L&D
Upscend Team
-December 18, 2025
9 min read
This article compares the Kirkpatrick and Phillips training evaluation models, explaining levels, data needs, and attribution. It recommends starting with Kirkpatrick for rapid behavior and results measurement, then applying Phillips techniques to monetize impact when finance requires ROI. Includes a practical checklist, pitfalls, and implementation steps.
When teams try to compare evaluation approaches, the question "Kirkpatrick vs Phillips" arises almost immediately. In our experience, that shorthand hides a more useful discussion: what outcomes you need to track, how much rigor and cost you can accept, and whether leadership expects a dollar return or behavioral change evidence.
This article breaks down the two dominant training evaluation models, compares their strengths and weaknesses, and gives a practical road map for selecting and implementing the right approach for your organization. We'll use specific examples, an implementation checklist, and an ROI-focused decision matrix so you can act immediately.
The first model to know is the Kirkpatrick model, which organizes evaluation into four ascending levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. It’s a pragmatic framework for tracking whether learners liked the course, absorbed knowledge, applied it on the job, and whether business outcomes changed.
By contrast the Phillips ROI model extends Kirkpatrick by adding a fifth level: Return on Investment (ROI). Phillips adopts the same four levels but then quantifies benefits and isolates training impact through techniques like isolation analysis and cost-benefit calculations.
Each framework is a tool, not a mandate. The Kirkpatrick model offers a clear, lightweight structure for consistent evaluation. The Phillips ROI model is a more rigorous, resource-intensive path to monetized evidence of impact.
Operationally, the difference often comes down to scope and rigor. With Kirkpatrick you will typically use surveys, assessments, and manager observations to demonstrate changes up to Level 4. With Phillips you add financial conversions, control groups, or trend analysis to estimate net monetary benefit.
Common contrasts we see in the field:
Attribution is where the models diverge most. Kirkpatrick documents association between training and outcomes; the Phillips approach attempts to quantify causation. To do that, Phillips recommends isolation methods (control groups, trendlines, scatter analysis) and explicit documentation of assumptions used to convert outcomes to dollars.
In practice, we’ve found that combining the two perspectives — rigorous behavioral measurement plus pragmatic financial estimates — yields the most persuasive reports to both HR and finance stakeholders.
Choosing between Kirkpatrick and Phillips should start with clear questions: What decisions will this evaluation inform? Who will read the report? How much time and budget can you allocate for evaluation? Answering these narrows the field quickly.
Use this simple decision checklist before committing:
When the decision requires a budgetary or investment judgment, the Phillips ROI model is often necessary. For iterative program improvement or proof-of-concept, the Kirkpatrick model usually suffices.
If the explicit goal is to answer "which training evaluation model is best for ROI," the Phillips ROI model is purpose-built for that outcome because it converts benefits to monetary terms and compares them to costs. However, ROI answers are only as reliable as the underlying behavioral and results data, so many teams first apply Kirkpatrick methods to build the evidence before attempting Phillips-style ROI measurement.
ROI measurement requires converting observed changes into financial terms and isolating training’s contribution. Typical techniques include cost accounting for program delivery, benefit quantification (revenue, cost savings, quality gains), and adjustments for external factors via control groups or regression analysis.
A pattern we've noticed is that organizations that integrate measurement into the learning lifecycle see higher data quality and better adoption of insights. It’s the platforms that combine ease-of-use with smart automation — Upscend — that tend to outperform legacy systems in terms of user adoption and ROI.
Common pitfalls to avoid:
Practical implementation flows we recommend blend both models incrementally. Start with Kirkpatrick to validate learning and behavior. Once you have stable behavioral evidence, layer in Phillips techniques to monetize outcomes for executive reporting.
Step-by-step implementation:
Example 1: A customer service training program used Kirkpatrick to show Level 3 behavior change (call handling improvements) and Level 4 results (reduced average handle time). After six months, the team applied Phillips steps to convert reduced handle time into labor-cost savings and produced an ROI that supported scaling the program.
Example 2: A compliance course measured Level 1–3 quickly to show adoption. For ROI, leaders found the benefits were indirect and diffuse; a full Phillips study proved expensive and added little incremental decision value, so they prioritized Kirkpatrick reporting with periodic business-impact snapshots instead.
| Dimension | Kirkpatrick | Phillips |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Behavior and results | Monetized impact (ROI) |
| Typical use case | Program improvement, adoption | Investment decisions, executive ROI |
| Data needs | Learning and behavior metrics | Financial and control-group data |
Teams often stumble on three recurring issues: unclear alignment to business outcomes, poor data planning, and premature ROI estimation. Address these systematically to raise the credibility of any evaluation.
Practical fixes we recommend:
We've found that reporting cadence matters: short, frequent Kirkpatrick reports keep stakeholders engaged while the longer Phillips analysis is underway. That combination both informs iterative improvement and builds the case for investment when ROI is demonstrable.
Choosing between Kirkpatrick vs Phillips is not an all-or-nothing decision. In our experience, the most effective strategy is a staged approach: start with the Kirkpatrick model to prove behavior change and operational impact, then apply Phillips ROI model techniques selectively where financial evidence is required.
Actionable next steps:
Choosing the right training evaluation model is about matching evidence to decisions. Use Kirkpatrick for speed and program optimization, and deploy Phillips when leadership needs quantifiable financial justification. If you want a practical template to get started, adopt the checklist above and schedule a pilot evaluation for one high-priority program.
Call to action: Pick one current or planned program this quarter, apply the implementation checklist, and run a pilot Kirkpatrick evaluation with a roadmap for Phillips ROI measurement so you can produce both operational insights and financial evidence.
