HS880 Unit 8 Analysis Output Narrative Example

Course	HS880 Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis
Unit	Unit 8
Paper type	Analysis output narrative
Length	About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	Doctor of Health Science (DHSc)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HS880 Unit 8

Four Tables, Two Figures and No Interpretation: A Unit 8 Analysis Output Narrative for a Study of Shielding Habits

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS880: Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis

Unit 8 Analysis Output Narrative

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Wrenfield Health and every result are composite and shown as placeholders; the statistical and reporting sources cited are real.

What this part is doingPromising no interpretation in the lead sets a discipline the narrative must keep for every paragraph that follows.

Conventions

Every table title names the population, the measure and the comparison. Every footnote names the test, any adjustment for multiple comparisons and the meaning of symbols. Percentages carry their denominators. Nonsignificant results are reported with the same detail as significant ones.

Order of Presentation

The tables follow the research questions. The first question, about how often radiographers shield and whether this varies across groups, is answered by Table 1 and Figure 1. The second, about which framework domains separate routine shielders from others, is answered by Tables 2 and 3. The third, about how radiographers themselves describe their decisions, is answered by Table 4. The merged view comes last, in Figure 2, because it depends on all the others. A reader who wants only one result can go directly to its table; a reader who reads straight through meets each result in the order the study asked about it.

Table 1. Routine Gonadal Shielding During Pediatric AP Pelvis Radiography Among Wrenfield Health Radiographers, Overall and by Subgroup (n = [119])

What it shows: [39] respondents ([33] percent) reported shielding often or always. By site type, the proportion was [16] percent in hospital departments ([7] of [43]), [25] percent in urgent care ([5] of [20]) and [48] percent in outpatient centers ([27] of [56]). By years in practice, it rose from [19] percent among those with fewer than five years to [46] percent among those with twenty-five or more. Footnote: chi-square tests; site type p = [0.002], years in practice p = [0.04]; training program p = [0.31].

Table 2. Theoretical Domains Framework Scores by Shielding Group (Routine, n = [39]; Not Routine, n = [80])

What it shows: medians, interquartile ranges and effect sizes for each of 14 domains. After false discovery rate adjustment across 12 domains with adequate reliability (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), four differed between groups: memory, attention and decision processes (median [5.5] against [3.8], r = [0.44]); social influences ([5.3] against [3.7], r = [0.41]); environmental context and resources ([5.0] against [3.5], r = [0.38]); and social or professional role and identity ([5.2] against [4.1], r = [0.29]). Knowledge did not differ ([6.1] against [6.3], r = [0.06]). Beliefs about consequences had an unadjusted p of [0.03] that did not survive adjustment. Optimism and goals are shown descriptively without tests because their internal consistency fell below the planned threshold. Footnote: Mann-Whitney U tests; effect size r computed from the standardized test statistic and sample size; adjusted significance at q less than 0.05.

A table that a reader can understand without the paragraph beside it is the test of whether the paragraph has been kept to description.

What this part is doingStating the readability test for tables inside the narrative explains why the conventions section exists.

Table 3. Logistic Regression of Routine Shielding on Domains That Differed, Adjusted for Site Type and Years in Practice (n = [114])

What it shows: memory, attention and decision processes (odds ratio [2.3]; confidence limits [1.4] and [3.8] at 95 percent) and social influences ([1.9], [1.2 to 3.1]) remained associated with routine shielding; environmental context ([1.6], [1.0 to 2.6]) and professional identity ([1.3], [0.8 to 2.1]) did not reach significance. Outpatient site was associated with routine shielding (odds ratio [2.8], [1.1 to 7.0]). Adding recruitment wave changed no estimate by more than [10] percent. Footnote: odds ratios per one-point increase in domain score; reference category hospital department.

Table 4. Belief Statements by Domain From Interviews (n = [17])

What it shows: for each domain, the belief statements coded and the number of interviewees expressing each. The most widely shared: "I know the guidance changed" (knowledge, [16] of [17]); a statement about parents expecting shields and querying their absence (social influences, [11] of [17]); "I put it on without thinking" (memory and decision processes, [10] of [17]); "The shield hangs where my hand goes" (environmental context, [9] of [17]); "If a parent complains, I'm the one in trouble" (beliefs about consequences, [8] of [17]). Footnote: counts follow published guidance on reporting belief statements in framework studies (Atkins et al., 2017).

Figure 1. Proportion Reporting Routine Shielding by Site Type and Years in Practice

What it shows: a grouped bar chart of the Table 1 proportions, with 95 percent confidence intervals.

Figure 2. Joint Display of Survey and Interview Findings by Domain

What it shows: for each domain, the Table 2 effect size, the Table 4 belief statements and a label. Convergent: memory and decision processes, social influences, environmental context. Complementary: professional identity. Discordant: beliefs about consequences, prominent in interviews but not different in the adjusted survey comparison. Silent in both: skills, intentions. The display follows established integration principles (Fetters et al., 2013).

