| Course | HD520 Health Education Program Assessment |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Assessment protocol |
| Length | About 940 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD520 Unit 10
Written to Be Run by a Stranger: A Unit 10 Assessment Protocol for a Refugee Health Orientation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD520: Health Education Program Assessment
Unit 10 Assessment Protocol
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The agency, the protocol's procedures and all figures are composite; the protocol, adaptation, cognitive interviewing and research ethics sources cited are real.
1. Background and Purpose
The agency's health orientation teaches newly arrived adults to reach primary care in six sessions over three weeks. The funder asks whether graduates can arrange care on their own within their first 90 days. The assessment informs one decision: continue, revise or replace the class.
2. Assessment Questions
Q1. Do adults who finish the class complete a clinic-call task more often than comparable adults still waiting for a seat? Q2. How many class participants attend a first primary care appointment by day 90? Q3. What explains cases where task results and attendance do not match?
3. Design
Explanatory sequential mixed methods. Q1 compares early starters with adults still waiting for a class place, tested at the same points after arrival. Q2 uses clinic records. Q3 uses interviews sampled from Q1 and Q2 results.
4. Setting and Eligibility
Eligible: adults aged 18 or older on the agency's arrival roster during the assessment year. Excluded: adults unable to consent, and adults who leave Calder City before baseline. Cohort is assigned by the agency's normal scheduling, never by the assessment team.
5. Recruitment and Consent
An assessor, never a caseworker, explains the assessment at the first agency visit, in the adult's language. Consent is oral, recorded on a form signed by the assessor and interpreter, because many participants are wary of signing documents. The script states that saying yes or no changes nothing about the help the agency gives. Separate consent covers clinic release of attendance and interview recording.
6. Instruments
Main task: scripted call to a clinic scheduler through the interpreter line, scored on the ten-item checklist in Appendix B. A call is complete when eight or more items are met, including items 1, 6 and 9. Second scenario: a call to obtain a child's vaccination record for school, scored on a six-item checklist. Secondary measure: one confidence item on medical forms, five-point scale. Translation follows forward and back translation with an expert committee (Beaton et al., 2000). Cognitive interviews with five adults per language must be complete before baseline for that language (Willis, 2005).
7. Data Collection Schedule
Day 0 is the arrival date on the roster. Baseline task: days 1 to 10. Early starters: class in weeks 1 to 4. Day-42 task: days 40 to 46. Clinic records: through day 90. Interviews: days 90 to 120. A participant counts as lost to follow-up if the day-42 task is not done by day 50 after three contact attempts.
8. Assessor Training
Assessors complete a four-hour training, then score five recorded certification calls. They must agree with the reference rater on completion for all five and on at least 90 percent of items. Assessors who score from recordings for reliability work without knowing the participant's cohort.
9. Data Management
Participants are identified by number only. The key linking numbers to names is kept on a separate encrypted drive held by the assessment lead. No data on legal status are recorded. Call recordings are deleted after reliability scoring.
10. Analysis Plan
Q1: difference in differences in task completion, adjusted for language group, with standard errors allowing for clustering within classes. Report the estimate with a 95 percent interval. Attrition: compare lost and retained adults at baseline and run the pessimistic sensitivity analysis described in the Unit 8 section. Language results are descriptive only where a group has fewer than 30 adults. Q2: descriptive rates. Q3: thematic analysis within the four sampling groups, presented in a joint display.
Every choice that could change the result, from what counts as a completed call to when a participant is lost, is fixed in this protocol before any data are seen, so the findings cannot drift toward whichever answer someone hoped for.
11. Governance
The eleven-seat steering council holds the decision rights in Appendix E. The council receives findings two weeks ahead of any release.
12. Ethics
The assessment follows respect for persons, beneficence and justice as set out in the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). The protocol is reviewed by an institutional review board before recruitment. No one is delayed in starting the class for the assessment's sake.
13. Limitations and Mitigations
Carried from Unit 9: cohorts formed by scheduling (record arrival circumstances and schooling); simulated call (add attendance data); single site (describe local services); translation checks (complete all languages before baseline); assessor awareness (blind scoring of recordings).
14. Reporting
A report to the funder, a two-page summary in each language for participants, presented at a community meeting, and a short methods note for other agencies. Reporting items follow the structure of the SPIRIT guidance for protocols, adapted for a nonrandomized assessment (Chan et al., 2013).
15. Timeline
Months 1 to 2: translation, cognitive interviews, training. Months 3 to 14: enrollment and data collection. Months 15 to 16: interviews and analysis. Months 17 to 18: council review and reporting.
Appendices
A: call scripts in Dari, Arabic, Swahili and English. B: ten-item checklist and scoring rules. C: interview guide. D: consent script. E: council decision-rights table.
