HS305 Unit 4 Research Question Draft Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Research Methods for Health Sciences Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Starting from the hunch that too much sitting is unhealthy, the HS305 Unit 4 research question draft narrows in three annotated versions until a study could answer it. Purdue Global HS 305 teaches BS in Health Science learners that a topic and a question are not the same thing. Version one, about sitting and health, names no population or outcome. Version two adds office workers but keeps a vague exposure and a bundle of outcomes. Version three asks whether adults in full-time desk jobs who use a sit-stand desk for twelve weeks report less low back pain than those at a standard desk. The draft then breaks the question into PICOT parts, justifies the pain scale and the time frame, weighs feasibility and closes on three neighboring questions it set aside.

CourseHS305 Research Methods for Health Sciences
UnitUnit 4
Paper typeResearch question draft
LengthAbout 650 words, 5 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Health Science
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HS305 Unit 4

1

From Too Much Sitting to a Question a Study Could Answer: A Unit 4 Research Question Draft on Sit-Stand Desks and Low Back Pain

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS305: Research Methods for Health Sciences

Unit 4 Research Question Draft

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer's interest and the draft versions are composite; the review, outcome research and question framework cited are real.

What this part is doingPromising three annotated versions tells the instructor the draft shows the process, not only the final question.
2

Where the Interest Started

I work at a desk for nine hours a day, and by Thursday my lower back aches. Several coworkers have bought standing desks, and they say their backs feel better. I wanted to know whether that is true or whether it just feels true. That hunch is not yet a research question; it is a topic.

Version 1

"Is sitting bad for your health?"

What it lacks: everything a study needs. There is no population, so it could mean children, office workers or wheelchair users. Sitting is not defined by amount or setting. Health is not an outcome anyone could measure in one study. The question could only be answered by a library, not by a project.

Version 2

"Do office workers who sit less have fewer health problems?"

What it lacks: a measurable exposure and a measurable outcome. Office workers is a population, which is progress. But sit less could mean anything from a walking break to a standing desk, and fewer health problems still bundles dozens of outcomes. It also implies comparing people who already sit less with those who do not, which mixes the effect of sitting with everything else that differs between those people.

Version 3

"Among adults in full-time desk jobs, does using a sit-stand desk for twelve weeks reduce self-reported low back pain compared with using a standard desk?"

Each word that was added in version 3 is something a researcher could point to: a population to recruit, a desk to provide, a comparison to assign and a pain score to record.

What this part is doingHighlighting what makes version 3 answerable gives the reader the test that each earlier version failed.
3

The Question Broken Into Its Parts

The final question follows the population, intervention, comparison and outcome structure that helps make clinical questions answerable (Richardson et al., 1995).

Population: adults working at least thirty hours a week at a desk.

Intervention: a sit-stand desk used for twelve weeks.

Comparison: a standard fixed-height desk.

Outcome: self-reported low back pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric scale.

Time frame: twelve weeks.

Why This Outcome and Time Frame

Pain intensity on a numeric scale is widely used in back pain research, and changes of about two points, or roughly 30 percent, are often treated as the smallest change that matters to patients (Ostelo et al., 2008). That makes the outcome measurable and interpretable. Twelve weeks is long enough for the novelty of a new desk to wear off, which matters because a review of workplace interventions found that sit-stand desks reduce sitting time in the short term but that evidence on longer use and on health outcomes is limited (Shrestha et al., 2018).

Feasibility

The question is feasible for a workplace study. Desk jobs are common, sit-stand desks are available, and the outcome needs only a short questionnaire. Its main practical challenge is that participants will know which desk they have, so blinding is impossible; a later unit will address how to limit that bias. A second challenge is that back pain varies from week to week for reasons unrelated to desks, so the study will need enough participants and a baseline measurement to see a real difference through the noise. Both challenges shape the design rather than rule the question out.

Deliberately Left Out

The draft leaves aside whether standing is healthier than sitting in general, whether sit-stand desks improve productivity or whether they help people without back pain. Each of those is a fair question, but adding any of them would blur this one. Keeping the question narrow is what makes it answerable in one study.

