Process and outcome questions, a comparison-county design, carbon monoxide verification and certificate data, with a small-numbers warning, make up one NU465 Unit 7 evaluation plan. Searches like "nu 465 unit 7 assignment example", "nu465 unit 7 sample" and "nu465 unit 7 example" land here.
An Evaluation Plan That Admits What Eighteen Months Cannot Show: Clean Air Cordell
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU465: Public Health Nursing - Evidence for Practice
Unit 7 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite program and counties written as a model document. Targets and years are bracketed.
Evaluation Questions First
Process: What share of pregnant WIC enrollees were screened, referred and tested each month? Were vouchers issued only on readings below the stated cutoff? Outcome: What share of enrolled smokers had verified abstinence at 36 weeks? Did the county's third-trimester smoking rate change compared with a similar county? Did low birth weight change? The CDC framework for program evaluation recommends starting from the questions stakeholders need answered and choosing methods that fit them (Milstein & Wetterhall, 1999).
Evaluation Matrix
Screening reach. Indicator: percent of pregnant enrollees screened. Source: WIC records. Timing: monthly. Responsible: WIC nurse. Analysis: run chart.
Referral. Indicator: percent of smokers referred. Source: quitline portal. Timing: monthly.
Fidelity. Indicator: percent of vouchers issued with a qualifying reading on file. Source: voucher log. Timing: monthly audit.
Verified abstinence. Indicator: percent abstinent at 36 weeks by carbon monoxide test. Source: carbon monoxide log. Timing: each enrollee.
County rate. Indicator: third-trimester smoking on birth certificates, all resident births. Source: state vital records (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). Timing: yearly.
Low birth weight. Indicator: percent of births under 2,500 grams. Source: birth certificates. Timing: yearly.
Process First
An outcome finding means little if the program never reached the women it was built for, so reach and fidelity are measured monthly from the start. A review at month [four] checks whether screening and referral targets are being met.
Design for the County Rate
A randomized trial is not feasible for a county program. A simple before-and-after comparison would mistake a statewide decline for program effect. The plan therefore compares Cordell with a demographically similar neighboring county over three years before and two years after launch, a difference-in-differences approach: the change in Cordell minus the change in the comparison county (Dimick & Ryan, 2014).
Small Numbers
With about 55 births a year to smokers, a change in the county rate is likely detectable only after pooling several years. The plan states this in advance so that an inconclusive first-year result is not read as failure.
Ethics and Data Agreements
Participation is voluntary; carbon monoxide results are kept in the WIC record. A data agreement with state vital records covers access to county birth data.
Success, Failure, Inconclusive
Success at eighteen months: process targets met and verified abstinence at 36 weeks at or above [a stated percent]. Failure: process targets met but abstinence below [a lower percent]. Inconclusive: process targets unmet, since the program was not delivered as designed.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC WONDER: Natality information. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dimick, J. B., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: The difference-in-differences approach. JAMA, 312(22), 2401-2402. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.16153
Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. F. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
How this NU465 Unit 7 example is structured
Questions are written before methods, so every indicator traces back to something a funder or the health department would want answered. Process evaluation leads because an outcome finding means little if the program never reached the women it was built for; the plan sets monthly reach and fidelity targets and a review point at month four. The outcome section separates what the program can measure directly, verified abstinence among participants, from what only population data can show, the county rate. The design paragraph explains why a randomized trial is not feasible and why a simple before-and-after comparison would mistake a statewide decline for program effect, which is the case for adding the comparison county. A separate subsection deals with small numbers, carrying a power note stating that a county-level change is likely detectable only after pooling years. Success criteria are fixed in advance and dated.
Get an NU465 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Evaluation plans are sometimes a standalone paper and sometimes a section of a larger project, and the difference changes their length and depth. Say which your section expects, attach the Unit 7 instructions, rubric and your objectives, and a plan aligned to them is drafted in 24-48h. Your first 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.
NU465 Unit 7 questions, answered
Is a pre-post design acceptable for this assignment?
It is common and sometimes all a prompt expects, but it should come with its weakness stated: anything else changing at the same time gets counted as program effect. Adding a comparison group, even a neighboring county's published data, strengthens the design considerably. If your instructions specify a design, the sample follows it and names the limitation instead.
What is the difference between process and outcome evaluation?
Process evaluation checks delivery: who was reached, how often, and whether the protocol held. Outcome evaluation asks whether anything changed because of it. Both are usually expected. A program that shows no effect may have been ineffective or may simply never have reached its population, and only the process data can tell those two apart.
Does an evaluation plan need IRB approval?
Plans written for a course are proposals, so nothing is submitted. The plan should still say what review a real version would need, often a determination of whether the work is quality improvement or research, and name any data agreements. The sample describes those steps for a composite program; your own should follow your instructions and your setting's actual rules.