# Kirkpatrick Model training evaluation levels and critiques

## Historical Context of Training Evaluation

The systematic evaluation of human resource development (HRD) and organizational training programs has evolved from a marginal administrative task into a strategic imperative. Historically, organizations measured training efficacy through basic completion metrics and attendance logs. However, as investments in corporate learning multiplied and the strategic value of human capital became universally recognized, stakeholders began demanding empirical evidence that training initiatives directly advanced organizational objectives [cite: 1, 2]. The core challenge for learning and development (L&D) professionals is bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge acquisition and measurable business impact, ensuring that educational investments yield a demonstrable return [cite: 2, 3]. 

The foundational architecture for addressing this challenge is the Kirkpatrick Model. Developed by Donald L. Kirkpatrick in the 1950s—originating from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin and subsequently formalized in a series of four articles in the *Journal of the American Society of Training Directors* in 1959—the model established a hierarchical taxonomy for evaluating training interventions [cite: 1, 4, 5]. The framework was later refined in his 1993 publication, *Evaluating Training Programs*, which cemented its status as the global standard for assessing learning efficacy [cite: 6, 7]. The model’s endurance over seven decades is attributed to its conceptual clarity, organizing evaluation into four distinct levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results [cite: 8, 9].

Despite its ubiquity, the Kirkpatrick Model operates within a complex ecosystem of competing methodologies, technological advancements, and strict regulatory frameworks. As organizations transition toward remote and hybrid work environments, the logistical challenges of tracking behavioral changes have intensified [cite: 3, 10]. Concurrently, the deployment of advanced digital monitoring tools to evaluate employee behavior has triggered severe legal constraints, particularly under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and national works council directives [cite: 11, 12]. 

## The Four Levels of Evaluation

The traditional Kirkpatrick Model posits a sequential evaluation process, theoretically operating as a chain where each level serves as a prerequisite for the next. In this traditional interpretation, positive reaction facilitates learning, learning enables behavior change, and behavior change generates organizational results [cite: 9].

### Level One: Learner Reaction
Level 1 measures the immediate, subjective response of participants to the training event. Evaluation at this tier seeks to ascertain whether learners found the instruction engaging, relevant to their occupational duties, and delivered at an appropriate pace [cite: 9, 13, 14]. Data collection relies heavily on post-training questionnaires, commonly referred to within the industry as "smile sheets" [cite: 9, 13]. 

Due to the low cost and logistical simplicity of deploying post-course surveys, Level 1 is the most universally implemented evaluation metric [cite: 15]. However, L&D theorists and cognitive scientists routinely highlight the severe limitations of relying on reaction data as a proxy for program success. Empirical research consistently demonstrates only a weak correlation between high Level 1 satisfaction scores and actual Level 3 behavioral change [cite: 9, 16]. Learners lack the pedagogical expertise to accurately assess instructional design or gap analysis; consequently, they frequently express high satisfaction with training formats that emphasize entertainment over cognitive rigor, despite such formats being less effective for long-term retention [cite: 16, 17]. 

Therefore, domain experts advise utilizing Level 1 data primarily as a diagnostic tool to detect catastrophic instructional failures—such as poorly calibrated pacing, irrelevant content, or severe logistical issues—rather than as an indicator of skill acquisition or business impact [cite: 9, 18]. A program with high Level 1 scores but low Level 4 results is merely an enjoyable event, not a successful intervention [cite: 9].

### Level Two: Knowledge Acquisition
Level 2 evaluates the extent to which participants acquired the specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes the curriculum was designed to impart [cite: 9, 19]. This assessment shifts the focus from subjective perception to objective competency measurement, typically utilizing pre- and post-training assessments, simulated role-plays, and knowledge retention quizzes [cite: 13, 20]. 

The primary utility of Level 2 evaluation is validating the instructional design. If learners fail to demonstrate competency immediately following the intervention, the training delivery or content structure requires revision [cite: 21, 22]. While establishing a baseline through pre-training assessment is critical for isolating the actual knowledge gained during the program, acquiring knowledge within a controlled educational setting does not guarantee its application in a complex operational environment [cite: 13]. This disconnect is widely recognized in organizational psychology as the "Knowing-Doing Gap" [cite: 17].



### Level Three: Behavioral Application
Level 3 measures the transfer of learning, assessing the degree to which participants actively and consistently apply their newly acquired competencies in the workplace [cite: 13, 19]. This is widely considered the most critical juncture in the evaluation continuum, as unapplied knowledge represents a total loss of the training investment [cite: 8, 13]. 

Evaluating behavior is inherently complex and resource-intensive. Unlike Level 2, which can be measured instantly, Level 3 requires longitudinal data collection, as behavioral adoption must be tracked over extended periods—typically 30, 60, or 90 days post-intervention [cite: 8, 13, 19]. Evaluators rely on diverse data streams, including 360-degree performance reviews, structured managerial observations, self-assessments, and the analysis of key behavioral indicators (KBIs) derived from workflow systems like Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software or helpdesk logs [cite: 2, 19, 23]. 

The success of Level 3 is highly contingent upon the organizational ecosystem. An employee may possess the necessary skills but fail to exhibit the desired behavior due to environmental constraints, such as contradictory performance incentives, an unsupportive management culture, or inadequate technological tools [cite: 13]. Consequently, evaluating Level 3 is simultaneously an assessment of the individual learner and an audit of the organization's capacity to support behavioral transfer.

### Level Four: Organizational Results
Level 4 evaluates the macro-level impact of the training program on targeted business outcomes [cite: 9, 13, 23]. This level shifts the analytical focus from the individual employee to the enterprise, measuring indicators such as revenue growth, reduction in workplace safety incidents, accelerated onboarding ramp times, heightened customer satisfaction, and improved retention rates [cite: 3, 13, 23]. 

The primary methodological challenge at Level 4 is establishing attribution. Organizational performance is a highly complex phenomenon influenced by a confluence of variables, including macroeconomic conditions, seasonal market fluctuations, parallel marketing initiatives, and broader leadership changes [cite: 8, 13, 24]. Demonstrating that a specific training program caused a specific fluctuation in a high-level business metric requires rigorous statistical isolation. Simply plotting training hours against sales volume only establishes correlation, which does not satisfy the requirements of causal inference [cite: 24]. Overcoming this requires techniques such as establishing control groups to compare trained versus untrained cohorts, or performing advanced trend line analysis, protocols that many L&D departments lack the infrastructure or expertise to execute [cite: 13, 24].

## The New World Kirkpatrick Model

In response to decades of industry feedback and shifting corporate paradigms, James and Wendy Kirkpatrick introduced significant revisions to the framework, formalized as the "New World Kirkpatrick Model" in 2016 [cite: 7, 13, 25]. This updated architecture maintains the foundational four levels but radically restructures their application sequence and expands their internal criteria to better align with modern performance consulting principles [cite: 8, 13].

### Backward Planning and Return on Expectations
The most significant methodological shift in the New World model is the inversion of the planning sequence. Traditional implementations often treated the model as a post-hoc reporting tool—designing the training, delivering it, and subsequently attempting to measure its impact from Level 1 up to Level 4 [cite: 9, 13]. 

The New World model mandates "backward planning." Evaluators must initiate the process by collaborating with stakeholders to define the precise business results required (Level 4) [cite: 3, 13]. From these macro-objectives, practitioners deduce the critical workplace behaviors necessary to achieve them (Level 3), identify the specific knowledge and skills required to facilitate those behaviors (Level 2), and ultimately design a learning experience to deliver that content efficiently (Level 1) [cite: 9, 13]. This inverted methodology ensures that every element of the curriculum is tethered to a measurable business outcome, replacing arbitrary training requests with strategic, performance-driven interventions [cite: 9]. Furthermore, the model emphasizes Return on Expectations (ROE) over strict financial Return on Investment (ROI), focusing on outcomes that primary stakeholders define as successful in advance [cite: 8, 20, 26].

### Required Drivers and Expanded Criteria
The New World Model fundamentally broadened the specific metrics evaluated at each level, moving beyond monolithic definitions to encompass the psychological and environmental realities of the modern workplace. 

