| Course | GB890 Doctoral Project I: Problem Statement and Background Research |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Source appraisal |
| Length | About 930 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB890 Unit 9
Ranked by Fit, Not by Fame: A Unit 9 Source Appraisal for a Supervisor Safety Project
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB890: Doctoral Project I: Problem Statement and Background Research
Unit 9 Source Appraisal
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The tier counts and the Corliss application are composite and illustrative; the named sources are real.
Where the Forty-One Sources Came From
The seventeen studies from the Unit 3 search, the six behavior-based studies found after the Unit 6 seminar, the meta-analyses and tenure research used in the Unit 5 synthesis, guidance documents and a set of practitioner sources commonly cited at Corliss make up the forty-one. Some were found by the systematic search and some through citation chasing or workplace use; the appraisal treats them all by the same rules.
The Four Criteria
Each source was rated high, partial or low on four criteria, with a one-line reason recorded for every rating.
Fit of population: how closely the people studied resemble Corliss crews, production workers in crews with frequent turnover and many agency temporaries.
Fit of intervention: how closely the practice studied resembles supervisor-delivered safety feedback.
Fit of outcome: how closely the outcomes measured resemble group climate, safety behavior and near-miss reporting.
Strength of design: whether the design can support the inference the source draws, with randomized or controlled comparisons rated highest and anecdote or unpublished data lowest.
The ratings are not summed. A source rated high on design but low on fit answers a different question well, and a source rated high on fit but low on design answers the right question weakly. Sources were then grouped into three tiers by judgment, with the reason for each placement recorded.
Tier One: Six Sources That Bear Directly
Tier one holds six sources rated at least partial on every criterion and high on at least two. Zohar (2002) leads it: a controlled intervention giving supervisors feedback on their safety interactions, in manufacturing, measuring climate and behavior. Its population fit is partial, because its groups were stable. Komaki et al. (1978) follows: a controlled behavioral study in a food plant, high on population and outcome fit, partial on intervention fit because feedback was not delivered by supervisors. Kines et al. (2010), on construction foremen's verbal safety communication, is high on intervention fit but partial on population, since construction crews differ from bakery lines. The remaining three are behavior-based studies in food and packaging plants found after the seminar.
Tier Two: Strong but Distant
Tier two holds the meta-analyses and the tenure research. Christian et al. (2009) is rated high on design, as a meta-analysis of many studies, but low on population and intervention fit, because it pools all industries and measures climate rather than testing an intervention. Breslin and Smith (2006) is high on design and directly relevant to newness, but it concerns injury risk by tenure, not any intervention. These sources support the background chapter's claims about mechanism and risk; they do not show what will happen at Corliss.
Tier Three: Context Only
Tier three holds sources kept only for context. It includes vendor white papers on safety management software, which describe products and report customer results without disclosed methods, and trade surveys of safety managers' opinions.
It also includes Heinrich (1931). Heinrich's triangle, which holds that for every major injury there are many minor injuries and many more near misses or unsafe acts, in a fixed ratio, is the most widely reproduced idea in workplace safety. It ranks low for a specific reason: the ratio rests on data from insurance records that Heinrich never published in a form others could check, so the claim cannot be appraised for strength of design at all. It is also used in a way that matters for Corliss. Training decks cite the triangle to argue that reducing minor unsafe acts will proportionally reduce serious injuries, an inference the original data cannot support. The appraisal keeps the source because supervisors at Corliss have been taught it and the background chapter must address it, not because it supports any claim.
Heinrich's triangle ranks low not because it is old but because no one can check the numbers it is built on.
A Check on the Tiers
Two tests were applied to see whether the tiers held. First, the tier one sources were reread to confirm that none rested on a claim drawn from a lower tier. Zohar's intervention study and the behavioral studies stand on their own data, and none relies on Heinrich's ratio or on vendor results. Second, the tiers were compared with what the Unit 5 synthesis had leaned on. Every claim in the synthesis was supported by at least one tier one or tier two source, and none depended only on tier three, which confirms that the chapter's argument rests where the appraisal says it should.
Nine Sources Dropped
Nine sources were dropped entirely, each with its reason recorded. Four were opinion pieces in trade magazines restating other sources. Two were duplicate publications of the same study. Two concerned office settings with no physical hazards. One was a conference abstract whose full study was never published.
What the Appraisal Changes
The appraisal affects how the background chapter will use its sources. Tier one sources will carry the argument for the project's design and gap. Tier two sources will support claims about mechanism and newcomer risk, with their distance from Corliss noted. Tier three sources will appear only where the chapter must address what Corliss supervisors already believe. That ordering keeps the chapter's argument resting on the evidence closest to the question.
References
Breslin, F. C., & Smith, P. (2006). Trial by fire: A multivariate examination of the relation between job tenure and work injuries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(1), 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.021006
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172
Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. McGraw-Hill.
