Sales Training Evaluation: Methods and Models That Actually Work

Introduction

I’ve spent years on both sides of the sales equation, first as a salesperson, then as someone responsible for building and leading enablement programmes. 

And if there’s one challenge that’s followed me the whole way, it’s this: how do you prove a sales training programme is actually working?

It’s a question that comes up in every boardroom, every quarterly review, and every budget planning cycle. 

I’ve seen sales and enablement teams pour time, energy, and no small amount of budget into training. Yet, when it came time to show the impact, the conversation usually got a bit awkward. 

• Are we measuring the right things? 
• Are we measuring anything at all? 
• Does a spike in sales mean the training worked, or was it just good timing? 
• And if results are flat, does that mean the training failed… or that we didn’t measure what mattered?

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard, “We just know our training is good,” or, “If sales are up, why ask questions?”

Naturally, I’ve been wanting to cover the topic of sales training evaluation since The Enablement Insight started, but I also wanted to dig deeper.

What does the research actually say about evaluating sales training? Are we alone in struggling to connect the dots between training and results, or is this a universal challenge? 

I spent some time combing through the academic literature and industry studies. 

The first part of this article shares what I found: a few hard truths, some surprises, and, thankfully, some practical guidance.

After that, I’ll walk through the five evaluation methods I’ve found most useful, and, in my opinion, most reliable, for sales enablement teams. 

These aren’t just theoretical frameworks. 

They’re models I’ve used, adapted, and seen in action across different organisations and industries. Each one comes with its own strengths, limitations, and best-fit scenarios.

If you’re wrestling with the question of whether your sales training is actually moving the needle, or you’re just looking for a more credible answer when someone asks, “How do you know it’s working?”, you’re in the right place. 

Let’s take a look at what the research says, and then explore the models that can help us move from guesswork to genuine insight.

PS: This deep dive on sales training metrics may also be a great complimentary read.

What does the research say about measuring sales training effectiveness?

To understand whether this discomfort around proving training impact is unique to enablement or something more widespread, I went digging into the research.

What I found was both reassuring and a little sobering: the struggle to evaluate sales training is everywhere, and it’s been with us for decades.

Let’s start with the big picture. 

Companies invest staggering amounts in sales training – over $30 billion and 15 billion work hours annually in the US alone, according to Attia, Honeycutt, and Attia in “The Difficulties of Evaluating Sales Training”.[1] 

Yet, when it comes to evaluating whether all that effort actually moves the needle, most organisations fall short. 

In fact, only about 11% of the training efforts and 8.5% of the training budget go towards evaluation.[2 and 3]

Even more surprising: up to 30% of companies don’t conduct any formal or systematic evaluation at all. [4]

Why is this phase so neglected? 

The research points to a mix of cultural, practical, and methodological barriers. 

Many managers assume that if the company is hitting its numbers, the training must be working. 

Others see evaluation as too time-consuming, too expensive, or simply someone else’s problem. 

There’s also a real fear that negative results could threaten job security or budgets, so it’s safer not to ask tough questions.

Even when there’s a will to evaluate, the “how” is rarely straightforward. 

Time and money are the most common obstacles, cited by nearly 40% of sales managers in both large and small companies, according to Honeycutt and Stevenson’s “Evaluating Sales Training Programs”.[5]

But data collection is just as thorny – missing, unreliable, or scattered data make it difficult to draw clear conclusions. 

Specific data problems encountered when evaluating training programmes include: 

• Lack of data, unreliable data, incomplete data, and untimely data [3]; 
• Inability to identify the type of information needed [7]; 
• Seasonality and/or irregularity of sales data [8].

The methodological headaches don’t stop there. 

Isolating the impact of training from other variables such as market shifts, product changes, and territory differences is notoriously tough. 

Self-assessments tend to be rosier than supervisor ratings, and even the best-designed evaluations struggle with issues like response bias, lack of clear standards, and the practical impossibility of running true experimental designs in a live sales environment.

All of this creates a vicious cycle where, without strong evidence, managers remain sceptical about investing in evaluation, which in turn keeps evaluation underfunded and underdeveloped. 

