| Course | PU565 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Interview protocol draft |
| Length | About 950 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU565 Unit 3
Interviewing People Who Cannot Hear the Interviewer: A Unit 3 Interview Protocol Draft That Writes the Accommodations Into Its First Page, With Nine Questions, Their Probes and the Two the Pilot Removed
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU565: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Unit 3 Interview Protocol Draft
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Culbreth County and its participants are composite; the interview methods, the accommodations and the research cited are real.
Participants and Setting
Adults aged 60 and over living in Culbreth County who report difficulty following conversation and who do not use a hearing aid, a group that national prevalence work shows to be the large majority of older adults with hearing loss (Chien & Lin, 2012). Interviews take place where the participant chooses, with a stated preference for a quiet room rather than a cafe, and last about 50 minutes.
Accommodations, Written as Instructions to the Interviewer
1. Sit facing the participant at about one meter, at the same height, with light on the interviewer's face rather than behind it.
2. Speak at normal volume and slightly slower, with pauses between sentences. Do not shout, which distorts speech sounds and signals impatience.
3. Hand the participant a printed card with the question on it at the start of each new topic, so the question survives a missed word.
4. Turn off any fan, television or refrigerator in the room, and record the room's noise condition in the field note.
5. Ask the participant how they would like to be asked to repeat something, and use their preferred signal rather than the interviewer's.
6. Never finish the participant's sentence, however long the pause. The pauses are data.
7. Offer a break at 25 minutes without asking whether one is needed, since listening effort is tiring and participants will not interrupt to say so.
The Questions
1. Tell me about a conversation this week that was harder than it should have been. Probes: who was there, what you did, what you wished had happened.
2. When did you first notice your hearing had changed? Probes: who else noticed, what they said.
3. What have you tried so far? Probes: seating, asking people to repeat, avoiding places, turning things up.
4. Have you ever looked at hearing aids? Probes: where, when, what you saw, what you thought.
5. If you had one in your hand right now, what would you do with it? Probes: wear it where, tell whom.
6. Who in your life has an opinion about this? Probes: what they say, what you say back.
7. Suppose you did buy one. What would have changed by then? Probes: a price, an occasion, a person, a diagnosis.
8. What do you think a hearing aid says about a person? Probes: anyone you know who wears one.
9. Is there something about this I have not asked that matters?
Question five asks the participant to hold the object, because an abstract decision and an imagined action produce different answers.
What the Pilot Removed, and Why
Two questions went after three pilot interviews. The first asked participants to rate how much their hearing affects daily life from one to ten, which produced a number and then silence, and the number was less useful than the story it replaced. The second asked whether they knew hearing aids could now be bought without a prescription; it was a knowledge test, participants heard it as one, and two apologized for not knowing. The regulatory fact now appears as a statement at the end of the interview, after the recorder is off, because participants should leave the conversation knowing it.
Probing Rules
Probes are listed so the interviewer does not invent them under pressure, and three rules govern their use. Probe for the instance rather than the generalization: when a participant says people stare, ask who, when, where. Do not probe a refusal twice. And when the participant uses a word the interviewer would not have used, repeat that word back rather than translating it, since the vocabulary is part of what the study is collecting (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Opening and Closing Scripts
The opening covers who the interviewer is, that they are not from the health department or a hearing aid company, that nothing said here reaches the participant's doctor, that the recorder can be stopped at any point, and that there are no right answers. The closing asks the final question, offers the regulatory information, gives the 40 dollar card, and asks whether the participant would be willing to look at a summary of findings later, which is recorded as a yes or no in the field note.
Field Note Template
Immediately after each interview the interviewer records: room and noise condition, whether a card was used for every topic, how many repetitions were requested, anything the participant said after the recorder stopped, the interviewer's own discomfort or impatience, and one sentence on what seemed most important. The last two exist because the interviewer's reactions shape the next interview, and because stigma research in this area has found the researcher's own assumptions surfacing in the questions asked (Wallhagen, 2010).
