| Course | NS410 Integrative Nutrition Planning and Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Nutrition Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NS410 Unit 9
The Baseline Comes Before the First Meal: A Unit 9 Evaluation Plan for the Family Table Pilot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NS410: Integrative Nutrition Planning and Management
Unit 9 Evaluation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The pilot, the pantry and all counts are composite; the evaluation framework, the screening study and the cooking intervention review cited are real.
Questions the Evaluation Must Answer
The pantry board and the funder want two things settled. Did Family Table reach the families it was built for, often enough to matter? And did those families, and the pantry as a whole, change in the ways the four objectives from Unit 4 describe? Its structure tracks the public health evaluation framework's six steps, from engaging stakeholders to sharing what was learned (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999). The board, two parents from the focus group and the extension educator reviewed the questions before this plan was written.
Design
The design is a pre and post comparison among enrolled households, with a pantry-wide count of discarded produce before and during the pilot. There is no comparison group. With 40 households and one site, a randomized or matched comparison would not be possible, so the plan describes change among participants and does not claim that the program caused it.
Because the design has no comparison group, every result will be reported as change observed during the pilot, never as change the pilot produced.
Why the Unit 1 Baseline Was Replaced
The Unit 1 count found 30.8 percent of received produce discarded over four weeks. That figure has two problems. It covered only four weeks in September, when tomatoes and corn spoil quickly. And it weighed only the discard bin, so produce that arrived already spoiled could not be told apart from produce families passed over. A new baseline fixes both. For eight Saturdays and eight Tuesdays before the first session, volunteers will weigh produce at arrival, sort out and weigh anything spoiled on the truck, and weigh the discard bin at close. The baseline will be the share of usable produce discarded, which is the figure Family Table could actually change.
Measures and Timing
Objective 1, attendance. Measured at every session from the coordinator's sign-in sheet. The figure reported is how many of the 40 enrolled households came to at least four Saturdays.
Objective 2, cooking confidence. Measured at enrollment and at the sixth session of each cohort using eight questions a volunteer reads to each parent in that parent's preferred language. Parents rate their confidence preparing each of eight vegetables the food bank commonly delivers. Because a review of cooking programs found that many relied on tools never tested for validity (Reicks et al., 2014), the eight items were first tried with five parents from the focus group, and two confusing items were reworded.
Objective 3, produce discarded. Measured on every distribution day during the 24 weeks with the same method as the baseline. Reported as usable pounds discarded over usable pounds received, by month.
Objective 4, WIC referrals. Each offered referral goes into a log, and the coordinator phones the family fourteen days later to ask whether an appointment was made.
Descriptive measures. At enrollment, each household answers the two-item Hunger Vital Sign, a screen whose validation sample was made up of low-income families with children under three (Hager et al., 2010). This describes who enrolled. It is not an outcome.
Data Collection and Privacy
Surveys are kept in a locked cabinet in the pantry office and entered weekly into a spreadsheet that holds a study number but no name. Only the coordinator holds the list matching study numbers to families, and it lives in a separate envelope. At enrollment, parents hear that the surveys are optional and that a family which says no still receives every pantry service, including its place in Family Table. Each completed survey earns a $10 grocery card.
Analysis
Analysis stays at the level the numbers can bear. For attendance, the plan reports counts and percentages. For confidence, it reports the share of households rating three or more vegetables as confident at enrollment and at the end, with the number completing both surveys stated beside every percentage. A paired comparison will be reported only if at least 25 households complete both surveys. For produce discarded, the plan reports the monthly share before and during the pilot on a simple chart, noting the season of each month.
Threats to Interpretation
Several things could distort how big a change appears. Parents who stay to the end may be the most motivated, so the confidence result describes completers only. The seasons change during the pilot, from summer squash to winter roots, and spoilage rates change with them. The food bank could send more or less produce. Each threat will be reported next to the result it affects. The final report will also say plainly where the pilot cannot answer a question, so the board does not expand the program on a reading the data never supported.
Reporting
The coordinator will prepare a two-page summary at the end of each cohort for the board and a final report at 24 weeks for the funder. Every participating family gets the findings on a single sheet, printed in both English and Spanish, and two of them will be invited to present the findings with the coordinator at the board meeting.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Hager, E. R., Quigg, A. M., Black, M. M., Coleman, S. M., Heeren, T., Rose-Jacobs, R., Cook, J. T., de Cuba, S. A. E., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cutts, D. B., Meyers, A. F., & Frank, D. A. (2010). Development and validity of a 2-item screen to identify families at risk for food insecurity. Pediatrics, 126(1), e26-e32. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-3146
Reicks, M., Trofholz, A. C., Stang, J. S., & Laska, M. N. (2014). Impact of cooking and home food preparation interventions among adults: Outcomes and implications for future programs. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.001
Reading the NS 410 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth NS410 unit asks for an evaluation plan that shows how the program's objectives will be measured. Expect the prompt to ask for a design, measures, timing, data collection, analysis and reporting. Name the design and be plain about the claims it supports. Collect baselines before the program starts, so early sessions cannot affect them. Match each measure to an objective from Unit 4 and keep the same denominators. Use validated instruments where they exist, and pretest any items you write. Describe how data will be stored and how participants' privacy will be protected. Keep the analysis at a level the sample size can support. List threats to interpretation, such as seasonal change or dropout, beside the results they affect. Say who will receive findings and in what form. Four to six pages is typical.
