| Course | HD545 Health Education Program Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Core components analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Health Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HD545 Unit 3
Core, Adaptable or Uncertain: A Unit 3 Core Components Analysis Sorting Fourteen Elements of the Steady Ground Curriculum
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD545: Health Education Program Implementation
Unit 3 Core Components Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Steady Ground, its trial and Carrow County are composite; the real trial of a building-level program and the sources on function and form cited are real.
Purpose
Carrow County delivered a shortened Steady Ground in year one, and now it must decide what every school has to deliver in year two and what each may change. Core components are the elements a program needs to produce its effect; the rest can be adapted to fit a setting (Blase & Fixsen, 2013). This analysis classifies each element so that Carrow's adaptations can be judged against a stated standard.
Evidence Available
The developers' trial randomized middle schools to four conditions: classroom sessions only, the building-level component only, both, or neither. A year later, schools receiving the building component, alone or with sessions, reported less physical dating abuse than control schools. Schools receiving sessions alone did not differ clearly from controls. A real trial in New York City public middle schools used a comparable four-arm design and found a similar pattern, with the building intervention carrying much of the effect (Taylor et al., 2013). No arm tested different numbers of sessions or different ways of finding unsafe places.
How the Classification Was Made
Each element was classified by asking three questions in order. First, did the trial test it separately? If so, the result decides. Second, if not, does the curriculum's theory of change say the element is how the program produces its effect? If so, it is treated as core on mechanism, and labeled that way. Third, if neither, could the element be removed or changed without plausibly weakening the effect? If so, it is adaptable; if no one can say, it is uncertain. The developers' manual lists some elements as essential, and their list was checked against these questions rather than accepted as given.
Function and Form
The analysis separates what an element does from how it does it. Hawe et al. (2004) argued that complex interventions should standardize their functions, the change processes they are meant to start, while allowing the form to vary with context. A homeroom mapping exercise is a form; locating the places students feel unsafe is its function.
Classification Table
Element 1, adults present where students feel unsafe. Role: reduces opportunities for abuse in unsupervised places. Evidence: building-only schools improved. Classification: core.
Element 2, hot-spot maps drawn in homeroom by every student. Role: finds the unsafe places. Evidence: no test of alternatives. Classification: adaptable in form, provided the method reaches most students; the function of locating places is core.
Element 3, adult posts during passing periods at the most-mapped places. Role: delivers Element 1. Evidence: the trial's building component. Classification: core; which adults stand there, and the exact times, are adaptable.
Element 4, the respecting-boundaries agreement, a school procedure for separating students after a reported incident. Role: protects a student who reports. Evidence: bundled in the building component and never tested alone. Classification: uncertain.
Element 5, posters about healthy relationships. Role: awareness. Evidence: none separate. Classification: adaptable.
Element 6, the classroom sessions as a whole. Role: knowledge, norms and skills. Evidence: sessions alone showed no clear effect, but they may add to the building component. Classification: uncertain overall, with the next two elements separated out.
Element 7, skill rehearsal with feedback, in which students say aloud how they would respond to a scenario and a teacher or peer responds. Role: builds the ability to act on intentions. Evidence: not isolated in the trial; supported by the curriculum's theory of change and by skills-training research. Classification: core on mechanism rather than on trial evidence.
Element 8, session count of ten. Role: dose. Evidence: no dose was tested. Classification: uncertain. The analysis sets eight of ten, including both rehearsal sessions, as a cautious floor.
Element 9, session order. Role: definitions before rehearsal. Classification: adaptable, provided rehearsal follows the sessions that define abusive behavior.
Element 10, scenario content. Role: realism. Classification: adaptable; scenarios should match how students actually communicate.
Element 11, parent evening. Role: home reinforcement. Evidence: not part of the trial. Classification: adaptable.
Element 12, teacher training of one day. Role: prepares deliverers. Classification: core as a condition of delivery, though its format may change.
Element 13, a lesson on school policy and consequences. Role: clarifies rules. Classification: adaptable.
Element 14, exit tickets and homework. Role: review. Classification: adaptable.
The trial's design lets the analysis call the building component core on evidence, but it leaves the classroom sessions uncertain, so the one classroom element treated as core, rehearsal, rests on the curriculum's mechanism and is labeled that way.
What the Classification Means for Carrow
Year one at Ridgeline delivered no version of Element 1, a core component, and Fulton delivered maps without posts, a form without its function. Both schools also fell below the eight-session floor. Under this analysis, neither school implemented Steady Ground as defined, and their results say little about the curriculum itself.
For year two, every school must deliver Elements 1, 3, 7 and 12, and at least eight sessions. Schools may change Elements 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 within the limits stated. Element 4 will be delivered as written until there is better evidence, and every school will report how often it was used.
Uncertain Elements and Working Rules
Two elements remain uncertain, and each needs a working rule until evidence improves. For session count, the floor of eight sessions keeps both rehearsal sessions and six of the eight others, which is closer to the trial's dose than Carrow's six while allowing for school calendars. For the respecting-boundaries agreement, the rule is to deliver it as written, because removing a procedure that protects students who report harm carries a risk that no scheduling saving justifies. Both rules will be reviewed after year two using the fidelity data.