This leads to most companies falling back on subjective measures like trainee reactions, field observations, or gut feel, rather than rigorous, results-focused analysis.

But it’s not all doom and gloom, and the research does offer some practical ways forward. 

Organisations that break the cycle start by making evaluation a leadership priority, allocating dedicated resources, and planning for evaluation from day one, not as an afterthought. 

They set clear, measurable objectives, use a blend of quantitative and qualitative data, and involve line managers in both design and assessment. 

Importantly, they keep the process practical: focusing on what will actually be used, not just what looks good on paper.

And when evaluation is done well? 

The results are promising. 

Studies show that well-designed sales training, when properly evaluated, leads to higher sales commissions, lower turnover, and increased revenue compared to control groups. 

The only catch is that these studies are rare, and most rely on single-company samples, so there’s still a lot we don’t know.

So, what can we take from all this?

If you’ve found measuring sales training effectiveness challenging, you’re in good company. 

But there’s a growing body of evidence (and a set of practical recommendations) that can help us move from gut feel to genuine insight. 

That’s what the rest of this article is about: the models and methods that can help you prove, improve, and communicate the real value of your sales training.

Sales training evaluation approaches

The research is clear: while most organisations recognise the importance of evaluating sales training, actually doing it well is another story. 

But, as both evidence and experience shows, choosing the right evaluation approach can be the turning point – shifting your programme from “we think it’s working” to “we know it’s making a difference.”

That’s why, in this next section, I’m digging into five of the most widely used and, in my experience, most reliable models for evaluating sales training. 

Each offers a unique lens, but all are designed to help you prove, improve, and communicate the real impact of your enablement efforts. 

Let’s take a closer look at what sets each approach apart and where it fits in the real world of sales enablement.

1. Kirkpatrick Model

When it comes to training evaluation, it’s hard to avoid the Kirkpatrick Model – and with good reason.

Since Donald Kirkpatrick first introduced his four-level framework in the late 1950s, it has become the global standard for evaluating learning effectiveness. 

Whether you’re discussing sales training or any other kind of development programme, this model shows up in nearly every serious conversation about impact.

In fact, I wrote about how you could use it in more details in my article on sales training best practices. 

Why the Kirkpatrick model endures

The Kirkpatrick Model’s staying power comes down to its structured, logical flow and its ability to break down the messy business of “did it work?” into four clear, sequential stages:

1. Reaction – Did participants find the training engaging and relevant?
2. Learning – What selling skills, knowledge, or mindset shifts did they gain?
3. Behaviour – Are they applying what they learned in real sales conversations?
4. Results – How does training impact sales performance, revenue, and other business metrics?

This approach is as popular in the sales world as it is anywhere else. 

Research by Attia, Honeycutt, and Attia highlights that the Kirkpatrick framework is “the most well-known, frequently used, and convenient” model for classifying levels of training evaluation, especially in sales contexts. 

It’s not just theory, either. 

Practitioners and researchers alike consistently reference it as the foundation for both academic studies and real-world assessments.

The Kirkpatrick Model’s language and structure have shaped the way organisations everywhere talk about and measure sales training outcomes. 

It’s not limited to sales; you’ll find it in healthcare, banking, government, and beyond. 

Even when companies don’t use the full model, its influence is unmistakable, as most default to its terminology and stages when discussing training evaluation.

If you want a more in-depth explanation of the Kirkpatrick Model, you may find this this blog article useful. 

Why it’s a true evaluation model

When I was doing research for this article, a number of “models” came up and, at face value, most of them seemed bona fide. 

However, after more careful examination, I realised that only five of those were comprehensive and yet focused enough to make their appearance in this article.

For example, here is why I would’ve included the Kirkpatrick Model even if it weren’t a household name in the world of learning and development: 

• Comprehensive, multi-level assessment: The model doesn’t stop at “did they like it?” but pushes all the way to business impact, the thing that boards and budget-holders want to see.
• Widely adopted: Studies show that between 35% and 76% of large firms evaluate at least one level of sales training [5], and most use the Kirkpatrick levels as their guide.
• Identifies breakdowns: By separating learning from behaviour and behaviour from results, it helps teams spot where things go wrong. For example, if reps learn the material but don’t apply it, you’ll see it at the behaviour stage.
• Standard setter: Even when companies don’t tap into the full potential of model, its language and structure shape how most sales training is discussed, measured, and justified.