What this part is doingListing what the question leaves out shows the narrowing was deliberate, which is often where research questions go wrong.
4

References

Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Deyo, R. A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P., Von Korff, M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2008). Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine, 33(1), 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10

Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12-A13. https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12

Shrestha, N., Kukkonen-Harjula, K. T., Verbeek, J. H., Ijaz, S., Hermans, V., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(12), CD010912. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub5

Reading the HS 305 Unit 4 instructions

Unit 4 typically asks you to develop a researchable question from a broad interest, often showing at least two drafts and the reasoning that moved you from one to the next. The finished draft is usually a short paper. Graders expect the finished question to identify who is studied, what they receive or encounter, what they are compared against when a comparison makes sense, a measurable outcome and a period of time. Many sections use the PICO or PICOT frame and want it labeled. A brief feasibility check and a statement of what the question deliberately excludes often earn credit. Cite the framework you use and at least one source showing that the outcome can be measured meaningfully, since that is what makes the question answerable.

How this HS305 Unit 4 example is built

The draft opens with the writer's own reason for the topic, nine-hour desk days and a Thursday backache. Each of the three versions is quoted and followed by what it still lacked, so the reader watches population, exposure, comparison and outcome appear in turn. The highlighted sentence explains why version three is answerable: every added word names something a researcher could recruit, provide, assign or record. The PICOT breakdown follows as five labeled lines. A paragraph justifies the numeric pain scale with a published threshold for meaningful change and explains the twelve weeks with a Cochrane review on workplace sitting. Feasibility names two practical problems, no blinding and week-to-week pain variation, and a final section lists three related questions left out to keep this one narrow.

HS305 Unit 4 rubric: what earns full points

Research question drafts usually earn points for the clarity and answerability of the final question, the quality of the narrowing shown, correct use of the question framework, a feasibility discussion and APA form. The final question itself tends to carry the most weight. A question that is still a topic, or that bundles two outcomes, rarely reaches the top level however polished the rest is. The narrowing is graded on whether each revision fixes a named problem. Framework credit comes from labeling each element accurately. Feasibility rewards honest problems with the design they imply, not a declaration that the study is easy. Sources should support the outcome measure and the rationale. Clear, short sections keep the reasoning visible.

Common HS305 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common shortfall is a final question that still contains a vague word such as health, wellness or better. Another is a question that answers itself or that no single study could address, such as whether sitting is bad. Some students show versions that differ only in wording, so the narrowing looks cosmetic. Others choose an outcome without checking that a validated measure exists for it. Leaving out the comparison makes a question about an intervention impossible to test. If your interest lies elsewhere, perhaps sleep, screen time or a workplace program, send it and we can help you narrow it in stages until a population, a comparison and a measurable outcome are all in place.

Get an HS305 Unit 4 example written to your instructions

Start the request from the interest behind your Unit 4 question, however vague it feels; the prompt and rubric come next. Each narrowing step appears with what it lacked, the final question has every element labeled, and the rationale matches what your section asks of it. The draft returns in 24-48h, and the first custom sample is free. 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.

Request this unit free All HS305 units Finished samples

More HS305 papers and BS in Health Science samples

HS305 Unit 4 questions, answered

Does every research question need PICO elements?

Questions about interventions or exposures usually do, and PICO or PICOT is the frame most HS305 sections teach. Descriptive and qualitative questions use different frames, such as population, phenomenon of interest and context. The sample uses PICOT because the final question compares two conditions, and it labels each element so the grader can check that none is missing.

How many versions should a draft show?

As many as the narrowing honestly took, and at least two if the prompt asks for the process. Three is common because the first version is usually a topic, the second adds a population and the third makes the exposure and outcome measurable. Showing the failures with a short note on each tends to earn more than a single polished question.

Can the question be about something I care about personally?

Yes, and that often helps, since the topic has to hold through several units. The discipline is removing the assumption the personal interest brings, which is why the sample's final version asks whether the desk reduces pain rather than how much. A question you care about but phrase neutrally is the combination most instructors hope to see.

Where can I find a free HS305 Unit 4 sample paper?

This page carries the complete Unit 4 research question draft, narrowing an interest in sitting to a sit-stand desk question in three stages.

What makes a research question answerable?

It names who will be studied, what they will receive or be exposed to, what they are compared with and an outcome that can be measured within a stated time frame.