The most critical conceptual addition is the introduction of "Required Drivers" at Level 3 [cite: 13, 27]. Required drivers are the organizational processes, systems, and support structures—such as continuous managerial coaching, job aids, aligned compensation structures, and post-training reinforcement—that encourage and reward the targeted behaviors [cite: 7, 8, 13]. The model acknowledges that without these drivers, even exceptional instructional design will fail to produce lasting behavioral change [cite: 13].

[image delta #1, 0 bytes]

 

The expanded criteria are summarized in the following table:

| Level | Traditional Focus | New World Expanded Criteria | Analytical Implications |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Level 1** | Satisfaction | Engagement, Relevance, Customer Satisfaction | Differentiates passive enjoyment from active cognitive engagement and perceived occupational utility [cite: 27, 28]. |
| **Level 2** | Knowledge | Knowledge, Skills, Attitude, Confidence, Commitment | Acknowledges that possessing a skill is insufficient without the confidence and internal commitment to execute it in a high-stakes environment [cite: 7, 13, 29]. |
| **Level 3** | Behavior Change | Critical Behaviors, Required Drivers, On-the-Job Learning | Shifts focus toward identifying specific, high-leverage actions and the environmental scaffolding required to sustain them [cite: 13, 27, 28]. |
| **Level 4** | Business Results | Leading Indicators, Desired Outcomes | Distinguishes between immediate signals of trajectory (leading indicators) and ultimate organizational impacts [cite: 27, 28, 29]. |

## Methodological Critiques of the Framework

Despite its status as an industry standard, the Kirkpatrick Model has been subjected to sustained and rigorous academic critique. Much of this scholarly skepticism focuses on the model's structural assumptions and the statistical validity of its implied causal linkages [cite: 4, 30, 31].

### The Causation versus Correlation Fallacy
The primary critique, articulated extensively by researchers such as Holton (1996) and Alliger and Janak (1989), is that the model's sequential numbering creates an illusory causal hierarchy [cite: 4, 6, 30, 31]. The framework implies a deterministic progression: positive reactions inherently lead to learning, learning inherently dictates behavior change, and altered behavior inevitably produces business results [cite: 9, 30].

Empirical research does not substantiate this linear causality. A comprehensive meta-analysis evaluating 40 years of training effectiveness literature (1982–2021) confirmed highly variable and often weak correlations across the four levels [cite: 32]. Notably, the correlation between Level 1 (Reaction) and Level 3 (Behavior) is notoriously fragile [cite: 9]. As demonstrated by structural equation modeling and cross-domain correlational falsification tests, a participant may rate a charismatic instructor highly despite failing to achieve any meaningful skill acquisition [cite: 31, 33, 34]. Conversely, a highly demanding and frustrating simulation may yield poor reaction scores but result in excellent long-term behavioral transfer [cite: 17, 30]. Scholars argue that by treating a taxonomy of outcomes as a causal model, organizations frequently misallocate resources toward optimizing learner satisfaction rather than focusing on systemic performance barriers [cite: 4, 31].

### Logistical and Data Infrastructure Complexities
A secondary critique addresses the logistical feasibility of evaluating Levels 3 and 4 within typical corporate constraints [cite: 5, 30]. Most organizational evaluations stall at Level 1 because measuring higher levels requires complex data infrastructure capable of longitudinal tracking [cite: 9, 35]. Connecting initial assessment scores to long-term behavioral changes necessitates a unified participant record that spans learning management systems (LMS), human resources information systems (HRIS), and operational databases [cite: 13, 35]. Without establishing a "hub-and-spoke" data architecture centered on immutable unique identifiers, evaluators must rely on manual data aggregation or self-reported surveys, which are highly vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability bias [cite: 35, 36].

## Alternative and Expansive Evaluation Frameworks

Given the methodological vulnerabilities and measurement gaps of the Kirkpatrick Model, HRD theorists have developed several alternative and supplementary frameworks. These models address specific deficiencies, ranging from the need for strict financial accountability to a deeper integration with cognitive learning science.

[image delta #2, 0 bytes]



### The Phillips ROI Methodology (Level 5)
Developed by Jack Phillips, the Phillips ROI Methodology operates as a direct extension of the Kirkpatrick framework by appending a fifth level: Return on Investment (ROI) [cite: 21, 37]. While Kirkpatrick’s Level 4 measures organizational impact (e.g., increased sales), it does not explicitly weigh the financial value of that impact against the total expenditure required to generate it [cite: 9, 20, 26].

The Phillips model executes a rigorous cost-benefit analysis through a sequential process:
1.  **Collect Pre- and Post-Program Data:** Establish baselines and measure subsequent performance across reaction, learning, application, and impact [cite: 37, 38].
2.  **Isolate the Effects of Training:** This is the critical differentiator of the Phillips methodology. Evaluators must employ techniques such as control groups, trend line projections, or mathematical forecasting to discount external variables (e.g., market conditions) and attribute performance changes exclusively to the training [cite: 24, 37, 38, 39].
3.  **Convert Data to Monetary Value:** Translate performance improvements (e.g., time saved, error reduction) into standard financial metrics [cite: 38, 39].
4.  **Tabulate Fully Loaded Costs:** Aggregate all program expenses, including needs assessment, instructional design, facilitation, technology infrastructure, and the opportunity cost of participant time [cite: 38].
5.  **Identify Intangible Benefits:** Document unquantifiable impacts, such as improved team morale or enhanced corporate reputation, to provide context alongside the financial calculation [cite: 38, 40].
6.  **Calculate ROI:** Apply the standard formula: $ROI (\%) = \frac{\text{Net Program Benefits}}{\text{Program Costs}} \times 100$ [cite: 40, 41].

Because executing these isolation techniques is highly resource-intensive, the ROI Institute recommends applying full Level 5 analysis to only the top 5–10% of highly strategic or high-cost organizational programs [cite: 26].

### Thalheimer’s Learning-Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM)
Will Thalheimer introduced the Learning-Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM) in 2018 to bridge the gap between training evaluation and cognitive learning science [cite: 16, 42, 43]. LTEM posits that Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 is overly broad, dangerously conflating mere trivia recall with the ability to execute complex occupational tasks [cite: 42, 44].

To provide greater granularity, LTEM expands the evaluation spectrum into eight distinct tiers:
1.  **Attendance:** Measures registration and physical presence [cite: 18, 45].
2.  **Activity:** Measures active participation and completion [cite: 18, 45].
3.  **Learner Perceptions:** Evaluates subjective reactions (subdivided into standard satisfaction vs. rigorous relevance checks) [cite: 16, 18].
4.  **Knowledge:** Tests the recall of facts and terminology [cite: 16, 18].
5.  **Decision-Making Competence:** Assesses the ability to choose correct actions in simulated scenarios [cite: 44, 45].
6.  **Task Competence:** Evaluates the ability to fully execute a task within a controlled environment [cite: 43, 44, 45].
7.  **Transfer:** Measures successful application in the actual workplace [cite: 16, 45].
8.  **Effects of Transfer:** Analyzes the broader organizational and societal impacts [cite: 16, 45].

Thalheimer forcefully argues that Tiers 1 through 4 are inadequate for validating learning success. Only Tiers 5 through 8 provide empirical proof that participants have achieved the cognitive and practical mastery necessary for workplace transfer [cite: 16, 42].

### Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method (SCM)
Robert O. Brinkerhoff introduced the Success Case Method (SCM) in 2003 as a qualitative, narrative-driven alternative to heavily quantitative models [cite: 26, 46, 47]. Rather than attempting to isolate average effects across an entire training cohort, SCM employs purposive sampling to analyze the extremes: the absolute most successful participants and the least successful participants [cite: 46, 48, 49].

The SCM methodology involves:
1.  Defining the ultimate success criteria (creating an impact model) [cite: 48, 49].
2.  Deploying a broad, rapid survey to all participants to identify the statistical outliers [cite: 47, 49].
3.  Conducting deep, semi-structured interviews with these extreme cases to gather rich qualitative data [cite: 47, 48, 49].

By investigating why the training worked exceptionally well for some and failed completely for others, SCM generates highly actionable intelligence regarding the specific environmental barriers and required drivers operating within the organization. This allows leadership to rapidly iterate and improve performance ecosystems, rather than merely calculating an aggregate ROI [cite: 46, 49, 50].



