Kirkpatrick distinguishes four output levels of evaluation: level 1 “reaction”, level 2 “learning”, level 3 “behavior” and level 4 “results”. The success or failure of a training course can be estimated through this evaluation. However, it remains unclear which factors influence the success and failure and how. Accordingly, what needs to be undertaken in the fore field or during the implementation of a training in order to increase the probability of success in advanced vocational training remains unclear. An exclusive output evaluation is not sufficient for the development and improvement of further training. The model of Kirkpatrick was widely used and criticized in the same time. One of the main points of criticism has been already mentioned: the missing option to improve the practice of further vocational training. A further central point of criticism concerns the construction of the model as well as the inherent presumption, that assume linkages among the levels: satisfied participants (level 1) learn better (level 2), transfer better their knowledge at the work place (level 3) and achieve a higher business success (level 4). These presumptions could on one hand empirically not be acknowledged, and on the other hand the transfer is conceptually reduced in the approach of Kirkpatrick to the personal responsibility: the person is alone responsible for the successful or failing transfer.

As a matter of fact, transfer is always a transfer from a learning field into a functional field and not merely a transfer at an isolated work place. Therefore, further field factors (e.g. the behaviour of the super-ordinates and the work peers) should be considered. Based upon the criticisms to Kirkpatrick’s approach, Holton III developed an inventory, which apprehends the learning transfer as a system. The learning-transfer-system-inventory (LTSI). This inventory encompasses 11 dimensions such as motivation to the learning transfer, transfer design, peer/super-ordinates support. The inventory has been translated in the meanwhile into various languages; it demonstrates good values of reliability and is valid in terms of the model structure as well as the external validity. Various factors, which are involved in the learning transfer, can be apprehended through this inventory, a matter that largely improves the condition context of evaluation. However, the impact factors still remains unclear: With which direct and indirect impact do which factors affect the learning transfer, output and outcome? This question was the subject of our investigation.

Alliger, G.M. & Janak, E.A. (1989): Kirkpatrick´s levels of training criteria: thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331–342. Alliger, G.M., Tannenbaum, S.I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. & Shotland, A. (1997): A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341–358. Bates, R. (2004): A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341–347. Gessler, M. (2009): The correlation of participant satisfaction, learning success and learning transfer: an empirical investigation of correlation assumptions in Kirkpatrick´s four-level model, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 3, Nos. 3/4, pp. 346-358. Holton, E.F., III (1996): The flawed four level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7 (1), 5–21. Holton, E.F., III, Bates, R. & Ruona, W. (2000): Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333-360. Kaufman, R., & Keller, J. M. (1994): Levels of evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5, 371–380. Kirkpatrick, D L. (1960): Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 4, 13–32. Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, D.L. (2005): Transfering Learning to Behavior. Using the Four Levels to Improve Performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, D.L. (2006): Evaluating Training Programs. The Four Levels. 3. Auflage. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.