Kines, P., Andersen, L. P. S., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K. L., Dyreborg, J., & Zohar, D. (2010). Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication. Journal of Safety Research, 41(5), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2010.06.005
Komaki, J., Barwick, K. D., & Scott, L. R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupational safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 434-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.434
Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.156
The Purdue Global GB890 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth GB890 assignment asks you to appraise all the sources your background chapter may use. Explain where the sources came from and that all are treated by the same rules. Define your criteria, which should cover fit to your setting as well as strength of design, and rate each source with a reason for every rating. Explain why you do or do not combine ratings into a score. Group sources into tiers by judgment, recording a reason for each placement. Treat widely cited sources by the same standard, and explain why any familiar source ranks low. List sources dropped and why. Check that the tiers hold, for example by confirming that no strong source rests on a weak one. Close with how the appraisal changes the way your chapter will use its sources. About seven pages anchored by a weighting table is a common format.
How the GB 890 Unit 9 example is put together
The appraisal explains the origin of the 41 sources and four criteria, with a note on why ratings are not summed. Tier one is described source by source: Zohar's intervention, partial on population because groups were stable; Komaki and colleagues, partial on intervention because supervisors did not deliver feedback; Kines and colleagues, partial on population; and three food plant studies. Tier two places Christian and colleagues' meta-analysis and Breslin and Smith's tenure research as strong but distant. Tier three holds vendor papers, trade surveys and Heinrich's triangle, whose unchecked ratio the highlighted sentence explains. A check on the tiers, nine dropped sources and the chapter's use of each tier close the appraisal.
Reading the GB890 Unit 9 grading rubric
Points in the GB890 source appraisal follow consistency and transparency. Criteria that rate fit to the candidate's setting separately from design earn credit, because a strong study can answer a different question. Every rating should carry a reason. Explaining why ratings are not summed shows understanding of how scores can mislead. Tiers placed by judgment, with recorded reasons, let a committee dispute specific placements. Holding familiar sources to the same standard is weighted, and explaining exactly why a famous source ranks low shows courage and care. Dropped sources should be listed with reasons. A check that the tiers hold strengthens the appraisal. The final section should show how the appraisal shapes the chapter, with sources cited accurately.
Common GB890 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB890 source appraisals rank sources by prestige or citation count rather than by fit to the project. Others rate design alone, so a meta-analysis from another industry outranks the most relevant field study. Students often exempt well-known sources from scrutiny because everyone cites them. Ratings appear without reasons, and tiers without explanations. Dropped sources simply vanish. Define criteria for fit and design, rate each source with a reason, avoid summing, place tiers by judgment with reasons, apply the same standard to famous sources, list what you dropped, check that the tiers hold and say how the chapter will use each tier. With your source list in hand, a writer can draft the tiers and the reasons behind them.
Get a GB890 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the source list as it stands, noting beside each entry the job it is meant to do. Add the Unit 9 criteria and rubric. A custom appraisal scoring fit and design separately, tiering from the pattern and explaining every drop is free on a first order and typically returns in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB890 papers and MBA samples
- GB890 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB890 Unit 2: Problem Evidence Memo
- GB890 Unit 3: Search Documentation
- GB890 Unit 4: Closest Study Appraisal
- GB890 Unit 5: Literature Synthesis
- GB890 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB890 Unit 7: Conceptual Framework Draft
- GB890 Unit 8: Purpose Statement Exercise
- GB890 Unit 10: Background Chapter Draft
- GB815 Unit 9: Comparison Matrix
- GB794 Unit 9: Evidence Summary
- GB793 Unit 9: Conceptual Model Paper
- GB500 Unit 9: Professional Development Plan
GB890 Unit 9 questions, answered
How do I judge relevance rather than quality?
Ask what the source would have to share with your setting to inform it: population, intervention, outcome, context. Rate those separately from design strength. A randomized trial in a hospital may be excellent research and only partly relevant to a bakery. Keeping the two judgments apart is what lets the appraisal explain its ranking to a skeptical reader.
Should widely cited but weak sources be excluded?
Usually they should be addressed, not silently dropped, especially if your organization or field relies on them. Explaining why a familiar source carries little evidential weight shows judgment a committee values. Heinrich's triangle is a common example in safety; most fields have a similar belief repeated more often than it has been tested.
Can vendor white papers appear in a GB890 appraisal?
They can, labeled for what they are. Vendor material often describes practices in useful detail, but the firm usually sells the product described, which colors its claims. Placing such sources in a context tier with their interest stated lets a reader use the description without mistaking it for independent evidence.
Where can I find a free GB890 Unit 9 sample paper?
A complete GB890 Unit 9 source appraisal is on this page, ranking 41 sources for a supervisor safety project by fit and design and explaining why Heinrich's triangle ranks low.
Why does Heinrich's accident triangle rank low?
Its ratio of serious injuries to minor injuries and near misses rests on insurance data that were never published in a form others could check, so its strength cannot be appraised.