## Evaluation Challenges in Remote Work Environments

The ubiquitous shift toward remote and hybrid workforce models has introduced severe complications to the execution of training evaluation, particularly at Level 3 (Behavior) and Level 4 (Results) [cite: 3, 10]. In traditional co-located settings, managers could directly observe employees executing tasks, providing immediate qualitative data regarding behavioral transfer [cite: 51, 52]. In distributed environments, this physical visibility is eradicated, exacerbating feelings of isolation among workers and severely limiting the observational capacity of leadership [cite: 10, 53, 54].

### Shift to Outcome-Based Monitoring
To overcome the visibility gap, organizations are increasingly abandoning presenteeism-based observation in favor of outcome-based performance metrics [cite: 51, 52]. Rather than monitoring the *process* of an employee utilizing a new skill, evaluators monitor the *output* using Objective and Key Results (OKRs) and KPIs embedded within digital workflow tools [cite: 52]. While this quantitative approach ensures a focus on results, it frequently fails to capture qualitative nuances, such as communication improvements, teamwork enhancements, or the specific behavioral struggles an employee might be facing [cite: 52].

Furthermore, research indicates that remote environments necessitate distinct leadership competencies. Transactional leadership styles, which focus heavily on task execution and structured feedback, have shown positive correlations with virtual team performance [cite: 54]. However, the over-reliance on digital communication tools for monitoring and feedback frequently leads to cognitive overload and "digital fatigue" among remote workers, complicating the continuous reinforcement required for Level 3 behavioral transfer [cite: 54, 55].

### Technological Solutions and Simulation
To safely evaluate behavioral application without invasive remote surveillance, organizations are integrating advanced technological solutions into the evaluation process. The Experience API (xAPI) protocol allows L&D teams to construct sophisticated data architectures that track granular learner interactions across diverse digital platforms, mapping specific learning interventions directly to subsequent software usage patterns in the flow of work [cite: 35, 56]. 

Additionally, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR) are being deployed to simulate complex Level 3 environments. AI-driven coaching platforms utilize automated, natural-language role-plays to safely test an employee’s communication and problem-solving skills in realistic customer service scenarios [cite: 57, 58]. Similarly, immersive VR simulations are utilized in high-risk sectors (e.g., manufacturing, mining, and healthcare) to evaluate an employee's adherence to safety protocols and procedural accuracy in highly realistic, yet entirely controlled, virtual environments [cite: 58]. These technologies allow evaluators to measure behavioral competency and capture Level 3 data without relying on long-term, passive remote monitoring.

## Data Privacy Constraints and Workplace Regulations

As organizations increasingly rely on digital tracking, software analytics, and workflow monitoring to capture Level 3 behavior data, they inevitably collide with stringent data privacy legislation and labor rights frameworks. In the European Union, the tracking and evaluation of employee behavior is heavily regulated, transforming training evaluation from a purely pedagogical exercise into a complex legal operation [cite: 12, 59].

### The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Under the GDPR, digital employee monitoring—whether via keystroke tracking, CRM activity analysis, or video surveillance—is classified as "high-risk processing" [cite: 60]. Because a fundamental power imbalance exists within the employer-employee relationship, organizations generally cannot rely on "employee consent" to justify this monitoring; the consent is legally deemed invalid as it is not freely given [cite: 61, 62]. Instead, employers must legally justify monitoring through "legitimate business interest" and must conduct a comprehensive Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) prior to deployment [cite: 60, 62, 63, 64].

The GDPR enforces strict principles of proportionality and data minimization [cite: 12, 62]. Organizations must prove that the data collected for training evaluation is strictly necessary to achieve the stated goal, and that no less intrusive method exists [cite: 60]. Covert monitoring is virtually prohibited except in cases of suspected severe criminal activity [cite: 60, 62]. Data protection authorities strictly enforce these limits; for example, the French Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) routinely issues severe fines for monitoring practices deemed excessively granular, such as recording employee task completion to the nearest second, arguing that such surveillance violates employee dignity and exceeds the necessity for quality control [cite: 64, 65].

### European Works Councils and Legal Precedent
Beyond the GDPR, employers operating within Europe must navigate the extensive authority of national and European Works Councils (EWCs) [cite: 63, 65]. Works councils operate at the establishment level to protect collective worker interests. In jurisdictions such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, the introduction of any system designed to monitor employee performance or behavior represents a "substantial change to work organization" and requires mandatory prior consultation, and frequently formal approval, from the works council [cite: 12, 60, 65].

Under frameworks such as Article 27 of the Dutch Works Councils Act (WOR) and Collective Labour Agreement (CAO) No. 81 in Belgium, bypassing the works council to implement behavioral tracking software is a substantive violation of labor law, exposing the organization to immediate injunctive relief and potential criminal sanctions [cite: 60, 65]. In France, unauthorized monitoring can lead to charges of *entrave* (obstruction of the works council), which carries severe penalties [cite: 65]. 

Critically, a recent landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established that works council agreements do not supersede the GDPR [cite: 11, 66]. Even if a works council and an employer formally agree to a specific behavioral tracking mechanism for training evaluation, that agreement is legally void if the underlying data processing violates GDPR principles of proportionality and legal basis [cite: 11, 66]. Consequently, L&D professionals seeking to evaluate Level 3 behaviors in heavily regulated jurisdictions must design evaluation architectures that respect complex privacy boundaries, relying heavily on aggregated data, self-reflection, and anonymized metrics rather than granular, individual surveillance.

## Conclusion

The Kirkpatrick Model maintains its status as the foundational architecture of training evaluation by providing a vital, structured vocabulary for linking educational interventions to organizational performance. Despite its longevity, the framework necessitates cautious application. Decades of empirical scrutiny highlight the mathematical fallacy of assuming strict causal linkages between learner satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and ultimate business results without employing rigorous statistical isolation techniques. 

The theoretical evolution of the field—evidenced by the "backward planning" mandate of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the explicit financial accountability of the Phillips ROI Methodology, the cognitive precision of Thalheimer’s LTEM, and the systemic, qualitative insights of Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method—demonstrates that evaluating human performance is an inherently complex science. Modern evaluators can no longer rely on post-hoc surveys. They must architect evaluations strategically, identifying desired organizational outcomes and confirming the presence of required drivers long before curriculum design begins. 

Furthermore, in an era defined by distributed workforces and pervasive digital technology, evaluators face a dual mandate. They must leverage sophisticated tools like xAPI, AI simulations, and outcome-based KPIs to measure behavioral transfer across physical divides, while simultaneously navigating the rigid legal boundaries of global data privacy frameworks like the GDPR and the mandates of European Works Councils. Ultimately, effective training evaluation is not merely a measure of learning, but a comprehensive audit of the organizational ecosystem’s capacity to facilitate, support, and legally respect human performance.