A few realities to keep in mind

The Kirkpatrick Model’s popularity doesn’t mean it’s always used rigorously. 

Research shows that most organisations focus on the first two levels (reaction and learning) because they’re easier to measure. 

Fewer push through to behaviour and results, where the real value (and the real challenge) lies. In fact, only a minority of firms systematically evaluate at all four levels, often due to resource and data constraints.

There are also practical hurdles: isolating the impact of effective sales training at the behaviour and results levels is complex, with external factors like market shifts, team dynamics, and compensation plans muddying the waters.

And even when the intent is there, data collection remains a sticking point, with many managers citing time and money as the main barriers.

That said, there are ways to work around the complexity, even without perfect data.

Some organisations start by:

• Focusing on one key behaviour change and linking it to a specific training objective.
• Using follow-up manager observations or light-touch surveys post-training to track behaviour shift.
• Incorporating pre- and post-assessments for skills and confidence, even if they’re simple.
  Gathering qualitative feedback from reps about what they’ve applied in the field — and what they haven’t.

As your data infrastructure and tech stack mature, you can go further.

Integrating CRM and learning systems, using conversation intelligence platforms, and building clearer attribution models all open the door to more quantitative tracking at the behaviour and results levels – connecting training to pipeline movement, sales velocity, and revenue growth with greater confidence.

None of this happens overnight. But by starting small, learning what’s feasible in your environment, and layering in more robust methods over time, you can move from gut feel to evidence-backed enablement.

Ultimately, if you’re looking for a proven, universally recognised way to bring structure to your sales training evaluation, Kirkpatrick remains the benchmark.

It’s the model everyone knows, the language a majority of practitioners speak, and (in my experience) the best starting point for any serious enablement team looking to grow in maturity and rigour.

2. Phillips ROI Model (Kirkpatrick + ROI Calculation)

If you’ve ever been asked to justify the cost of sales training, you’ll know why the Phillips ROI Model has gained so much traction. 

Building on the Kirkpatrick framework, Jack Phillips introduced a crucial fifth level, Return on Investment (ROI), that translates training outcomes into financial terms. 

It’s the model that (in an ideal world) finally answers the board’s favourite question: “What did we get for our money?”

Why the Phillips Model stands out

The Phillips ROI Model keeps the four Kirkpatrick levels (Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Results) but adds a rigorous financial layer:

1. Reaction – Did participants find the training engaging and relevant?
2. Learning – What sales skills, knowledge, or mindset shifts did they gain?
3. Behaviour – Are they applying what they learned in real sales conversations?
4. Results – How does training impact sales performance, revenue, and other business metrics?
5. ROI – What’s the monetary value of these results, compared to the cost of the training?

This approach is especially popular with organisations that need to demonstrate the tangible business value of their sales enablement and especially sales training investments. 

As Attia, Honeycutt, and Attia point out, “to justify the expense of sales training, it must be cost-effective; that is, total benefits must exceed total costs”. 

The Phillips Model gives you a structured way to prove that equation.

If you want to delve a little deeper into the model you may find this blog article useful.

Why it’s a true evaluation model

With so many models promising to link training to business results, I was looking for one that tackled the “show me the money” question head-on. The Phillips ROI Model does exactly that, and here’s why it earns its spot:

• Financial accountability: Unlike most frameworks, the Phillips Model doesn’t just track learning or behavioural change; it asks you to calculate the actual return on investment. This means quantifying benefits (like increased sales or reduced turnover) and comparing them directly to training costs.
• Ideal for high-stakes programmes: If your sales training budget is under scrutiny, or you’re rolling out a major initiative (e.g., skills training for a new sales process, a new sales onboarding approach), ROI data can be the difference between getting more funding and seeing your programme cut.
• Combines qualitative and quantitative: The model values both behaviour change (did reps do something differently?) and hard numbers (did that translate to revenue?).
• Widely adopted in results-driven sectors: While not as universal as Kirkpatrick, the Phillips Model is the go-to for organisations where training must prove its worth in pounds and pence, not just participant smiles.

