Built around findings instead of articles, the composite synthesis matrix for HS865 Unit 3 places [23] shielding studies against six claims, one cell at a time. Searches like "hs 865 unit 3 assignment example", "hs865 unit 3 sample" and "hs865 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished HS865 Unit 3 synthesis matrix looks like
One wide table across three pages, then two pages of notes. Rows are studies grouped by design: [nine] technologist surveys, [five] dosimetry or phantom studies, [four] image quality audits, [three] qualitative studies and [two] implementation reports. Columns are findings, not topics: shields raise dose when they enter the exposure control field; shields hide anatomy often enough to cause repeats; radiographers who shield know the current guidance; patient or parent expectation sustains shielding; departmental policy lags national statements; stopping arrives with staff education. Each cell holds a symbol and a brief evidence note, such as a repeat rate or a quoted reason. Design, country and year occupy fixed columns at the left. A paragraph of notes interprets each column, and a final note reads across the rows.
How a HS865 Unit 3 example is structured
Findings as columns is the decision that makes the matrix useful, and the notes defend it. A topical matrix, with columns for dose, image quality and attitudes, would have filed every study somewhere and revealed nothing. Framed as claims, the columns can be supported or contradicted, which is what exposes agreement. Silence is recorded as carefully as support, because a column of blanks is information: no study in the set measured whether parent expectation changes after an explanation at the table. Weight is never averaged. A phantom study and a national survey supporting one claim carry different design codes, so a reader cannot count them as equal. Country stays visible because the UK, Australia and the United States revised guidance at different times. The closing note reads across rows, flagging two surveys whose respondents report knowing the guidance and shielding anyway.
Studies down, claims across
[23] rows grouped by design meet six columns written as testable claims. The arrangement lets a reader ask of any claim how many studies support it, how many contradict it, and of what kind.
Three symbols, never a summary
Supports, contradicts and silent fill the cells, each with a brief evidence note: a repeat rate, a dose change, a quoted reason. Nothing in any cell restates an abstract.
The knowledge column
Nearly every survey that asked found most radiographers aware of the 2019 statement. The notes treat that as the matrix's sharpest result: continued shielding does not look mainly like a knowledge problem.
Where every cell is blank
No study tested whether an explanation at the table changes what a parent requests. The matrix marks that empty column deliberately, since later units build the gap statement from it.
Design codes against false equality
Phantom studies, surveys and qualitative accounts carry separate codes. Supporting cells from a phantom study and a national survey stay visibly different kinds of support.
Where marks go in HS865 Unit 3
Columns labeled by topic rather than by claim, dose, attitudes and policy, turn the matrix back into a filing system, and markers at this stage notice immediately. Cells paraphrasing each abstract reproduce the annotated bibliography the matrix is meant to replace. Treating every supporting cell as equal, so a phantom measurement counts the same as a multi-site survey, misstates the evidence. Silent cells left blank without a mark hide the most useful pattern of all. A matrix without notes leaves the reader to find the patterns alone. Studies placed in columns they never measured, a dose study credited with attitude findings, draw pointed comment. Omitting country and year makes transferability impossible to judge. A matrix holding only studies that agree with the expected gap suggests selective searching, which the Unit 2 log ought to rule out.
Get a HS865 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Matrices arrive as tables, spreadsheets or coded grids, and sections differ on which they accept. Tell us the form your HS865 section expects, attach the Unit 3 prompt and rubric, then name the studies you have screened in. The sample arranges them by claim rather than by author, with notes that interpret each column. First custom sample free, back in 24-48h.
HS865 Unit 3 questions, answered
How is a synthesis matrix different from a literature table?
A literature table usually gives each study a row and describes it: authors, design, sample, findings. A synthesis matrix keeps the rows but turns the columns into findings or claims, so each cell records whether a study supports, contradicts or says nothing about that claim. The table describes sources; the matrix compares them, which is why it feeds a thematic review.
How are the columns of a synthesis matrix chosen?
From the claims that recur in the literature and the ones your question depends on. Reading a handful of studies first usually suggests them. Each column should be phrased so a study could contradict it: a column titled patient factors cannot be contradicted, while patient expectation sustains shielding can. Expect to add, merge and split columns as screening continues.
Should qualitative studies share a matrix with surveys?
They can, provided design is visible in every row. A qualitative study supporting a claim offers a different kind of evidence from a survey percentage, and the matrix should let a reader see that at a glance. Coding cells by design, then discussing mixed evidence openly in the notes instead of tallying it, keeps the comparison honest.