***

## Sources
1. [sopact.com](https://www.sopact.com/use-case/kirkpatrick-model-training-evaluation)
2. [forbes.com](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2023/05/17/the-problem-with-lds-beloved-kirkpatrick-model-and-what-to-do-about-it/)
3. [bizlibrary.com](https://www.bizlibrary.com/blog/training-programs/the-kirkpatrick-model-a-closer-look-into-the-training-program-evaluation-model/)
4. [valamis.com](https://www.valamis.com/hub/kirkpatrick-model)
5. [esmed.org](https://esmed.org/evaluating-medical-curriculum-with-the-kirkpatrick-model/)
6. [learningguild.com](https://www.learningguild.com/articles/beyond-kirkpatrick-3-approaches-to-evaluating-elearning)
7. [worklearning.com](https://www.worklearning.com/ltem/)
8. [blueedgewater.com](https://blueedgewater.com/kirkpatrick-vs-ltem-two-models-one-mission-evaluating-impact/)
9. [thinqi.com](https://thinqi.com/content-hub/blog/how-do-you-really-measure-learning-transfer)
10. [focusu.com](https://focusu.com/pdf/Designing-Learning-with-LTEM.pdf)
11. [kodosurvey.com](https://kodosurvey.com/blog/brinkerhoff-model-101-methodology-and-goals)
12. [aes.asn.au](https://www.aes.asn.au/images/images-old/stories/files/conferences/2006/papers/063%20Catherine%20Bell.pdf)
13. [coursebox.ai](https://www.coursebox.ai/blog/brinkerhoffs-success-case-method)
14. [sitios.itesm.mx](https://sitios.itesm.mx/va/dide2/tecnicas_didacticas/casos/successcase.pdf)
15. [study.com](https://study.com/academy/lesson/brinkerhoffs-success-case-method-for-training-evaluation.html)
16. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379457738_A_Critical_Review_on_Training_Evaluation_Models_A_Search_for_Future_Agenda)
17. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/evaluation-in-2025/)
18. [td.org](https://www.td.org/content/atd-blog/atd-research-explores-effective-ways-to-report-on-learning-evaluations)
19. [trainingindustry.com](https://trainingindustry.com/magazine/fall-2024/a-new-lens-on-training-evaluation/)
20. [whatfix.com](https://whatfix.com/blog/phillips-roi-model/)
21. [hcmdeck.com](https://hcmdeck.com/en/blog/the-fifth-level-of-the-new-kirkpatrick-model-or-why-and-how-to-calculate-training-roi/)
22. [roiinstitute.net](https://roiinstitute.net/roi-methodology/)
23. [pmi.org](https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/phillips-roi-methodology-measure-project-7240)
24. [matcgroup.com](https://www.matcgroup.com/instructional-design/the-phillips-roi-model-an-analysis/)
25. [xapi.com](https://xapi.com/action-mapping/)
26. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/harnessing-the-power-of-ai-in-learning-performance-practical-insights-for-maximizing-impact/)
27. [youtube.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzyBpdf9SWw)
28. [symtrain.ai](https://symtrain.ai/ai-coaching-kirkpatrick-model/)
29. [roiinstitute.net](https://roiinstitute.net/roi-methodology/)
30. [trainingindustry.com](https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/measurement-and-analytics/phillips-roi-methodology/)
31. [trainingmagnetwork.com](https://www.trainingmagnetwork.com/info/851)
32. [myshyft.com](https://www.myshyft.com/blog/phillips-roi-methodology/)
33. [pmi.org](https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/phillips-roi-methodology-measure-project-7240)
34. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/evaluation-in-2025/)
35. [liberateglobal.com](https://www.liberateglobal.com/blogs/measuring-elearning-roi-with-kirkpatricks-model-of-training-evaluation)
36. [academiccommons.columbia.edu](https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/4tdt-bj78)
37. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/)
38. [tribalhabits.com](https://tribalhabits.com/measuring-kirkpatrick-level-3-behaviour/)
39. [hrbrain.ai](https://hrbrain.ai/blog/evaluation-of-training-and-development-in-hrm-a-strategic-approach/)
40. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11198856/)
41. [chrmp.com](https://www.chrmp.com/kirkpatricks-model/)
42. [unstop.com](https://unstop.com/blog/kirkpatrick-model-of-training-evaluation-guide)
43. [irl.umsl.edu](https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=dissertation)
44. [kirkpatrickprice.com](https://kirkpatrickprice.com/blog/whos-enforcing-gdpr/)
45. [orrick.com](https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2025/05/German-Federal-Labor-Court-Grants-Damages-Under-the-GDPR-for-the-Use-of-Employee-Data)
46. [eurocockpit.eu](https://www.eurocockpit.eu/sites/default/files/2021-09/ECA_GDPR_EX_summary_F.pdf)
47. [clevercontrol.com](https://clevercontrol.com/gdpr-requirements-for-employee-monitoring/)
48. [eurofound.europa.eu](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/employee-monitoring-moving-target-regulation)
49. [employee-monitoring.net](https://www.employee-monitoring.net/use-cases/employee-monitoring-works-council-europe)
50. [eurofound.europa.eu](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/employee-monitoring-moving-target-regulation)
51. [edoeb.admin.ch](https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/en/monitoring-systems-in-the-workplace)
52. [yaware.com](https://yaware.com/blog/what-eu-employment-law-says-about-time-tracking-and-employee-data-privacy/)
53. [ropesgray.com](https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/viewpoints/102j2fg/employee-monitoring-technologies-key-takeaways-from-recent-uk-and-eu-enforcemen)
54. [employment-studies.co.uk](https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/392.pdf)
55. [ebsco.com](https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/education/kirkpatrick-model-evaluation-model)
56. [sopact.com](https://www.sopact.com/use-case/kirkpatrick-model-training-evaluation)
57. [emerald.com](https://www.emerald.com/ict/article/54/1/36/108049/The-Kirkpatrick-model-for-training-evaluation)
58. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316502174_A_Critique_of_Kirkpatrick's_Evaluation_Model)
59. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/global-perspectives-adapting-the-kirkpatrick-model-across-different-cultures-by-wendy-kayser-kirkpatrick/)
60. [valamis.com](https://www.valamis.com/hub/kirkpatrick-model)
61. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/the-kirkpatrick-model/)
62. [td.org](https://assets.td.org/m/77abc3bdba86a1d2/original/112606_Building-a-Culture-of-Evaluation_SampleChapter.pdf)
63. [kizerlearning.com](https://kizerlearning.com/blog/kickstart-your-journey-with-the-new-world-kirkpatrick-model)
64. [hr-analytics-trends.com](https://www.hr-analytics-trends.com/blog/exploring-the-effects-of-remote-work-on-employee-training)
65. [vorecol.com](https://vorecol.com/blogs/blog-the-impact-of-remote-work-on-performance-evaluation-practices-7898)
66. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378880994_Remote_Work_Challenges_and_strategies_for_Effective_Management)
67. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11008841/)
68. [uchicago.edu](https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/BFI_WP_2025-68.pdf)
69. [employee-monitoring.net](https://www.employee-monitoring.net/use-cases/employee-monitoring-works-council-europe)
70. [ogletree.com](https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/european-court-of-justice-ruling-on-works-agreements-reinforcing-gdpr-compliance-in-the-workplace/)
71. [eurofound.europa.eu](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/employee-monitoring-moving-target-regulation)
72. [fortra.com](https://static.fortra.com/titus/pdfs/white-papers/WP-Works-councils.pdf)
73. [dentons.com](https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2021/may/12/dutch-works-councils-and-employees-privacy-personal-data-and-employee-tracking-systems)
74. [jmir.org](https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e42510/)
75. [wmich.edu](https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4495&context=honors_theses)
76. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10894936/)
77. [emerald.com](https://www.emerald.com/ijotb/article/doi/10.1108/IJOTB-03-2025-0055/1303853/Rethinking-leadership-in-remote-work-a-thematic)
78. [ijfmr.com](https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/4/54491.pdf)
79. [lww.com](https://cdn-links.lww.com/permalink/acadmed/b/acadmed_2024_08_27_shofer_acadmed-d-24-01366_sdc1.pdf)
80. [td.org](https://www.td.org/content/atd-blog/updating-the-four-levels-for-the-new-world)
81. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Introduction-to-The-New-World-Kirkpatrick%C2%AE-Model.pdf)
82. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/the-new-world-kirkpatrick-model.pdf)
83. [sopact.com](https://www.sopact.com/use-case/kirkpatrick-model-training-evaluation)
84. [learningpool.com](https://learningpool.com/blog/employee-performance-goals-choosing-the-right-training-evaluation-model)
85. [coursecheck.com](https://www.coursecheck.com/training-providers/training-evaluation-methods-for-training-providers)
86. [clevercontrol.com](https://clevercontrol.com/6-best-training-evaluation-models-pt-1/)
87. [kodosurvey.com](https://kodosurvey.com/blog/training-evaluations-models-complete-guide)
88. [thinqi.com](https://thinqi.com/content-hub/blog/what-learning-evaluation-model-should-you-really-be-using)
89. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369972325_Kirkpatrick_Model_and_Training_Effectiveness_A_Meta-Analysis_1982_To_2021)
90. [trainingindustry.com](https://trainingindustry.com/magazine/spring-2022/making-the-leap-correlation-to-causation/)
91. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5776753/)
92. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9517080/)
93. [scispace.com](https://scispace.com/pdf/the-impact-of-human-resource-development-on-organisational-4zo7bqhpgm.pdf)
94. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/blog/evaluation-in-2025/)
95. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393395842_Impact_of_remote_work_on_organizational_culture_and_employee_performance)
96. [frontiersin.org](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2022.810797/full)
97. [radiant.digital](https://radiant.digital/index.php/going-beyond-kirkpatrick-model-rethinking-your-training-evaluation-strategy)
98. [researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379910951_The_Effect_of_Remote_Work_on_Employee_Performance)
99. [mindstamp.com](https://mindstamp.com/blog/training-evaluation-methods)
100. [sopact.com](https://www.sopact.com/use-case/kirkpatrick-model-training-evaluation)
101. [hrdqstore.com](https://hrdqstore.com/blogs/hrdq-blog/how-to-use-kirkpatrick-s-four-levels-of-training-evaluation-model)
102. [medium.com](https://medium.com/@nadiachernyak/kirkpatricks-training-evaluation-model-when-should-addie-s-e-begin-8fe9afbc5384)
103. [valamis.com](https://www.valamis.com/hub/kirkpatrick-model)
104. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Introduction-to-The-New-World-Kirkpatrick%C2%AE-Model.pdf)
105. [mindtools.com](https://www.mindtools.com/ak1yhhs/kirkpatricks-four-level-training-evaluation-model/)
106. [kizerlearning.com](https://kizerlearning.com/blog/kickstart-your-journey-with-the-new-world-kirkpatrick-model)
107. [roiinstitute.net](https://roiinstitute.net/roi-methodology/)
108. [trainingindustry.com](https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/measurement-and-analytics/phillips-roi-methodology/)
109. [stratbeans.com](https://stratbeans.com/phillips-roi-model/)
110. [commlabindia.com](https://www.commlabindia.com/blog/phillips-roi-methodology-part5)
111. [whatfix.com](https://whatfix.com/blog/phillips-roi-model/)
112. [eurofound.europa.eu](https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/employee-monitoring-moving-target-regulation)
113. [gdprlocal.com](https://gdprlocal.com/gdpr-employee-monitoring/)
114. [clevercontrol.com](https://clevercontrol.com/gdpr-requirements-for-employee-monitoring/)
115. [ogletree.com](https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/european-court-of-justice-ruling-on-works-agreements-reinforcing-gdpr-compliance-in-the-workplace/)
116. [harperjames.co.uk](https://harperjames.co.uk/article/data-protection-and-monitoring-staff/)