A few realities to keep in mind

The Phillips Model is powerful, but it’s not for the faint-hearted. 

Calculating ROI in the real world is complex, especially in sales, where so many variables can influence outcomes.

You’ll need robust data collection, a clear methodology for isolating the effects of training, and buy-in from finance and leadership. 

As the research shows, “few managers are absolutely certain that the value of their sales training programme exceeds the investment”. [1] 

Even when evaluations are conducted, they’re often “crudely performed because of difficulties encountered in measuring the effects of sales training”.

Still, if you want to move beyond “training is good because people liked it” and answer the ultimate value question, the Phillips ROI Model is a safe bet. 

PS: For a deeper dive into the concept of ROI and how to measure it, I recommend this article by enablement expert Mike Kunkle. 

3. The New World Kirkpatrick Model

If the Phillips ROI Model is about proving the financial return on training, the New World Kirkpatrick Model asks a slightly different (and, I’d argue, more strategic) question: “Did we deliver what our stakeholders actually expected?” 

This evolution of the classic Kirkpatrick framework, developed by Jim and Wendy Kirkpatrick, puts “Return on Expectations” (ROE) at the centre of training evaluation.

As an evolution of the Phillips (and therefore the original Kirkpatrick model), it is by far my favourite when it comes to evaluating sales training, as I’ve espoused in my article on sales discovery training where I demonstrate the New World Kirkpatrick Model application in the context of discovery skills development. 

Why the New World Model works

The New World Kirkpatrick Model keeps the familiar four levels (Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Results) but reframes how we approach them. 

Instead of treating evaluation as a post-mortem, it starts with the end in mind: what do business leaders, sales managers, and other stakeholders truly want to see as a result of the training? 

First, you answer that question and only then do you design, deliver, and measure your programme.

Return on expectations (ROE)

The shift from ROI to ROE is far more impactful than it might seem at first. 

ROE means clarifying, up front, what sales training success looks like for everyone involved, whether that’s increased sales, faster ramp times, improved customer conversations, or a shift in sales culture.

Moreover, unlike return on investment (ROI), which is typically calculated after the fact and focuses on isolating the value of the training programme itself, return on expectations (ROE) encourages genuine collaboration between enablement and the broader business. 

Where ROI often becomes a defensive, reactive measure, ROE brings business leaders, sales managers, training participants, and other key stakeholders into the conversation from the outset.

It recognises that the real value of training depends on shared ownership and ongoing accountability, not just a final financial calculation.

Backwards planning and broader value 

The model encourages you to work backwards from those expectations, aligning every stage of training – content, delivery, reinforcement, and measurement – to those desired outcomes.

In addition, not every outcome that matters to a sales organisation is easily captured in ROI terms. 

The New World Kirkpatrick Model gives you permission (and a framework) to measure what’s meaningful, whether that’s pipeline quality, coaching culture, or customer trust.

If you wish to delve deeper into this evaluation framework, I’d highly recommend reading the book titled Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation by James D. Kirkpatrick and Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick. 

Why it’s a true evaluation model

Including the New World Kirkpatrick Model has been the easiest decision I made for this article, for a very simple reason – I use it myself. Over the years, it has become my go-to framework for evaluating sales training:

• Strategic alignment: By focusing on expectations, you ensure training is relevant, business-driven, and supported by leadership from the outset.
• Flexible evidence: The model values both hard data (e.g., sales figures, conversion rates) and softer outcomes (e.g., manager feedback, team culture), making it easier to report on the full impact of your enablement work.
• Modern best practice: The New World Model is now widely referenced in L&D and sales enablement circles as a more business-aligned, stakeholder-driven evolution of the classic Kirkpatrick approach.

A few realities to keep in mind

The New World Kirkpatrick Model’s greatest strength – its insistence on upfront alignment – can also be its biggest hurdle. It demands that you clearly define success with stakeholders before the training even begins.

If those expectations are vague, constantly shifting, or owned by too many competing voices, it becomes nearly impossible to draw a clear line between effort and outcome. And without that line, success is hard to define – and even harder to prove.

Another source of friction is leadership’s lingering attachment to ROI. 

