| Course | HS880 Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Deviation and limitation memo |
| Length | About 750 words, 5 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 9
Five Departures, Each With a Date: A Unit 9 Deviation and Limitation Memo for a Study of Gonadal Shielding
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS880: Doctoral Project III: Data Collection and Analysis
Unit 9 Deviation and Limitation Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The study, its dates and figures are composite and shown as placeholders; the sources cited are real.
To, From, Subject
Addressed to the three committee members, from the student, concerning departures from the approved protocol and the limitations they create.
Deviation One: Invitation Resent From an Internal Address
Date: [day 17] of collection, after board approval of an amendment on [day 16]. Reason: the original invitations carried an external-sender warning and were reported as phishing. Effect: response rose from [38] to [121]. The later wave leaned toward outpatient staff with longer careers.
Deviation Two: Collection Window Extended by 21 Days
Date: approved with the same amendment. Reason: to allow the resent invitation and posters to reach staff. Effect: collection ran [42] days instead of [21].
Deviation Three: Interview Schedule Shifted
Date: interviews began [three] weeks later than planned. Reason: interview volunteers come from the survey's last page, which most respondents reached only after the amendment. Effect: survey and interview collection still overlapped, as the convergent design requires (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), but the overlap was shorter.
Deviation Four: Two Domains Dropped From Inferential Tests
Date: during analysis. Reason: internal consistency for optimism ([0.48]) and goals ([0.57]) fell below the planned threshold of [0.60]. Effect: false discovery rate adjustment was applied across 12 domains rather than 14 (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), and the two domains are reported descriptively.
Deviation Five: Second Coder's Sample Increased
Date: after the first [four] double-coded transcripts. Reason: a boundary disagreement between social influences and environmental context led to codebook revision, and the chair recommended more double coding to test the revised rule. Effect: the second coder coded [8] of [17] transcripts instead of [5], and agreement is reported descriptively, as planned, rather than as a single coefficient (O'Connor & Joffe, 2020).
A limitation that cannot be traced to something that happened in this study is usually a limitation copied from somewhere else.
Limitations Traced to These Events
Response and recruitment wave. The response of [42] percent is respectable for a staff survey, but deviations one and two mean the sample combines two waves that differ in site and experience. When wave entered the regression, the main odds ratios shifted only trivially, which suggests wave does not drive the main associations, but the overall prevalence of routine shielding may still be biased by who answered.
Self-report. Respondents reported their own shielding. Because staff know shielding is discouraged, the reported rate may understate actual practice. No observation was conducted to check it.
Reliability of two domains. Deviation four means the study cannot say whether optimism or goals differ between groups.
Thin urgent care interviews. Only [2] urgent care radiographers were interviewed, so interview themes cannot be compared across site types with confidence.
Single network. All findings come from one network with one protocol, so they may not transfer to settings with different rules or training.
Limitations Not Arising From Deviations
Two limitations were anticipated in the proposal and did not depend on anything that happened during collection. The cross-sectional design cannot show whether the domains that differ cause shielding or follow from it; a radiographer who shields out of habit may come to describe the habit as automatic. And the framework, although comprehensive, was built mainly from studies of adopting practices, so it may miss influences specific to stopping one. Both are stated in Chapter 5 with the others, but they are labeled as design limitations so readers can distinguish them from the consequences of events.
Two Claims the Data Can No Longer Support
First, the study cannot report a network-wide prevalence of routine shielding as a precise figure. The proportion will be presented with its confidence interval, by site type and with an explicit caution about response and self-report. Second, the study cannot conclude that motivation-related domains such as optimism and goals do not matter. Absence of evidence for those domains reflects measurement, not a finding.
Where Each Item Will Appear
Deviations will open Chapter 4, before the descriptive results. Limitations will appear in Chapter 5, cross-referenced to the deviations. The two withdrawn claims will be removed from the abstract and executive summary drafts.
Request
Please confirm that the treatment of the two low-reliability domains is acceptable before Chapter 4 is finalized.
References
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
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
O'Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
The Purdue Global HS880 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth unit typically asks candidates to document deviations from the approved protocol and to write the limitations that follow, often in memo form of three to five pages. Instructors expect each deviation to carry a date, a reason, the approval route where one was needed and its effect on the data. Limitations should be traced to specific events or design features rather than copied from a generic list. Many prompts ask candidates to state which planned claims can no longer be made. The memo should explain where deviations and limitations will appear in the dissertation, typically with deviations in the results chapter and limitations in the discussion. A request for committee confirmation of contested decisions is common.
