| Course | HS305 Research Methods for Health Sciences |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Source evaluation |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS305 Unit 3
One Probiotic Trial, Five Documents About It: A Unit 3 Source Evaluation Sorting What Each Can Honestly Be Cited For
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS305: Research Methods for Health Sciences
Unit 3 Source Evaluation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The trial and the five documents are composite and shown with placeholders; the systematic review and research on press releases cited are real.
The Questions Asked of Every Source
Each document was asked the same five questions. What kind of document is it? Does it report data its authors collected or analyzed? Where would its methods be found? Who wrote it, and for whom? What could a paper cite it for?
Source 1: The Trial Report
Kind: a randomized controlled trial published in a peer-reviewed pediatrics journal. Data: yes, [480] children randomized to a probiotic or placebo during antibiotic treatment. Methods: a full methods section with randomization, blinding and outcome definitions. Authors and audience: university researchers writing for clinicians. Cite for: the trial's specific findings, such as a reduction in diarrhea episodes from [18] percent to [11] percent.
Source 2: The Systematic Review
Kind: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Data: yes, pooled from many trials, including this one. Methods: a described search, inclusion rules and risk of bias assessment. A real review of this question found that probiotics may reduce antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children, with moderate-certainty evidence (Guo et al., 2019). Cite for: the overall state of evidence, which is stronger than any single trial.
Source 3: The Editorial
Kind: an invited commentary in the same journal issue. Data: none. Methods: none. Authors and audience: a pediatric gastroenterologist writing for clinicians. Cite for: expert opinion only, such as the view that strain selection matters. It sits beside the trial but is not evidence from it.
Source 4: The University Press Release
Kind: promotional news from the authors' institution. Data: none new. Methods: none. Cite for: nothing as evidence. Its headline says the probiotic "prevents" diarrhea, which goes beyond the trial. Exaggeration in academic press releases is common and tends to carry into news coverage (Sumner et al., 2014).
Source 5: The Parenting Magazine Story
Kind: consumer journalism. Data: none new. Methods: none. Cite for: nothing as evidence; at most, an example of how the finding was presented to parents. The story rounds the reduction to "nearly half," converts a relative change into a claim about every child and names a brand the trial did not test.
Five documents mention the same trial, but only two of them contain evidence, and only one of those is the trial itself.
A Note on the Editorial
The editorial was the hardest to place. It appears in the same journal, carries the authority of a specialist and is easy to mistake for part of the study. But its author did not collect or analyze any data, and its arguments rest on the trial and on general knowledge. That makes it useful for framing a discussion section and useless as proof that the probiotic works.
Sorting Result
Primary evidence: the trial report. Synthesized evidence: the systematic review. Opinion: the editorial. Not citable as evidence: the press release and the magazine story. A paper on this topic would cite the review for the general claim and the trial for its specific results, and would trace any claim found in a news story back to these before using it. Recognizing what kind of study or document one is reading is the first step in judging it (Grimes & Schulz, 2002).
References
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). An overview of clinical research: The lay of the land. The Lancet, 359(9300), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5
Guo, Q., Goldenberg, J. Z., Humphrey, C., El Dib, R., & Johnston, B. C. (2019). Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(4), CD004827. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004827.pub5
Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349, g7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015
What the HS305 Unit 3 assignment asks for
The third unit usually supplies or asks you to find several documents on one study or topic and to classify each one, explaining what it can and cannot be used for. Worksheets of this kind often run two to four pages. Instructors look for correct labels, primary research, synthesis, opinion and popular coverage, along with a reason for each label drawn from the document itself: whether data were collected, where methods appear, who wrote it and for whom. Many sections also ask what a paper could cite each source for, which is the practical skill the unit is building. Apply the same questions to every source so the comparison is fair, and cite the review or framework you use to explain the categories.