Despite your best efforts to reframe the conversation around Return on Expectations (ROE), some leaders may still expect a clean, post-hoc financial calculation. That tension arises because ROI feels concrete, like something you can show on a spreadsheet.

But what ROE asks is more strategic: “Did we deliver the outcomes that mattered most to the business, even if they’re not easy to monetise?”

This shift in thinking can feel uncomfortable at first. But in my experience, it’s what separates a training initiative that ticks boxes from one that drives real, lasting change. The New World Kirkpatrick Model is the bridge between the two.

4. Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method

If you’ve ever wondered why some salespeople seem to soar after training while others barely take off, Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method (SCM) might be the evaluation approach you’ve been missing. 

Developed by Robert O. Brinkerhoff, SCM flips the script on traditional models by focusing less on averages and more on extremes. More specifically, the trainees who achieve outstanding results and those who don’t.

Why the Success Case Method works

The SCM isn’t about ticking boxes or collecting endless reaction surveys. 

Instead, it’s built on a simple but powerful premise: real organisational change is often driven by a handful of standout successes (and, just as telling, by clear failures). 

By zeroing in on these cases, you can quickly uncover what’s working and what isn’t. 

Even more crucially, why?

Here’s how it works in practice: 

1. Find the edges, not the middle:

After a training programme, you don’t start with a survey or a dashboard.

Instead, you look at the sales reps who’ve shown the most striking tangible improvements, and those who haven’t changed at all.

This can be done through performance data, manager nominations, or even self-reports.

1. Go beyond the metrics:

Once you’ve found these cases, you dig into their stories. Through interviews, observation, and light ethnographic methods, you explore the why behind the outcome.

Did top performers receive more coaching?

Did they apply specific parts of the training?

Were there environmental factors – like support from sales leaders or peer accountability – that enabled or hindered behaviour change?

1. Distil insight into design:

The goal isn’t to produce another evaluation report. It’s to get to the heart of what actually works in your context.

SCM provides tangible input into future training design: which elements to double down on, which ones to refine, and which structural or cultural factors to address.

It gives you a clearer link between training inputs and real-world outcomes – and allows you to make informed choices, fast.

Sales is an environment where results vary wildly based on context, motivation, and support. SCM respects that complexity.

It helps you escape the trap of building for the average rep – and instead learn from those already modelling the behaviours and results you want to see more of.

In that way, it’s not just an evaluation tool. It’s a feedback loop for learning design, leadership alignment, operational improvement, and helping build a winning sales team.

This paper is a great in-depth examination of the model, if you want to dig deeper.

Why it’s a true evaluation model

After looking at a lot of approaches that get bogged down in theory or endless data, SCM’s focus on real-world stories and rapid feedback is a breath of fresh air. Here’s why it deserves to be called a true evaluation model:

• Fast, focused, and practical: SCM doesn’t require months of data collection or complex statistical analysis. It’s designed for speed and actionable feedback, making it ideal for fast-moving sales environments.
• Reveals the “why,” not just the “what”: By focusing on actual behaviours and business outcomes, the method goes beyond surface metrics to uncover the root causes of success and failure.
• Drives continuous improvement: SCM’s case-based approach gives you concrete stories to share with stakeholders; stories that can inspire, inform, and drive targeted changes to your sales training programmes.

A few realities to keep in mind

The Success Case Method is not about statistical representativeness; it’s about learning from outliers. 

That means you won’t get a full picture of average performance, but on the other hand, you will discover what’s possible and what stands in the way. 

For sales enablement teams, it’s a brilliant way to move quickly from “what happened?” to “what should we do next?”

From what I’ve seen – and heard from practitioners – SCM is especially effective when used alongside other models. For instance, if you’re using the New World Kirkpatrick Model to align upfront on expectations and outcomes, SCM can help you validate those outcomes with real stories and concrete examples.

While Kirkpatrick gives you structure and shared alignment, Brinkerhoff helps you spotlight the human truth beneath the data: who among the sales reps applied the training, who didn’t, and why.

In that way, SCM doesn’t replace broader evaluation frameworks; it sharpens them.

