Employing Kirkpatrick’s framework to evaluate nurse training: an integrative review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7250.4432Keywords:
Continuing Education , Nurses , Evaluation of the Efficacy-Effectiveness of Interventions, Review, Methods, Inservice TrainingAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the evidence on the use of Donald Kirkpatrick’s framework in nursing training evaluation. Method: integrative literature review in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System and Web of Science databases. Studies that answered the review question “Which is the evidence in using Donald Kirkpatrick’s framework to evaluate training in the nursing workplace?” published in Portuguese, English, or Spanish were included. Results: out of 108 studies retrieved, thirteen were included. The majority evaluated the four levels proposed in the model (reaction, learning, behavior, and results) or, at least, a combination of the first three ones. Different instruments were used to evaluate nursing training, mainly in quantitative approaches for reaction and learning levels and qualitative for behavior and results levels. This approach highlights the flexibility of the model and the importance of choosing a reliable set of instruments, which is crucial to qualify the analysis at each level. Conclusion: Kirkpatrick’s model has been used worldwide to evaluate training in the nursing field and has been shown to be suitable for it, as long as there is an appropriate selection of instruments at each level.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.