Limits
The classification of rehearsal as core is a judgment from theory, not a tested result, and if Carrow's data later show no difference between schools with and without rehearsal, it should be reconsidered. The trial's results come from schools that may differ from Carrow's, and its building component may have worked partly through features not described in the manual. The analysis should be revisited if the developers publish component-level results or if Carrow's own data show a pattern that contradicts a classification, such as schools with posts but no rehearsal doing as well as schools with both.
References
Blase, K., & Fixsen, D. (2013). Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov
Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2004). Complex interventions: How "out of control" can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ, 328(7455), 1561-1563. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1561
Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting Boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14(1), 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0293-2
HD545 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third unit commonly asks students to identify a program's core components and distinguish them from adaptable features. Prompts often ask for a table listing each element, its role, the evidence and the classification. Start with the evidence that exists, including any trial that tested components separately and the developer's own list. Separate an element's function from its form. Label classifications that rest on theory rather than tests. Allow an uncertain category where evidence is missing, and set a working rule for each uncertain element. Explain what the classification means for the setting you are working with. Eight to ten pages with a classification table is typical.
How this HD545 Unit 3 example is built
The analysis states its purpose for Carrow County, then sets out the trial's four-arm design and its results. A section explains three ordered questions used to classify each element. Function and form are separated with a cited source. Fourteen elements follow, from adult posts and hot-spot maps to exit tickets, each with its role, evidence and classification. The highlighted sentence explains why rehearsal is core on mechanism. The analysis then applies the classification to Carrow, finding that neither year-one school delivered the curriculum as defined, and sets working rules for session count and the respecting-boundaries agreement before stating its limits.
Where the points sit in the HD545 Unit 3 rubric
Core components analyses are generally graded on accurate use of evidence, a clear classification method, attention to function and form, honest handling of uncertainty and practical implications. Evidence earns the most credit when classifications follow what was actually tested. A method scores well when it is stated before the table. Function and form reward analyses that let a setting change activities without losing their purpose. Uncertainty is expected; naming it and setting a cautious rule shows judgment. Implications are judged on whether the classification tells the setting what to deliver. A legible table and APA style account for the rest. Instructors often check whether the analysis says what would change a classification, which shows the writer treats it as a working judgment.
Common HD545 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent mistake is treating every element as core, which leaves no room to adapt. Another is accepting the developer's list without checking it against evidence. Some students classify by intuition and give no reason. Others confuse an activity with its purpose, allowing a change that keeps the activity but loses its function. Asking whether each element was tested separately, and if not, what the theory says it does, avoids most of these problems. If your program's evidence is thinner, share what studies exist, and our writers can help you build a method that fits the evidence you have. Writing the reason beside every classification also makes later adaptation decisions easier to defend.
Get an HD545 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Name the program your HD545 section is implementing and point to its original evaluation if you have it, then add the Unit 3 prompt and rubric. A free first custom sample reaches you within 24-48h, stating decision rules first, classifying each element with evidence, and separating function from form wherever the difference matters. 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 HD545 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD545 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD545 Unit 2: Implementation Framework Application
- HD545 Unit 4: Readiness Assessment
- HD545 Unit 5: Adaptation Documentation
- HD545 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD545 Unit 7: Fidelity Monitoring System
- HD545 Unit 8: Training and Capacity Plan
- HD545 Unit 9: Sustainability Plan
- HD545 Unit 10: Implementation Plan
- HD535 Unit 3: Stakeholder Priority Process
- HD520 Unit 3: Sampling Plan
HD545 Unit 3 questions, answered
How does a component's function differ from its form?
The function is what a component is meant to accomplish; the form is the particular activity used to accomplish it. Adult presence in unsafe places is a function, and a homeroom mapping exercise is one form of locating those places. Standardizing function while allowing form to vary lets a program fit new settings without losing what made it work.
What if the program's developers already list core components?
Use their list, cite it, and check it against the evidence. Developer lists are a strong starting point but sometimes include elements that were never tested separately, or omit conditions the original sites took for granted. Where the paper agrees with the developer, say so; where the evidence suggests otherwise, explain the disagreement rather than silently departing from the list.
Is an uncertain category acceptable?
Usually it is expected. Few trials isolate every element, so some classifications rest on theory alone or on nothing firm. Naming those elements, explaining why the evidence cannot settle them, and setting a cautious working rule shows the kind of judgment implementation assessments reward. Forcing every element into core or adaptable tends to hide exactly the decisions that need care.
Where can I find a free HD545 Unit 3 sample paper?
Here you can read a complete Unit 3 core components analysis, classifying fourteen elements of a dating abuse curriculum as core, adaptable or uncertain.
What does core on mechanism mean?
An element is treated as essential because the program's theory says it is how the effect happens, even though no trial tested it alone. Labeling it this way keeps the evidence honest.