If you’re tired of endless spreadsheets and ready to understand what’s actually driving (or blocking) sales success, Brinkerhoff’s approach is a breath of fresh air.

5. Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM)

If you’ve spent any time in sales enablement circles lately, you’ve likely heard of Dr. Will Thalheimer’s Learning Transfer Evaluation Model (LTEM). 

And if you haven’t, prepare yourself for what might be the most refreshingly direct approach to training evaluation I’ve encountered.

Thalheimer didn’t just set out to improve existing models; he deliberately positioned LTEM as an antidote to what he saw as fundamental flaws in the Kirkpatrick approach. That takes nerve, especially when challenging what many consider the gold standard. 

Even if I were completely convinced my approach was superior, I’m not sure I’d have the courage to so directly challenge a framework as deeply embedded in L&D practice as Kirkpatrick’s.

Why LTEM cuts through the noise

What sets LTEM apart is its relentless focus on diagnosis. 

Where other models might tell you that your training isn’t delivering results, LTEM helps you pinpoint exactly where the breakdown occurs in the learning-to-performance chain.

The model’s eight tiers create a detailed map of the journey from simply showing up (Level 1: Attendance) to actually delivering sustained business impact (Level 8):

• Attendance – Did they physically participate?
• Activity – Were they mentally engaged during training?
• Learner Perceptions – Did they find it relevant and valuable?
• Knowledge – Can they recall what they learned?
• Decision-Making Competence – Can they make good decisions using the knowledge?
• Task Competence – Can they perform the skills in controlled settings?
• Transfer – Are they applying their new sales skills in their actual work?
• Effects of Transfer – Is their application creating better sales outcomes?

This granularity is LTEM’s superpower. 

When a sales training programme falters, the model helps you determine if the problem lies in engagement (Levels 1-3), knowledge acquisition (Levels 4-5), skill development (Level 6), or application (Levels 7-8).

As research by Attia, Honeycutt, and Attia revealed, most organisations struggle to isolate the impact of training from other variables such as market shifts, product changes, or territory differences. LTEM’s tiered approach helps address this by creating multiple checkpoints along the path from learning to improved team performance.

If you wish to read further on this model, here’s a more detailed exploration of LTEM.

Why it’s a true evaluation model

LTEM stands out from the average frameworks in several important ways:

• Diagnostic precision: The model doesn’t just tell you if training worked; it shows you exactly where the learning-to-performance chain breaks down.
• Practical focus: LTEM dismisses what Thalheimer calls “smile sheets” (basic reaction surveys) in favour of meaningful measures of competence and transfer.
• Evidence-based design: The framework is built on learning science research rather than tradition or convenience.

By providing clear, actionable guidance on what to measure at each stage, LTEM helps enablement teams strengthen this critical but often neglected phase.

A few realities to keep in mind

LTEM’s strengths come with corresponding challenges. 

The model demands more sophisticated measurement, especially at the higher levels. You’ll need systems to track behavioural changes over time and to isolate training’s impact from other variables – precisely the data collection challenges that Honeycutt and Stevenson found were major barriers for sales managers.

The model also requires patience. 

Results at Levels 7-8 may take months to materialise, testing executives’ appetite for delayed business impact demonstration. 

And as our research section highlighted, when training budgets are under pressure, waiting for long-term evidence can be a hard sell.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is cultural. 

Moving from “we trained the sales professionals” to “we changed what they do” demands alignment across enablement, sales leadership, sales management, and sales operations – a significant shift for organisations accustomed to measuring training completion rather than business impact.

So what’s the bottom line on LTEM?

While I wouldn’t suggest abandoning Kirkpatrick entirely – there’s a reason it’s remained the go-to for decades – LTEM brings something different to the table: clarity.

It demands we stop settling for superficial indicators like attendance or satisfaction and ask harder, more consequential questions:

Are sales reps making better decisions? Are they performing core tasks more effectively? Are those behaviours sticking and moving the business forward?

That’s the shift LTEM calls for. It doesn’t just track whether training was delivered or received. It tracks whether it transferred into changed actions, better conversations, and, ultimately, measurable improved sales performance.

In my experience, LTEM is most valuable when something’s not working and you can’t quite tell why.