Version History
Version 1.0, Unit 5 draft. Version 2.0, interview sampling revised after the Unit 6 seminar. Version 3.0, second task scenario replaced by the council. Version 4.0, this protocol.
References
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., Hróbjartsson, A., Mann, H., Dickersin, K., Berlin, J. A., Doré, C. J., Parulekar, W. R., Summerskill, W. S. M., Groves, T., Schulz, K. F., Sox, H. C., Rockhold, F. W., Rennie, D., & Moher, D. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200-207. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.
HD520 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 10 usually asks for a complete assessment protocol bringing together the design, sampling, instruments, data collection, analysis, ethics and reporting developed earlier, revised in light of feedback. Prompts commonly ask for enough detail that the protocol could be carried out. Write each section as steps someone would follow. Attach instruments in full rather than describing them. Define decision rules in advance, such as what counts as completion or loss to follow-up. Integrate ethics and governance into procedures rather than appending them. Carry forward limitations with their mitigations. Many sections expect ten to fifteen pages plus appendices, so follow the range you were given.
How the HD 520 Unit 10 example is put together
Fifteen numbered sections run in the order the work would happen. The purpose section states the decision the assessment informs. Eligibility and recruitment set who takes part and who approaches them. The instruments section defines a complete call, adds the second scenario and requires cognitive interviews before baseline in each language. A schedule is keyed to day zero, the arrival date, and defines loss to follow-up. Assessors certify against a reference rater. The highlighted sentence explains why every result-changing choice is fixed beforehand. Governance, ethics, limitations, reporting and timeline follow, with appendices listed and a version history recording changes from earlier units. Each section is kept brief so that its steps stand out, with longer materials placed in the appendices.
Where the points sit in the HD520 Unit 10 rubric
Protocols are commonly graded on completeness, executability, internal consistency, integration of earlier feedback and ethical soundness. Completeness checks that nothing the prompt lists is missing. Executability is judged on whether a newcomer could follow the steps without guessing. Consistency checks that numbers, definitions and timelines agree across sections. Integration of feedback earns credit when revisions are visible, as in a version history. Ethical soundness covers consent, data protection and participant burden. Writing, numbering and APA format carry the remaining share of the grade. Instructors often test executability by picking one section, such as recruitment or loss to follow-up, and asking whether a new staff member could follow it without guidance. A protocol that also shows how limitations from earlier units shaped specific procedures, such as blind scoring of recordings, earns credit for integration.
Common HD520 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is a protocol written as a description of what the assessment will study rather than instructions for doing it. Another is instruments mentioned but not attached. Some students leave key decisions open, such as how many contact attempts make someone lost, which invites inconsistent handling. Others paste earlier units without reconciling them, so dates and numbers conflict. Reading the protocol as a stranger would, asking at each step what to do next, catches most gaps. If your earlier units are ready to combine, share them with your feedback, and we can help you turn them into one procedure.
Get an HD520 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Gather the pieces completed in previous units, the Unit 10 protocol template where the course supplies one, and your rubric. Everything is fitted into a numbered protocol with instruments attached in full, decision rules defined ahead of data collection and governance built into each procedure. First custom sample free; turnaround 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 HD520 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD520 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD520 Unit 2: Design Rationale Paper
- HD520 Unit 3: Sampling Plan
- HD520 Unit 4: Instrument Appraisal
- HD520 Unit 5: Mixed Methods Protocol
- HD520 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD520 Unit 7: Participation and Governance Plan
- HD520 Unit 8: Data Analysis Section
- HD520 Unit 9: Limitations Analysis
HD520 Unit 10 questions, answered
How detailed does an executable protocol need to be?
Detailed enough that someone unfamiliar with the program could carry out every step. The test used in the example is whether a new assessor would need to ask a question before acting. Scripts, scoring rules, schedules and decision rules for common problems are included. Background literature is kept brief, since the protocol is a working document.
Should the protocol repeat material from earlier units?
It should integrate that material, revised where feedback or later work required changes. The example carries forward the sampling plan, instrument appraisal, mixed methods design and governance table, each updated. Many HD520 sections expect the final protocol to reflect learning across the term, and a revision log in an appendix is a common request.
Does the protocol need review board approval?
A designed protocol submitted for a course usually does not require approval unless data are actually collected. Where a section involves real data collection, you follow the institution's review process, and consent forms, approvals and signatures remain your own. The example includes a consent script as an appendix to show what a complete protocol contains.
Where can I find a free HD520 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a complete Unit 10 assessment protocol in fifteen numbered sections for a refugee health orientation assessment.
Why key the schedule to arrival date?
Arrivals happen all year, so a calendar schedule would test adults at different points after arriving. Keying to each person's arrival keeps the comparison fair.