| Course | HD560 Health Education Evaluation and Research |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 850 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 HD560 Unit 10
Run It Without a Phone Call: A Unit 10 Evaluation Plan for the Within Earshot Hearing Aid Program
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HD560: Health Education Evaluation and Research
Unit 10 Evaluation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Within Earshot, Tamsen County, its staff, budget and dates are composite; the evaluation framework and sources cited are real.
1. Program and Purpose
Within Earshot provides fitted hearing aids, three adjustment visits and a monthly drop-in hour to residents 65 and older whose household income is below twice the federal poverty guideline and whose hearing test shows mild to moderate loss. The evaluation informs the agency board's decision to continue the program and the county commission's decision on expansion.
2. Questions
Primary: does winning a place, rather than waiting, lower six-month loneliness scores? Secondary: does it reduce hearing handicap; how much are the aids used, and does use relate to change in handicap?
3. Design
A lottery among eligible applicants, stratified by language, with couples drawn together. Those not selected are wait-listed for six months. Owner: the agency's program manager runs the lottery in public with the evaluator present. Date: the second week of January.
4. Measures
Three-item loneliness scale and ten-item hearing handicap screen by phone, in English or Spanish, at baseline and six months (Hughes et al., 2004; Ventry & Weinstein, 1983); device use logs at one, three and six months; measured hearing at eligibility; contamination question and visit counts at six months. Owner: two bilingual assessors. Dates: baseline in the two weeks before the lottery; follow-up in July.
5. Analysis
Intention-to-treat analysis of covariance, multiple imputation for missing data, an instrumental variable estimate as a secondary analysis, and exploratory pathway models, as set out in the Unit 7 approach. Owner: the evaluator, with a second analyst checking code. Date: August.
6. Ethics
Application for expedited review goes to the university IRB, with consent taken orally in each participant's language. Owner: the university co-investigator. Date: October of the previous year, before recruitment opens.
7. Reporting
Results to participants and the board in September, the commission in October and a journal manuscript afterward, each drawing only on the agreed list of permitted sentences. Owner: the evaluator and program manager.
8. Contingencies
If fewer than 200 eligible people apply, the lottery still runs but the report states the reduced power. If more than 25 percent of wait-listed applicants obtain hearing aids elsewhere, the instrumental variable estimate becomes the main interpretive aid. If an assessor leaves, the remaining assessor completes the work and a replacement is trained before the next round.
9. Data Management
Assessment data are entered directly into a secure university database with participant numbers only. A separate file, held only by the evaluator, matches numbers to names. Device logs are downloaded by the audiology clinic and transferred with participant numbers. Interview recordings are deleted after transcription and checking. Owner: the evaluator. Retention: five years, per the university's policy.
10. Communication With Participants
Every applicant receives a letter after the lottery, a reminder before each assessment and a results letter at the end, all in large print and in the participant's language. A single phone number at the agency answers questions throughout. Owner: the program manager.
11. Roles at a Glance
Program manager: lottery, participant letters, wait-list contact. Assessors: baseline and six-month calls. Audiology clinic: hearing tests, fittings, device log downloads. Evaluator: analysis plan, data management, reports. University co-investigator: IRB application and manuscript. Board: receives results and decides on continuation. Each role has a named backup recorded in the evaluation file, so that one absence does not stop the work.
12. Timeline Summary
October: IRB submission. November and December: applications and hearing tests. January: baseline calls and lottery. February to July: program delivery and device downloads. July: six-month calls. August: analysis. September and October: reporting.
13. Budget
Assessors, two at 0.25 of a full-time post for nine months at $44,000 a year: $16,500. Evaluator, 0.2 of a full-time post for twelve months at $90,000 a year: $18,000. Second analyst, 40 hours at $60: $2,400. Interviews, twenty at $150 each including interpreter and transcription: $3,000. Participant gift cards, $20 at each of two assessments for 260 people: $10,400. Large-print and translated materials: $1,800. IRB fees: $1,500. Total: $53,600.
Every step names who does it, when and with what, because a plan that depends on the original evaluator's memory is a plan that cannot be checked, repeated or trusted.
14. Check Against the Four Standards
The CDC Framework judges evaluations by four standards (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999).
Utility: the primary question serves the board's decision, and reporting reaches every user. Feasibility: two assessments per person, by phone, within a budget of $53,600. Propriety: IRB review, oral consent, an open lottery and results returned to participants. Accuracy: random assignment, prespecified analysis, measures given the same way to both groups and permitted sentences checked before release.