Inside the HS880 Unit 9 example
An address line opens the memo. Five deviation sections follow, each with date, reason and effect, including the change from fourteen to twelve tested domains. The highlighted sentence states the principle for tracing limitations. Limitations are then traced to response and recruitment wave, self-report, two unreliable domains, thin urgent care interviews and a single network. A separate section names two design limitations not caused by events. Two claims are withdrawn: a precise prevalence figure and conclusions about optimism and goals. A placement section says where deviations, limitations and withdrawn claims will appear, and the memo ends with a request for confirmation.
Reading the HS880 Unit 9 grading rubric
Deviation and limitation memos are generally graded on completeness and precision of deviations, traceability of limitations, honesty about consequences, placement in the dissertation and professional writing. Traceability often weighs most; graders reward limitations clearly linked to events or design choices and penalize stock lists. Precision earns credit when deviations carry dates, approvals and measured effects. Honesty about consequences rewards candidates who withdraw claims the data no longer support. Placement points go to memos that state where readers will find each item. A clear memo format, a specific request to the committee and correct citations complete the score. Memos that show the measured effect of each deviation, even when it was small, usually earn the full precision score.
HS880 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Committees often see limitation lists lifted from templates, listing small sample, self-report and single site without connecting them to what happened. Another is reporting a deviation without its effect, leaving readers unsure whether it mattered. Some candidates omit deviations they consider minor, which committees often discover. Others list limitations but leave the study's claims unchanged. Burying deviations at the end of the results chapter undermines interpretation, and so does describing them in vague terms such as "minor changes to recruitment." If your study had different departures, perhaps a changed instrument or a lost site, send your approved plan and a log of what changed, and a memo can be drafted that traces each limitation to its source.
Get an HS880 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Deviation memos differ by section: a standalone memo, a table inside the results chapter, or a limitations section with its own rubric row. Set down each change to your study with its date, and add the Unit 9 prompt, the rubric and the approved plan. The sample reports each change in one format and builds limitations from events. First custom sample free, 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 1: Survey and Interview Recruitment Plan
- HS880 Unit 2: Low Survey Response Discussion Post
- HS880 Unit 3: Research Data Management Protocol
- HS880 Unit 4: Directed Content Analysis Codebook
- HS880 Unit 5: Qualitative Coding Memo
- HS880 Unit 6: Reporting Deviations Seminar Reflection
- HS880 Unit 7: Descriptive Sample Results Summary
- HS880 Unit 8: Analysis Output Narrative
- HS880 Unit 10: Results Chapter Draft
- HS865 Unit 9: Instrument Alignment Table
- HS810 Unit 9: Policy Brief
- HS860 Unit 9: Doctoral Committee Response Memo
- HS820 Unit 9: Waiting-Time Country Comparison
HS880 Unit 9 questions, answered
What is the difference between a deviation and a limitation?
A deviation is a departure from the approved plan, such as a changed recruitment method or an extended window. A limitation is a constraint on what the findings can show, which may come from a deviation or from the design itself. Deviations are reported as events with dates and reasons; limitations are reported as boundaries on interpretation.
What if an instrument's reliability is low in my sample?
Report the figure, explain how the domain or scale was handled, and limit the claims built on it. Options include keeping the scale with a caution, examining items that lowered consistency, or reporting items individually. Choosing an option because it produces a better result would compromise the analysis, so state the rule you applied and why you applied it.
Should the limitations section change the study's conclusions?
It should shape them. If a limitation means a planned claim can no longer be supported, such as a prevalence estimate for a whole population when the sample is skewed, the conclusions should use narrower wording. Naming claims you are withdrawing, and what replaces them, shows the committee that limitations were taken seriously rather than merely listed.
Where can I find a free HS880 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page has the complete Unit 9 deviation and limitation memo for a radiographer study, with five dated departures and two withdrawn claims.
Why withdraw a prevalence claim?
Because response was moderate, late respondents differed from early ones and practice was self-reported, so a precise network-wide figure would overstate what the data show.