How the HS 305 Unit 3 example is put together
A short opening lists the five questions applied to every document. Each source then gets its own block with kind, data, methods, authorship and audience, and what it could be cited for. The trial report is primary evidence with a specific reduction in diarrhea episodes; the systematic review is synthesized evidence, anchored to a real Cochrane review; the editorial is expert opinion; the press release overstates the result with the word prevents; and the magazine story rounds the effect up and names a brand the trial never tested. The highlighted sentence observes that only two of five contain evidence. A separate note explains why the editorial was hardest to classify, and a closing sort assigns every document to a category with a citation rule.
Where the points sit in the HS305 Unit 3 rubric
Source evaluation worksheets tend to be graded on classification accuracy, reasoning, consistency, use of supporting literature and presentation. Classification accuracy and reasoning together usually account for most of the points, since a correct label with no reason earns little and a wrong label with a careful reason can still lose credit. Consistency is rewarded when every source answers the same questions in the same order. Supporting literature means citing a source on study types or on how press releases distort findings, not only the documents being sorted. Presentation covers clear labels and APA references. Worksheets that state what each source can honestly be cited for, rather than only what it is, typically score toward the top of the range.
Common HS305 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often treat everything printed in a journal as research, which places editorials and letters in the wrong pile. Another frequent slip is calling the systematic review a primary source because it reports numbers. Some evaluations judge whether each document is trustworthy without saying what it is, which answers a different question. Others skip the press release as obviously weak and miss the chance to show how exaggeration enters coverage. Applying different questions to different sources makes the comparison look arbitrary. If your section hands you a different set, perhaps a vaccine study with a blog post and a guideline, send the list and we can help you work out what kind of document each one is and where it belongs.
Get an HS305 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Share the sources your Unit 3 assignment lists, or the topic if you are choosing them, plus the evaluation criteria and rubric. Each is classified by what it is and what it can support, with a quoted sentence as evidence, and returned within 24-48h. A first custom sample costs nothing. 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 HS305 papers and BS in Health Science samples
- HS305 Unit 1: Health News Claim Discussion Post
- HS305 Unit 2: Research Article Summary
- HS305 Unit 4: Research Question Draft
- HS305 Unit 5: Database Search Log
- HS305 Unit 6: Study Design Comparison
- HS305 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection
- HS305 Unit 8: Sampling and Measurement Plan
- HS305 Unit 9: Article Critique
- HS305 Unit 10: Research Proposal Outline
- HS292 Unit 3: Outpatient Diagnosis Coding Set
- HS290 Unit 3: Patient Access Career Pathway Plan
- HS230 Unit 3: Retail Clinic vs Urgent Care
- HS215 Unit 3: Therapy Eligibility Verification
HS305 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is everything in a peer-reviewed journal a research report?
No. Journals publish editorials, commentaries, letters, news pieces and reviews alongside original research, and not all of them are peer reviewed in the same way. The quickest test is structure: original research describes, in a methods section, how its data were collected and analyzed. The sample's editorial row exists because this is the misclassification HS305 graders see most often.
Can a press release ever be cited?
It can be cited as evidence of what an institution announced, which is occasionally the point of an assignment about health communication. It should not be cited for the finding itself, because it summarizes the study through the institution's own interest in it. The sample marks the release as a lead that points to the trial and cites the trial in its place.
Where do systematic reviews fit among other sources?
Well-conducted systematic reviews of trials usually sit near the top of the evidence hierarchy, because they gather every eligible study and judge them together rather than relying on one. Their quality depends on the search, the inclusion rules and how bias in the included studies was assessed, all of which a review's methods section should report. The sample treats the review as research for exactly that reason.
Where can I find a free HS305 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete Unit 3 source evaluation is on this page, sorting five documents about one probiotic trial by what each can support.
Is a systematic review a primary or secondary source?
Most health science courses treat it as a secondary or synthesized source, because it analyzes studies other people ran. It is still strong evidence, often stronger than any single trial it includes.