15. Version History
Version 1, after Unit 2: questions. Version 2, after Unit 6: pathway measures added. Version 3: this plan, completed before any outcome data were collected.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655-672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574
Ventry, I. M., & Weinstein, B. E. (1983). Identification of elderly people with hearing problems. ASHA, 25(7), 37-42.
The Purdue Global HD560 Unit 10 instructions
Unit 10 usually asks for a complete evaluation plan integrating earlier units. Prompts commonly ask for the program description, questions, design, measures, data collection, analysis, ethics, reporting, timeline and budget, with responsibilities. Write each section as instructions with an owner and a date. Condense and update earlier units instead of copying them in. Include contingencies decided before results are known. Show the arithmetic for every budget line. Check the plan against a recognized set of standards. Keep a version history that shows how the plan changed. Most sections expect eight to twelve pages, often with appendices for instruments. Name a backup for each role. Attach instruments in appendices.
How the HD 560 Unit 10 example is put together
The plan runs in fifteen numbered sections. The program and questions come first, then the lottery with its owner and date, the four measures with assessors and dates, and the analysis. Ethics names the IRB route. Reporting sets the order of release. Contingencies cover low applications, high contamination and staff loss. Data management, communication with participants, roles and a timeline follow. The highlighted sentence explains why owners and dates appear throughout. The budget shows each rate and quantity. The plan is checked against utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy, and a version history closes it. Roles and the timeline are each summarized in a short section so that a reader can see the whole year at a glance.
Where the points sit in the HD560 Unit 10 rubric
Final evaluation plans are judged on completeness, internal consistency, executability, integration of earlier feedback and quality of the standards check. Completeness covers every section the prompt requires. Consistency means numbers, dates and methods agree across sections. Executability is tested by whether a newcomer could follow each step. Integration of feedback is shown by a version history and revised sections. A standards check scores well when each standard is applied to specific features of the plan. A transparent budget and APA references complete the assessment. Contingencies set before results arrive show that the plan anticipates problems rather than reacting to them. Instructors also check that the budget total matches its lines.
Common HD560 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The usual trouble is a final plan assembled from earlier units with conflicting numbers or dates. Another is a plan without owners, so no one is responsible for any step. Some budgets give totals without rates. Others apply evaluation standards in general terms without pointing to the plan's features. Handing a draft to someone outside the course and asking them to point to the owner of each step catches most gaps. Once your earlier units are done, gather them with your instructor's comments, and a writer can help you shape them into one plan. A version history at the end shows how feedback shaped the plan.
Get an HD560 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Collect your earlier HD560 work, however rough, and include the Unit 10 prompt, the rubric and any budget limits you were given. We will return a free first custom sample in 24-48h that follows your brief and is specified so fully that another evaluator could carry it out without asking you anything. 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 HD560 papers and MS in Health Education samples
- HD560 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HD560 Unit 2: Evaluation Question Paper
- HD560 Unit 3: Design Selection Rationale
- HD560 Unit 4: Validity Threat Analysis
- HD560 Unit 5: Measurement Plan
- HD560 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HD560 Unit 7: Analysis Approach
- HD560 Unit 8: Ethical Review Determination
- HD560 Unit 9: Reporting Strategy
- HD550 Unit 10: Advocacy Strategy Document
- HD545 Unit 10: Implementation Plan
- HD520 Unit 10: Assessment Protocol
- HD535 Unit 10: Program Plan
HD560 Unit 10 questions, answered
How detailed should an evaluation plan be?
Specific enough that an outside evaluator, new to the program, could run it from the page alone. That usually means named roles, dates, instruments with administration procedures, an analysis plan with specific methods, and a budget tied to tasks. Your prompt may cap length; if so, move procedures into appendices rather than cutting them, and point to each appendix where it applies.
Does the plan need a logic model?
Most sections expect one, since it shows what the program is supposed to change and therefore what the evaluation should measure. Keep it to a page, and make sure every outcome box connects to an evaluation question or is explained as outside the scope of this evaluation. Drawing the model before finalizing questions tends to expose any gap between them.
Should the plan include contingencies?
Yes. Real evaluations meet recruitment shortfalls, partner changes and data delays. Stating in advance how the plan will respond, before any results are known, protects the evaluation's credibility and shows graders the design was tested against practical conditions rather than written for an ideal setting. A short table pairing each risk with its trigger and response is enough in most sections.
Where can I find a free HD560 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page presents a complete Unit 10 evaluation plan for a hearing aid program, with owners, dates and a $53,600 budget.
What are the CDC Framework's four standards?
Utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy. Together they ask whether an evaluation serves its users, is practical, is ethical and produces trustworthy results.