Known Limits of This Protocol
The protocol assumes a participant who can hear a one-to-one conversation in a quiet room, which excludes people with more severe loss whose exclusion should be reported rather than hidden. It assumes English; a second protocol with the same accommodations is needed for the county's Spanish-speaking residents and is not yet drafted. And it asks about a purchase decision in a county where two pharmacies stock the devices, so the answers will be partly local and should not be read as a general account.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chien, W., & Lin, F. R. (2012). Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(3), 292-293. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1408
Wallhagen, M. I. (2010). The stigma of hearing loss. The Gerontologist, 50(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp107
The Purdue Global PU565 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 usually asks for an interview protocol for your own study population. Put any accommodation the population needs at the front, written as instructions a second interviewer could follow. Order questions from a concrete recent experience toward abstraction, since starting with meaning produces thin answers. Write probes out in advance so the interviewer is not inventing them under pressure, and include a rule for when not to probe. Ask at least one question that puts a participant in a situation rather than asking them to evaluate one. Record what a pilot changed, because the revision history is part of the method. Add opening and closing scripts, a field note template, and the protocol's own limits.
How the PU 565 Unit 3 example is put together
The draft on this page opens with participants and setting, then gives seven numbered accommodations covering position, light, pace, printed cards, the participant's own repeat signal and a rule never to finish their sentences. Nine questions follow with probes attached, beginning with a hard conversation from the past week. A highlighted line explains why one question asks the participant to picture the device in their hand. Two removed pilot questions appear with their reasons, one a rating scale that killed a story, flagged with a margin note. Probing rules, opening and closing scripts and a field note template follow, with a further note on why the template asks the interviewer to record their own impatience.
PU565 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
Rubrics for an interview protocol score usability first. The heaviest weight falls on whether a second interviewer could run the protocol without asking the author anything, which means accommodations, probes and scripts written out rather than described. Credit goes to question order that moves from concrete experience to meaning, and to at least one question that places the participant in a scene. Recording pilot changes earns marks, since it shows the draft was tested. Points go to probing rules, including a limit on repeating a refused probe. The field note template is often omitted and is rewarded when it asks for the interviewer's own reactions. Stating who the protocol excludes completes the score, with APA 7 citation of the methods literature.
PU565 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
The commonest problem is a list of topics presented as a protocol, with no wording, no probes and no scripts. Write the sentences you will say. The second error is leading with the abstract question, usually what does this mean to you, which arrives before the participant has told you anything. Third, do not bury accommodations in a limitations note; if the population cannot hear, the protocol has to solve that on page one. Avoid rating scales inside a qualitative protocol, since a number replaces the account you wanted. Do not finish participants' sentences, and keep the pauses. A protocol for your own population takes about two days.
Get a PU565 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
A protocol depends on who sits across the table, so name the group your PU565 protocol will interview and the question behind it. Attach the Unit 3 instructions and rubric, and say whether a consent script is required. Open questions, probes in order and setting details suited to that group all appear in the free first custom sample, back within 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 PU565 papers and MPH samples
- PU565 Unit 1: Methods Choice Discussion Post
- PU565 Unit 2: Paradigm Comparison Memo
- PU565 Unit 4: Sampling Strategy Plan
- PU565 Unit 5: Coding Memo
- PU565 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU565 Unit 7: Survey Instrument Design
- PU565 Unit 8: Codebook Excerpt
- PU565 Unit 9: Mixed Methods Matrix
- PU565 Unit 10: Methods Paper
- PU555 Unit 3: Literature Search Log
- PU550 Unit 3: District Budget Analysis
- PU545 Unit 3: Flood Mitigation Proposal
- PU535 Unit 3: Transmission Pathway Analysis
PU565 Unit 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PU565 Unit 3 sample paper?
The whole interview protocol, accommodations, nine questions and field note template, is published here.
Why do accommodations come first?
Because every question depends on the participant having heard it. Seating, light, pace and printed cards are method, not courtesy.
What makes a good opening question?
A concrete recent experience. Here it is a conversation this week that was harder than it should have been.
Should a protocol record what the pilot removed?
Yes. Two questions were dropped here, and the reasons show the draft was tested rather than imagined.
How long should an interview protocol be?
Four to six pages, including accommodations, questions with probes, scripts, a field note template and the protocol's limits.