**Sources:**
1. [bizlibrary.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFs7KzAt_ezRpisyuHxrbxX1iFaQ3PHo8BTmhqhCuDt92UMJovB0fxxi4p6zMc8vqEsxm1qNOVEbVDlHFyIH5cBZOmr6v8Ls4c4ZkZ8LHHat_n9jNSAsU5M47BwGyjUyYrS7jUwTD_l7PwKzpM1deIB2zs5GDgfTE0RamIRiQxgRvuMgSAlZ0IIZmP2yP8FmF2qiB4y3NZmCJ4_iFY5uyuCo1mWSASRM1vRUDNcO0grbVkzImwM2Hgb)
2. [hrbrain.ai](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHh3YajomDrBToOjtuNyTu-qWw5CcIdgtRA8sA3FDu2BCkuDcZGDYu0iPqxoLsQIbaecoqlrDcXYyPYXh7ep8DKilZLj5h7e3BnpqUqenoeIBJERzuxn1St5o55YNo0Hzu5eZB3s2gIohjgsTJTH_PwZXJ4mBVJ0w0vheVI0K4nrJzLW2SITxUT8OXfLd4Ypy7M)
3. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwtCEyoKyTfEnZiZHvjIjHk84MXP_X99-duFv4vxsliPpGGWqLb7TaNm5iPsV3Tr-iyRfkOTwilH9V6aO7kELz4k7pQPwvVpWQ4sFgAsh1AWpllg9crSr7dLVjOznfPRdBXja9HLzplxUH2HlVb3eomjs=)
4. [emerald.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHdSxemgaH14LPKHcsazvZj6mTWpjVaRwfp2choL6edqcvlbCyB-CKa0r57GbgMenCmrFhfuP2Yrzogh43gk3q_FF-ZDvEjkc1L5c992EUVP_hFVsTpivcts8fRNZ7ggG6MGTwb2hJ-p90ux0REY8v_rA1RNWg2O9IRosDwTJnkwkAQldSI1RcwkBTZxJaKERNt7gluQMs=)
5. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFsTi9_nsZQz5QakhQnrhhuNdLNdYs6GhIk4v-n8xScHqwEVxPGu8uT74hUtOdCWqftRSKNaRZlhYfwkbPSr-b-YhcsCLr6R3IrR1-SrH-klrHfDD2GixKEsPtaa_LXyNb7gQ2cbri-mFP1-zxCbFk_KBGy8l0UxBJVLLG3f7tVIuvMDkb3dje3b7QJi4YGB0T9iJgvFA==)
6. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGCaT2Fey_ANZdREjvY6-kOV3iEUkhIt3z1jGQtyVrQG1z-s8DgwthA5Udea1sSGogyZ8KsE8zb6aYpmyKC-2bcUi30ZcefIuVXO3Sx6xXz0puf2UG9iiMWZSgkM4ZPIllZg9E88rebxw==)
7. [mindtools.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH3mEgtWbXLsebf5bwfCE3PEB_eFe0DmWoTeSID3NV5-xZxnncgfggW5ecDQLEELu7pkhZjGlgUHbovJrHrXqFTzMgDA7ur7pmYu5iTjbEAH_Ue24OLqBBvRW637vZKiRhQEvo2vtY9RjuKzJkOwOQZRQILJ9duCwIwdXR1O4a3ap_b0SEmQxBt1UM=)
8. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFi0REpAbZxmdYNXXrQ_N_bDKr2tuZ6ET8ARJTncfBXhBg4Pn2vbL-uEc2khF5BsoiYClwIL1OH9cuVcMMvDVTUTTDvUqac1L629XZLPM-IvEA3-SmZtClI6OpN5kRdqY86TV9FWw7Tpru2-pugkhXH)
9. [sopact.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFdZxeJav50JO-HxHNiXj6SAUXEuvpqY_3TK9c62qDOLy-P7AB1QhpkItn7f0BFbmkC7OZ8XwiNkMCt1kU9NYDQHK7YJry9pRHDHtqQ5qzcyMjwbYixp9KkTWyN6wNHeA0zBYKxRs-V5PwHl9YBZq9gTvDklydscNMFcws=)
10. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEv_YjaGZxzkcv2CpJ_iTbnNSFdW6Iu6czTBtgUE5J69wr9BYrxjUazdzTur2MFcvVFyVtS3GSQjDqFYNBKheYo0l8vlqqGrT0wk7w3dXaCu7IZ2oTinHjSwiIhh2AwSSQI5JhE16Us2swFfeM29yw7a7N_4fiUfugYYix3Am-duF5EZyLwvmukntpFtAidswQmKbX22lJc71ZMPscpvpMn2PbOsG5bfw==)
11. [orrick.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEZrk0Ye2iFzCnXIVyCE2ZySPh1bU2jAuXZ4s8Dp--e3mz8bKSOPECSb9-yAUtEnJNLHUs6Ayah5D-5uNmy9OcdHYGRnw7n2I1zx3IzLRzHF5rWX5DLPMHpzzyxL6Q9i2zjkgO_uRW3m13ur4flkzqoVor4V6WnkuaEfDv-l6HuGF93_tTuRXflo86_PwlaBL4hFJ5hO-5av6CmcvC6HreVgNHrNJGngZonPU_IQ40LjwaIPmGFxYE=)
12. [europa.eu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFY306LwzW8JPmqOowNKTieyq0jEGo-aNDitk9lDwROooqysIlBRVT9wioF-960xSPGBJgV3gg0Xd9yOI7wygv2J89cSpBWDnQqbgsY9fK9RDbPclQ1q-MmM7k88OmKKhMPk8rBKp5ZT1P3hxuA7oo7j1e--O0KS-px3bylg_nL1DpG9NGAXIQE786GhGiyYddqNbqfcGk=)
13. [valamis.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG0Ldhm_9TPUAFb_nqFb_DVA1XwerULyUnGomT-pqyiX7k9tUSWTYgV9sH82V9QY_E_tMugGegh-1XPa0QElB9Gf9GtntgG4uErS4oC1IPcUv9x88S40Lu9tHYpseDG62jhIPI=)
14. [chrmp.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGv5Tju3wK-6j7fEKbpCu9KT3i_CrEviIvmW2QUkuMZ2xORbXFglqv0vxwOd5PrX18cMs7MpbEc9EG-4Pibcsoa5aD3GY2UtmCj_04i2F6LMDjD53oxPtJ0NV0rl0FbfA==)
15. [umsl.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF8cBguUt-FVydq8dADjspisivJToUGxA4P-iBW_GfQ3QIPx6gYiftbmDsXNLawB-DZC6IwNl1Y1oyfYTibtWIVdThzMcch8406ygW7HbB96NqmacgaX-41-4Udjt1fLy5weWWPmkE-UlLbrBvjgL3uh06Gr3CecK1OZ65wkJyBgw==)
16. [learningguild.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGbFJNgzfUnvnZdwPeEinGWTji0zLHbCN0JKFdi6cU0NvpUB4MrzcL9JY9C7lqkb-osdk2_PgnQ9ncZfLg4gM0GQzaVkzJ1Maa-4kbreqh14-P8jBqh_Z82yKKzzTqK4yUV8phWhoLWnUPVy3UlceOBnxJmne_iGSCCzzD4jC62rMVlY4Bg03F0B4Q8aZkUdNio52qt)
17. [forbes.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG-Eph9iB9ka4vxog7UiTgoqvTcY183jxaW7TDsa6L41fYtxwJBLwxOvSHiD_ccXsiXyadnfsK-8O_5EWpuaek3jGmjjZy0to4UetfYrJ45GsebgVVLrOzShX5tOY36skb7MLUlLyoRMZJ5WIjLqptLYI6fmDUbHD8cCBzOA8nYHCIXt--QdMM_5kc5gJtEqxHxVwkp8JAYO7vcexD9qR-y5uCEnU7TDkEZHId1pSoBww==)