How this NS410 Unit 9 example is built
The sample opens with the two questions the evaluation must answer and notes that stakeholders, including two parents, reviewed them. The design section states there is no comparison group, and a highlighted sentence commits to reporting change observed rather than change produced. A full section explains why the Unit 1 baseline was replaced and how the new count weighs produce at arrival, spoilage and close. Measures and timing take each objective in turn, with the confidence survey pretested on five parents and two items reworded. The Hunger Vital Sign appears as a descriptive measure only. Data storage uses study numbers and a separate key. Analysis sets a threshold of 25 completers before any paired comparison. Threats and a reporting plan that returns findings to families close the paper.
Where the points sit in the NS410 Unit 9 rubric
Evaluation plans are generally assessed on the fit between design and claims, the quality of measures, alignment with objectives and attention to ethics. The heaviest weighting often falls on whether the plan is honest about what its design can show. Baselines collected before the program begins are a mark of a strong plan. Measures should map one to one onto stated objectives, with the same denominators. Credit goes to validated tools and to pretesting new items. Privacy and voluntary participation show ethical awareness. Analysis should suit the sample; complex statistics on 40 households can cost points rather than earn them. Naming threats to interpretation shows critical thinking. A reporting plan that includes participants is often credited. APA 7 citations, particularly to an evaluation framework, complete the rubric.
Common NS410 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent error in evaluation plans is a causal claim from a design that cannot support one, such as saying the program improved confidence when there is no comparison group. Baselines are often collected at the first session, after the program has already started. Measures drift from the objectives set earlier. Writers sometimes create survey items without pretesting or ignore an available validated tool. Privacy is reduced to a single sentence. Analysis plans promise regression models on a few dozen people. Threats to interpretation are listed in general terms or skipped. Reporting stops at the funder. With your Unit 4 objectives approved and a fair measurement plan still missing, we can help you choose the design, time the baselines and write an analysis your numbers can carry.
Get an NS410 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Evaluation plans rest on earlier work, so the Unit 9 prompt and rubric should travel with the objectives or logic model they must answer to, plus any instrument your section requires. Each objective gets a measure, a timing and an honest design statement. A first custom sample carries no charge and is ready 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 NS410 papers and BS in Nutrition Science samples
- NS410 Unit 1: Food Pantry Needs Post
- NS410 Unit 2: Pantry Needs Assessment
- NS410 Unit 3: Family Table Logic Model
- NS410 Unit 4: Program Objectives Memo
- NS410 Unit 5: Program Budget Justification
- NS410 Unit 6: Menu Design Seminar Reflection
- NS410 Unit 7: Menu and Session Plan
- NS410 Unit 8: Staffing and Training Plan
- NS410 Unit 10: Integrated Program Proposal
- NS325 Unit 9: Picky Toddler Meal Plan
- NS310 Unit 9: Rheumatoid Cachexia Case
- NS305 Unit 9: Garlic Spread Recall
- NS235 Unit 9: At-Risk Population Brief
NS410 Unit 9 questions, answered
Does a pilot evaluation need a comparison group?
Not necessarily, but it needs to say what its design is able to show and what it is not. A pre and post comparison without a control group can describe change among participants; it cannot attribute that change to the program with confidence. Stating that limit plainly, and naming the design a later phase would use, usually earns more than an ambitious design the site could never run.
Can I write my own survey questions?
Yes, where no validated instrument fits, but the plan should quote them, say they are new, and describe how they were checked, even informally with a few people from the population. Where a validated tool exists, such as the USDA food security module, using it and citing it is usually expected rather than writing a replacement.
How much statistics does the analysis section need?
Only as much as the numbers can bear. For a pilot of a few dozen households, counts, percentages, means with ranges and simple paired comparisons are appropriate, reported with the denominator every time. Promising tests of significance on a sample too small to detect a realistic change is a common and avoidable error.
Where can I find a free NS410 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page offers a full Unit 9 evaluation plan for a pantry cooking pilot, with a sixteen-day produce baseline, measures for four objectives, privacy steps, an analysis suited to 40 households and a reporting plan.
Why does the NS410 Unit 9 plan collect a new produce baseline?
The Unit 1 count covered four weeks and weighed only the discard bin, so spoiled deliveries could not be told apart from produce families left behind. The new count weighs at arrival, sorts out spoilage and weighs at close for sixteen distribution days.