It’s the MRI of sales training evaluation: a deeper, more detailed scan that helps you spot exactly where the learning-to-performance chain is breaking down – whether that’s in how content is delivered, how it’s reinforced, or how behaviour change is (or isn’t) being supported on the ground.

Yes, it takes more effort. Yes, it can surface uncomfortable truths.

But if your goal is to design training that actually moves the needle, rather than just ticks the box, there’s no more honest model out there.

Honourable mentions: alternative evaluation frameworks

While the core models I’ve covered are the most widely used and validated in sales and sales enablement, there’s no shortage of other frameworks from the broader world of learning and organisational development. 

Each of these alternatives brings something unique to the table, often addressing gaps or blind spots left by the mainstream models.

Some complement the established approaches by offering diagnostic depth or focusing on specific behavioural levers. 

Others are better suited to niche scenarios, like long-cycle B2B sales or metrics-driven SaaS environments. 

Many have strong academic pedigrees, but haven’t yet seen widespread adoption in sales training, often because they require more adaptation, resources, or a shift in mindset than most sales and enablement teams aren’t ready for.

That last point matters: as research by Honeycutt and Stevenson highlights, even the best-established models face real-world barriers like time, data, and resource constraints. 

For frameworks with less sales-specific validation, those hurdles go double. 

Still, for teams looking to experiment, refine, or simply broaden their perspective, these “honourable mentions” are well worth a look.

1. CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, Product)

Developed by Daniel Stufflebeam in the 1960s, the CIPP Model is one of the most established frameworks in programme evaluation, especially in education and public sector settings. 

Its strength lies in providing a comprehensive, process-oriented approach, evaluating not just outcomes, but also the planning, resources, and delivery of a programme. 

While not originally designed for the sales training process, its focus on aligning training with business needs and monitoring every stage of implementation makes it a valuable reference for sales enablement teams seeking a holistic view.

(This paper provides a very detailed overview of CIPP, as well as a checklist to guide implementation.)

This model is best for organisations needing to evaluate sales training effectiveness before, during, and after implementation.

Why it’s relevant:

• Context: Assesses alignment with business goals.
• Process: Evaluates delivery quality (aligns with Attia et al.’s findings on methodological gaps in sales training implementation).
• Sales fit: Helps prevent wasted resources by identifying misalignment early, critical for sales teams under pressure to prove ROI.

2. COM-B Model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour)

Introduced by Susan Michie and colleagues in 2011, the COM-B Model comes from the world of behavioural science and health interventions. 

It’s used to diagnose and influence behaviour change by examining three essential drivers: capability, opportunity, and motivation. 

Though not a traditional training evaluation tool, COM-B is increasingly applied in L&D to understand why desired behaviours do or don’t emerge after training, making it a smart fit for sales teams who want to get to the root of performance gaps.

(You can find out more about the model here.)

This model is best for diagnosing why sales training fails to change behaviours.

Why it’s relevant:

• Explores three drivers of behaviour change, critical given Honeycutt & Stevenson’s finding that 42% of managers cite lack of standards as a barrier.[5]
• Particularly useful for addressing self-reporting biases which are inevitable when trainees evaluate training themselves.
• Sales fit: Helps isolate whether reps aren’t applying skills due to capability gaps, lack of tools (opportunity), or incentives (motivation).

3. Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning (6Ds)

Created by Calhoun Wick, Roy Pollock, and Andrew Jefferson in the mid-2000s, the 6Ds Model is a practical framework developed specifically for corporate learning and development. 

It emphasises that true learning impact comes from what happens before and after the classroom, not just during it. 

The 6Ds guide organisations to design, deliver, and reinforce training in a highly structured and organised way. It leaves nothing to chance and demands significant rigour in deployment. 

(You can read more about it in this pdf document.)

This model is best for ensuring the training and learning processes are as comprehensive as possible in design, delivery, and reinforcement.

Why it’s relevant:

• Focuses on post-training reinforcement, a key weakness in much of sales training.
• Aligns with LTEM’s emphasis on sustained behaviour change but adds structured steps for accountability.
• Sales fit: Addresses the “forgetting curve” that plagues product-heavy sales training programmes and makes for a good model for large sales organisations.