18. [thinqi.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHb45mMziCbwRdYUfZ1DzvpWBjPYz0_UN_C0hnk320L7RpIPLF1lMu7uguufA5OzDovryvAmV09nb0umjlPPwKIazMutl-4Mv3R-UTK6JNN3F2zbNMk6tTNpUxejWIQERdv5S3bKUnVA7dSQsc1T9CUSNvcG7iqvtIsLdZIb4yhamEoWICy)
19. [tribalhabits.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHwOtefQxcN-upZRseDFZ_dvlUT-eYqYCi44iRHM_JW0xumbOo485t_-00t4UYd5p6eNDYoGCF4H4yfB-J8TsKLEIOE2rPYQSxO67EVMCAHFjskQsuAFkY1aPzvEota-p35EVidxqKDYtrJrEECN5y9bQqiPAz3KQ==)
20. [matcgroup.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGH9lMHfAkJp9P-lJ8xl74x16TyfvvUQRXgko-ZXrlimoNoUG8rLbrHpvkqBjIrTqmPsDzxEIQ4_-atxOmyaLb2INqjFktgEWI6dlHKZleDOa5CXnLGZPuFYGXmcqoXYqhCH9SXuH9axVeuefznoYyZsn0VCOxY_pYNGB7Csb6ysU3ZXNhkpsYw)
21. [hcmdeck.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFdJgBAT5Pa5o6Y057kVdONbEXW8ej91MeOOyMzSbe8pzvyOobMrkvezrUfPcjvZxqKhmBG9u8DzcX2xJtZgoJ8SL08kVkHymCsOmry1GscxZoUFjjgkxxF32iqaeK9LNcWbogIkG00xcY6jg006bbuH-PQc1Urjwu4-Olb0lZHoV9QprdeDPAO8UqD39gFNpWR_I_UnhTur4Uu0CSvT-1SY4FFNyioxtA=)
22. [kizerlearning.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG_mhk6LfCO4yWtET_1ySEJDIWod-NVv-dUsBuBslRDpRpOKjrDw49txCMWQ5cK2CI4neEEMhCAS1Jhxz2hqYUpUfFqgk9SwNrSxMu9QusysNbPnG8sO7R9cleeoKWBLWcZomyxuXOxa4e5kbF8jBi8BSYdU-I8dHIHV6EIUYzXuJZdBrYIt4DIw1ReDKCVjs8=)
23. [liberateglobal.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEGj14CoNHyN6s0RliSET0e_ChFFozW-6Zg9ng7SXto2CSP_x4UAsV53sB0jd_3yu6pDdS_GPlH3seMNLI-DMAuVmJOEwov5RLILxDrDEFOgmFrmsd1W_2qsqoR25CWZu1yRYxDNlqZNf2vnj1K7QnI5ow116dK8vfBm8uzSeWw2QH-Y4M2tPtE2yDaUsM5a-9sRkqN45MRhkj5PQgGLvTdEQ==)
24. [trainingindustry.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEP0cIZg4nkGMhl7g9-1zqaIwZyzA3_3AJS0a2iHbq-3HDyL8jjNfuxThE6wr-nAsWcnSgxN5-YHqfXrhXWiBGLNAzoiENXSfbc_oRfQSmmCZ7N8aOKsd16Kq1lT7MCcuqPKsSc9SW1Aa0GRufVVWI4wUi2E1hWRuW9ZtsQgDreCpJvQlMQVmeOGzX78ICI44Du)
25. [td.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEz1hVKXjNaisRwHiDiQ0EOZnK55q404bPRd-A9KTquXm5-Xe8djG_toJjA46eci5vqyC6COqCogxuVr7Om_dJNlkl4Qa3Z29ISoH6inkj4OcAgY56msncu140pqQnABlW2cxnssQ1of6ieFYIIRiLW8UZmvcNeJ8ofYCYzx95r4uhbbTA=)
26. [kodosurvey.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH_jGIep15iU58y1QuY1M6PaIto3pBWyAF85JxCV6Ef-CifV-WXLD48Li-5IpIsE7o6c-Q-G32QjK0JpEmzqMLUoaFLicnmhY9GjyyKog4rFBHpxcNnp71MIG-SQkPOVAIeAHP-s8Y3FxBpxjzHQIyVTEsSp-0HROEsmfJ9)
27. [kirkpatrickpartners.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEdYP5kaHa9esM6Kuv_buI-WMDrNtKxHkRgzHfE39pjk0YsbiB7ReCJHp8pJGMts7FMCaFSs9tsuJS72uEeXNZuUBnMewu90Dy4Z26zPYcLgCQx0FKfVPky-cWMFnzNUqMQjyzs4w2UV8vKsYQcqwnU8rhD9AH7OA2DUBztBVo0rM0VCuo7oclnQTPW5JVQyqcO_BB0zbDllwznRmT64saeyLqXWMZeeDXonQq_IhE=)
28. [medium.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH6QL7xTguxmbkjSMDpaIwneYdn575oDhKkpdiqRtXy3CMOQsbKhKh6s0X0ckmSkGdAVfWPW5ozkuGH7kVrFXJDNHdMYwk6jVX6rzwvLDPua5Z32M1LtDzOPvgg7EwYaLLwx5rl3I4DkPUaxLSmPouQ6stOJupoCa2Fq3aMJl-Q7BIJQOzIb37XCTvLzXYlsAW1aszAdQayY5B_SFSm0Lm2J5VB8Qjz2Q==)
29. [lww.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEnU87oGhOSR4_DV4yV6ths6j1fpC7ge8J1sjO7tZoIhB2N_xfJfZkPB7uZwRcwi2HkSS4O_Hgg4bx1QSnQ0qHRnyA9L9LUt5Zmdx_LF9S6FiJtcz0eNy9susYqzAgbji9JaVqjb8tAmBTiPuusMsxsErzefVr9u97Z8tw0a3KxylGkW7su6MN9RXf2GWkstXvdHBdmBLK--WQ=)
30. [esmed.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGWrX5jZXrxTY3ik5DXRAT52F1KvgaxKbCTOBzQ_oHpzbfgsM1LGD4JizHFYUyNZO3Z7M6KY8nGtmr3XxYLs2X0--xzXLM4ntOcbxFuyb7p7akJMRk1pC7tIwgp9k-n9QAAiZEOTN7RxuVVR5gDJAwIIldroszuRO4vdHzSLvS1N7k=)
31. [employment-studies.co.uk](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHOl-ospCxJcXySlSCG_4IFQzBxXe_qAZ5SI9EdR1fCdN8jxyg6etdHFp-BklQ2ohCGX9mGGYTkbxVsGU38SfeOgw7dWKKjalHNXwMxA7i1_l7y9q4J_sdi8F--35ZsZCqKMmW12_IfqoG7e7UjS_t2DGeTPm3I9pJS91H3mXJl)
32. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE9d-_JtelkOj5gHPyNs-K5l_qgMfc-M6K4BVN_g6vnryOVZdVU8kfFAnokTwu8pJ-Bj1p3UUXTomprfxgkMY16IhvCH13IhT1rZx2rxe1NXI6XhEi3uP5CsweHnzbrnSXZjC7Zawnt4AaA3cSKqHm5znt4ip21kyUquMPVxjQM02mNgszo7khvTAwpP0v5XZe_ZvlBmb9dHMPQ1qb78vKQjNNTfc2b9yOO2Ch3OJ2efIdY)
33. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHboIImGwGDWWRPI74FNmlBolA3xTF7VnntFxTs6xVX-tHJ4q7F7TIQBlC3gfg5tAcFYpcJ6tmG6cgUU69dtpl6DHzVZhuq519ZdgSHswCNfhh6QhaMYjQ4HrhaiurYP44CidrgxKgg)
34. [scispace.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGutrsO3tpGd6eUjFZ0zvNc2RUSupcSxMzhJCI5JP7qXmcvYw_AGgxPRXz_pnhJ18S1QiRICKALKvB1P9pSXv1pcJRzaI0YxvVlb_cGxXhebctYqPGsFtwEUfNA-yAOhjXQfltG27c5GEvCJYhb1zxMA-tZYlpSF6uuB_12hQKRnMIj9syXhsmp8HlN4pnAeeYtS1nl_4fezQ==)
35. [youtube.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG2T4n6F3SoOumMbMJbyOe3syhhDjo8zLj00kSO6B9X5Ne9Dl0hRNYF_gSnLH0H-EqxC-0b6HfE6UKBlIcc7DnG3XXB9sq-EYjkA_Wbcv-_b_pnkNVIeAokzdL0uCnWHVQo)
36. [columbia.edu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHMrEE_X8M3NvvaVmMLRzgSQkj_htWaykgvvoBq_R_su9KPPV2FAzWh0j0ww1KIG_QevRKkQAogRy0kFVDq99H6QoEqwZxHnwZB3qTojJtF9HT8zl1f0PUBh6QW7pnaXoLve69FwYvjloHBbzDmp60C)
37. [whatfix.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFC0TD2cTFXt9fsSdOniTXPV3hTY3mRBIYzOzPyLCHT0WmNuKKYjbsMZza3h4pnxEvB0MMm6fYAxahvSyonyZRAQLpIBPVFrGqpsyN7vkdCLn7NZiaEo8T-0wGijbsul4VLrg==)
38. [roiinstitute.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGlz9cvCFNTh_bfYhm2h7MDDMeI1jQHVpo0ML_eWI9Vq_lgmXoq1Iy_UKi30OyJVg_OAJRyv_Njk6wgOMudMVpMhd140Ziww4zsZRpyoIwcIarOfriSHw0KUhwI8jLt8A==)
39. [stratbeans.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFvF1uJ-y0lfcjedpZtgCQfcWGSdS8HSzoVwUHhmPgUSnMbrIAFBrlsyrGVXKAtIeqpd5yFKzYWD_YWJ1Rt6JOAmeOObvep1ZNFkyWMg0GeGsmsjWoc6VXYfF5BdM2Wuis=)
40. [myshyft.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHuhwRNeVv_8oQxhPYV6BPv5KbZctwzOqAtNvy04Tzios53lVPggIDzncq39gXYYiPYQrk5oA_gvmzVQhB45yaaqh7QuLMEfVpfYlspuo0j-WxGpvIiS6CCBwk3PETBX6AAms_ormd17m5C3Ys=)
41. [trainingindustry.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFa3NYcsMjMnxTor6gTBTevJj_FiOAw1E_8EfoSj7R63qj6hMPNa3Z5pMXlM8l83r-O0Jv07da8Tpw6k4eG9gnQVDBeoTquqUwy-T5cX0KhL8zxZbVFzJBfxRBFlnoN9OSSx_ZgJfIyvRanNLZLcPhXSLicNzuNuHgywzsg4rnwmeCq4Xta19gAFhKN)
42. [worklearning.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH0PdHdgxZwtYdiFjBjX3zMZKI9jQyE_fT2Hnt2wuLL54SaZrXo7xsK4cOqyMTam94OSsSAglLDrKnCCK3QHnqX2yEw6BPC3EvyoPE8I5rgitFnnKwcbYpS)
43. [focusu.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE7ZAML0JE4FpTJF18l0ycJdZnXmJWhLN02fLWbkwah8J0lwITOEZA1D74L8ABoZzMdR3TnRpWWVICXHR09-QPRy1QzmqvP8E62OSHAF1UZCViX4d0Bpg1ljkYmijW-bko5FxvxuOG3BbgjJ1Bh)
44. [blueedgewater.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHTUaA_poC4iu9xBX4MPn4WzinZ9yqDyqxXzcBWdNLqgdhh6yupvigTUA0LBzZFyMME0f9qQ_LdmFKcDQg_DejFnJ8Hw9rnbfF-UhQ6dSHFB1xRTixUehTAdBHqUjrH67Iyw9ef5pf4wuebtuf1FWA8EboQEmp8Phc7ZMnE4foLEalCIaYnPzG0tTKx31o=)
45. [learningpool.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFlsjBAByLz8HbaQbzSjP1FSbnOkXf_n4MlKY_psUT2dasetjK3bXPC6bUk43EQmc1fiUCfoXgm2oa-YkSEIc21DgnxGB-_673Bui-Hk5W4LXxZ_4J4RN_QjL9JL_qo-XUXfoEZzwSSMTLe2KvNGFM0JwMAM8T3m6gAyFnK6Z8UwCS9ZTLzrW30BlcJXhbxmjA2UeWWVUfEQbYiFw==)
46. [kodosurvey.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGNverTzeu672ZKQZyWOOWXOE-zKvFPZEZK37Xj17yEV_b8S26iB_RnrMjZFLSJLh6Z6Hxh8q9idl7G5SJCPfWyVf1HrzZX5t4t873DW2pX22DETOaTnwmKPz5NQnqyIH17X5uFvkqdIvFVbke0Nas-ZLrM3AYBDHHEqKRTvA==)
47. [study.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFM8ldM5G1QBTfjDUT1ujWBybSAm4AijXd_eYzOacc3WOhyCw64tmPNlTwZCiDrA5_jCiIf7m9HbVIlD2XeyqKw_OnGuiqaZNx8p8pCW0Jn5V-9yTQcwTxgSb9iYqEYKF5GTwUDjBQ-kRtV65zkGK4YKN3VhiWxNsFrnUYuhKa2Jah9E8XqelSbw1Qt5ZI4-reHa7rU)
48. [aes.asn.au](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHGQi_97cYWgkOD9JBYrtgahj733dYdZ04GGm3b72rzhsH71jVkHd-5cu8BFJBza8dyVm8qJrrhpceLMKiJsFMuUgmIjMp9ycoFxX4NT0jJfhTy1cgStr3Os0c71HJwFvt8Am96a4-P4GwodjkzLsaRtcCLS8wY1hUFvw6euxBjM_9WIGkjhcljNK3lADROPfeKd_BN54CKiicXygxC0w0=)
49. [coursebox.ai](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFgClSg-iuXV5qu7Ky8sFWVaQziVb931xRBl2Zt94CUbUrP6quWUWhn509gAG_bU2PjRV_pE03vCCdqsQ8tsRRtV6sTWTK3KY-W4bVCStjihbgiDfUBhot8UxiFbEptYpj_hzQxZp6htInZ9BWWaJrSap33Qg==)
50. [thinqi.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGXbp5Nbw0bmKqmFIFHpFHvPnhZTG13-wsbuKO0N5RwWmlVDIs0_LcjMCx5JsimxB0XTBGvZvrqkfm5vbbpZau_AFRwaCAq5SS_BSbvu92himUGHMYXOcwzIIVe7EqUo47nOcjfcp2vX8lDu22vXkKspOoB4TUGTYesY-YrYT88HS5OYVgFbHL20p3pUNxI9gEvYQ4=)