What this part is doingLabeling each domain in the joint display, including the discordant one, keeps disagreement between strands visible instead of averaging it away.

What Is Not Here

Explanations for these patterns, comparisons with published studies and implications belong to the discussion chapter. Where a sentence in this narrative began to say why a domain differed, it was cut and moved to a notes file for that chapter, so that nothing here asks the reader to accept an interpretation before seeing the evidence.

References

Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O'Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., Foy, R., Duncan, E. M., Colquhoun, H., Grimshaw, J. M., Lawton, R., & Michie, S. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12, 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

The Purdue Global HS880 Unit 8 instructions

Unit 8 usually asks candidates to present the output of their planned analyses, with tables and figures and a narrative that describes what each shows. Four to six pages plus tables is common. Instructors expect tables that stand alone, with titles naming the population, measure and comparison, footnotes naming tests and adjustments, and denominators for every percentage. Every planned analysis should be reported whatever its result, and the narrative should describe rather than explain. Mixed methods studies typically include a joint display. Many prompts ask candidates to state the order of presentation and to keep interpretation for the discussion chapter. Effect sizes should accompany test results so that readers can judge magnitude as well as significance.

How the HS 880 Unit 8 example is put together

A conventions section sets rules for titles, footnotes, denominators and nonsignificant results. An order-of-presentation section maps each table and figure to its research question. Table 1 reports routine shielding overall, by site type, years and training with chi-square results. Table 2 reports domain medians, effect sizes and adjusted results, including a domain that lost significance after adjustment; the highlighted sentence states the readability test. Table 3 gives regression results and the wave check. Table 4 lists belief statements with counts. Two figures follow, the second a joint display. A closing section explains how interpretive sentences were moved out. Nonsignificant domains appear in Table 2 with the same detail as the significant ones.

Where the points sit in the HS880 Unit 8 rubric

Analysis narratives are typically evaluated on accuracy, completeness of reported analyses, quality of tables and figures, restraint from interpretation and alignment with the analysis plan. Accuracy and completeness often weigh most; graders check that every planned test appears with its result. Table quality earns credit when titles, footnotes and denominators allow each table to stand alone. Restraint is scored explicitly in many rubrics, so sentences explaining why results occurred lose points. Alignment rewards reporting adjustments and sensitivity checks exactly as planned. For mixed methods work, a clear joint display is often expected. Consistent formatting and correct citations complete the grade. Some instructors cover the narrative and read the tables alone, then read the narrative alone, to test both.

HS880 Unit 8 help: mistakes that cost points

The most common weakness is a narrative that slides into explanation, saying why a group differed instead of only that it did. Another is reporting only significant results and dropping the rest. Some candidates present tables without denominators or footnotes, so readers cannot tell what test was used. Others forget to report adjustments for multiple comparisons. Figures that repeat tables without adding anything waste space. If your analysis produced different outputs, perhaps a time series or a thematic map, send your tables and analysis plan, and a narrative can be prepared that describes each result without interpreting it. Reporting effect sizes for some domains and only p values for others makes comparison across the table difficult.

Get an HS880 Unit 8 example written to your instructions

Output narratives depend on your software, your tests and your chapter template. Share the Unit 8 prompt, the rubric, your analysis output and the plan it was meant to follow. The sample builds tables and figures that stand alone, then writes narrative reporting each finding without explaining it. First custom sample free; returned in 24-48h. 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 HS880 papers and DHSc samples

HS880 Unit 8 questions, answered

What makes a table readable without the text?

A title naming the population, measure and comparison; column headings with units; footnotes stating the test, any adjustment, sample sizes and every abbreviation. APA style gives a consistent format. A useful check is to hand the table to someone unfamiliar with the study and ask what it shows. If they need the narrative to answer, the table is incomplete.

Should nonsignificant results appear in the analysis section?

Yes. Every planned analysis should be reported, whatever its outcome. A domain that did not differ between groups may be as informative as one that did, particularly when the literature predicted a difference. Leaving nonsignificant results out distorts the picture and is the kind of selective reporting committees are trained to notice.

Can qualitative findings include numbers?

They can, with care. Counting how many participants expressed a belief helps readers see how widespread it was, and Atkins and colleagues' guide to TDF analysis treats frequency as one criterion. Numbers should not stand in for importance, though; a belief voiced by few may matter greatly. Report counts alongside extracts, and avoid percentages with small samples.

Where can I find a free HS880 Unit 8 sample paper?

The full Unit 8 analysis output narrative is shown here, with four tables and two figures from a radiographer study and no interpretation.

What is a joint display?

A single table or figure that lines up the numbers and the interview themes for each framework domain, so readers can see where the strands agree or differ.