4. The Impact Measurement Framework®

Developed by Josh Bersin and his team at Bersin & Associates (now Bersin by Deloitte), The Impact Measurement Framework® emerged in the late 2000s as a response to the need for more business-aligned learning measurement. 

It’s widely used in large enterprises to connect learning interventions with business outcomes, focusing on both leading and lagging indicators. 

You can find more on it in one of the original articles by the author himself. 

While it’s most common in HR and L&D analytics, its emphasis on data-driven impact makes it increasingly relevant for sales enablement teams under pressure to prove value.

This framework is best for linking training to business outcomes.

Why it’s relevant:

• Emphasises leading indicators (e.g., stage progression rates, stage conversion rates) over lagging metrics.
• Matches Attia et al.’s recommendation to use both qualitative and quantitative data.
• Sales fit: Aligns with sales leaders’ need to show how training impacts revenue, not just completion rates.

5. Anderson Model of Learning Evaluation

First published by Dr. Vicki Anderson in 2007, Anderson Model was designed to address the limitations of traditional, linear evaluation approaches. 

It advocates a three-stage, strategic process: aligning learning with organisational goals, evaluating learning, and measuring the contribution to business outcomes. 

The model is particularly valued in sectors where training must be clearly tied to strategic priorities, making it a useful reference for sales teams seeking executive buy-in.

(This is a great resource on the model.)

The model is best for strategic alignment with business priorities.

Why it’s relevant:

• Starts with identifying strategic drivers..
• Mirrors Kirkpatrick New World’s ROI focus but adds a clearer line of sight to C-suite priorities.
• Sales fit: Helps justify training budgets by tying initiatives to executive-level KPIs.

Conclusion

If you’ve made it this far, you know there’s no silver bullet for evaluating sales training. 

The models we’ve covered, from Kirkpatrick’s classic framework to Thalheimer’s LTEM and beyond, each offer a different lens, but none can magically solve the challenges of messy data, shifting business goals, or the realities of day-to-day sales life.

What I’ve learned, both from the research and my own experience, is that the best evaluation approach is the one you actually use and keep using and refining. 

It should never be about chasing the perfect metric or ticking every box on a framework, but about picking a model (or blending a few), getting buy-in from your stakeholders, and building a habit of honest, ongoing measurement.

In the end, the biggest effect of evaluating your training programmes are the conversations they spark. 

When you can show, with evidence, what’s working and what isn’t, you move the dialogue from gut feel to genuine insight.

It doesn’t matter if you’re just starting to measure sales training impact or you’re ready to experiment with new frameworks, remember: progress beats perfection. 

Start small, stay curious, and keep the focus on what matters most, which is helping your sales force learn, grow, and deliver results the business can see.

And if you ever find yourself stuck in the weeds, wondering if any of this is worth it, remember this: the organisations that consistently ask the tough questions about training tend to evolve faster, not because they have all the answers, but because they care enough to challenge the easy ones.

References:

1. Attia, Ashraf & Honeycutt, Earl & Attia, Magdy. (2002). The difficulties of evaluating sales training. Industrial Marketing Management. 31. 253-259. 10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00133-4.
2. Erffmeyer R, Al-Khatib J, Al-Habib M, Hair J. Sales training practices: a cross-national comparison. Int Mark Rev 1993;10(1):45 – 59.
3. [25] Erffmeyer R, Russ R, Hair J. Needs assessment and evaluation in sales training programs. J Pers Selling Sales Manage 1991;11(1):17 – 30.
4. Scovel K. What’s topping the charts in management training? Hum Resour Exec 1990;39 (April).
5. Earl D. Honeycutt, Thomas H. Stevenson, Evaluating sales training programs, Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1989, Pages 215-222, ISSN 0019-8501
6. Roy S, Dolke A. Evaluation of a supervisory training program. In: Kirkpatrick DL, editor. Evaluating training programs. Madison, WI: American Society for Training and Development, 1975. pp. 104 – 8.
7. Phillips JJ. Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1991.
8. Berry D. Sales performance: fact or fiction? J Pers Selling Sales Manage 1996;6(2):71 – 9 (August).