51. [vorecol.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFN40Ex-kYCqkryr31wiFHuJBeV-iHHChd1-IBZMUPBsw0LqzCgw69gF19SrCbvWbmKeOWeLztXYvt4Zhh93ipkp_tXhnxIbqPmLfsErt2pygf9GLlFhhLmwDGzCBy-sud4BXA4Xv_AJIFEKQFJFt-TlLLq8kcChGzlqm8kPD2jJDbgyodIUKVcIyCbx0VFP8JmUMWYlGrV)
52. [ijfmr.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGgpReVYS2YK4UkFFwuZ_SeO7jTlh9K8N3l3U35zixGcGOlCaSXZz-EKNm22wfGnItEP0V28C8ZXNqW50yndRO1jBv2IFkASjv6p286ADDVhZhV8Haw1MaSZVty-Dfdk8jdHUI=)
53. [nih.gov](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGLd742RA_hS5yx1Mj1hH7mc0ng0dFZXgy14nlG4NYV1aUEzRHXmLkhpxlzJ0-gvnQI5TMGo3iLjduQ13bZgj8otqg1qpCWePJh68yWYQ2nBq7NvG0P-vV3sXr4pDRXzP3KF5NrHV9osw==)
54. [emerald.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQF09_Z3G1VUvbS1iaDIYZLtjJ-WAUGAoCzMYRPmMkM0fiM4xL5xVcyqPPBBpvKK8NDKnv-9rKrAIR7vWUxhQuSgEtXNrsP_WIIKz3ty4Qj3gyVglfrVHHWHo3Y0PAVi1eVJwPcZrOIlA8cSrLlV8PypehJc3afn2BNmRyPNQEBCFHSVF1N7AQndLrpQLdrFXNGuTT3PRl1TtO9VdRYKLh6xdk56Wl9pAGvBvEFbNQbzRfS2)
55. [researchgate.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEi548n-1fZoNr-PFJy--bZ1HxdqlWt3UxjepCJC2-JGz2a2epSwCb6-GyPkhQC9dwFBr9mgNbIKOwOqNnCchAU2EC4N50eEvwwewPe3M0gEmpKoCtehzi9_KVjeEAKy80o5ZL_KH5kGuU8SXUvrofFsIqL19Tpk5c3BLA-urwt437q0BvfcLGNLppw47lWmSNKNwPiXSRPUtNpePPhyujjNqJZmqpsJIrKcje-f3l2lv0=)
56. [xapi.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHygdtbYlFH41307i-Zyr6tA38w3T52nKU7lB5IOwP_sPpW4Jys3WK8BO5kPYieeK82AKT3tk7dcKI2uoTisOP_0u5Xrd2qwdZzX6GGEfaT5FXhDY1KSw==)
57. [symtrain.ai](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHnsIWKV_ogNp54bvCE1HAefeJoJ7fV0F7RdO1Cq-ZIJEEoWHI0M2qGc0mKuZudQtV7sx12KTFSRpUhcuDovRNb7Rw8EnQUjxRg65JJMVU4nV63Tnjul31FzkOdW3tLFIPHqzGgnvCvSg==)
58. [frontiersin.org](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQH-lwwXI_zKVCfohy_Zd5cPqSJ4JvPDSIIMTIKDlN3u7HHMiISdEPqoIp4IcelcGbjO_JXZaXsXgwCLlsczBq-__iWYZNG74XN4fkqf0P77gbO-Jzxn7Vboqg176x6D3yFz48qXNVeyi3p2i3nAPCfq8Qq3XuuGpJScorRWducLY8uDPFR5g0QzAFOyvkXfb_gWyA==)
59. [kirkpatrickprice.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQHpkKG_bPyYGPzy8EDeGAPc1zYZO3Zi1SLuObFwvCzVFAaCMt8YaD_WjB0J1E1FChRRTzmiyrXDq-M4fBSRYB45udLtkafD4kkn_pe-_7E_LAOu0t3EhrRyI2nnJxGuoePpsd1pZpUbpn4yeA8=)
60. [clevercontrol.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQEn_T-Mds4AJowuvVT1aN8iXlrhvgoP-MrJPwMCrCMkcDKH_DESsQh3r7oANMQZmmWmiHdHskd6ZBNYAmXAroHc5novXVLuyqXsRnxDYj8HAjgtvxOIYIICeQ2ZClnBYPlCVRDnUnDGj3QckleZ_bRK7iUnFflyNuG0Hg==)
61. [yaware.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQE7oUcY9pWyxIgeAabE8oASQk5JLYBXIECtT9SdxNesJUynw2KVROqVYOglmostFMNx87Lp0NAZMQOcjPD0bQXOYlMpEG7sq8QRznXwpY5aZkB6NftaW_-AxMnIUoyDZq3R2gBvDogYo3V2tSMBXaubQw9P-FMT524hgPVesgxMRZVrQ6N81qmFb8WfUZE6o7JFvvW_FcnzUw==)
62. [gdprlocal.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGsyTV0rY2Dcre1j7wdmfrNScfA-rWaICTtxDjwuqzJBd4XIvxDhv-_YCYfwwFKsCm8jFAauE27XmI9f_XSb8l5Cb-soF1EeRGayfB4VYV1AEhuokI0i5o-98l4b85uyoB3MUpePg==)
63. [eurocockpit.eu](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQGnRL-9pGhpYvqqtC8ycxChPGSYoUvzk4VKU1gTfT1PJgS0x69Ag2sSXzueKWqVWjnR0lE05CjRIjzRtbozYwhZoGd7kZCZNAtiQ4l7Nu3G0OrPunURSJWODmpmanZ2ihuE2zBthMLLYtsHaqRqf-8h5idj0LF3REVKYmQrfQYiAoEYFnubTg==)
64. [ropesgray.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQG2PonibVSsR64HqRs0MEgvvQ9l7sL4UUL6IHQni6bcE83iSDiATK0W_NnxRrrBKRVYYmak8XFFOMk2MB-blZaKAa7Mj5DE8r_6tTag9os7uNH73cqzoj9QwaSMbEEwS79jQMxkRwZizlOxT5BTKHrBpW0G9rlauFcdieaP3uHF9Qz08e6_uSYGF2lm8ShTeaGlGvJeciUarocEl2sYRcLdUMGeR4abfENh8nWGM1tXS42GGkSAZNf-9zny8FDSrQ==)
65. [employee-monitoring.net](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFQfthl2YMiMEYZQBLPJy1x5FWxSlspyFIqAQ7wJeVsXIAFuzzZ_EWmiuM5b7HRdmAoLL7FV0aK5_1h3-LgloDS5knDBeFftjGKTkKrdgZhq_zwQeZFAHTyn5A5GVEE2cKx5aA3k-qVlUOyOczIwFST7MtzlOpvshPPdDZc6ArpKhPogZm_2fMZNyJDdA==)
66. [ogletree.com](https://vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com/grounding-api-redirect/AUZIYQFkQIzswp9IH98zw1sYsOpGnexYU__JzZj481hIX9XfeOEdsxF-S18duapczkIwwpMOrZGixYp_bjvouhlt2al6DiB4cWLEyd5vaDhMFUw9D1tt2qNbOUrwaeydQDBZt9993YME9VbpW3beSd-ybVvE-LPo4hoOYCGSVgWb97uIv5CEsqgRE6A11UaTGXwaJo8GyQcEx-Zy_Rdwcd9f4NrmK3OWn2eu_HgDmNEAIk89RAupIQWMwY7bPhLjIuByUZjPnsnRnGA3YD6_8RQ=)