PU565 Unit 7 Survey Instrument Design Example

Course	PU565 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Unit	Unit 7
Paper type	Survey instrument design
Length	About 960 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 7

Every Item Labeled With Its Source, Its Format and the Analysis It Feeds: A Unit 7 Survey Instrument Design for a Composite County's Residents Over Sixty, Combining a Published Screen With Items Built From the Interviews

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PU565: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Unit 7 Survey Instrument Design

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Culbreth County is composite; the published screening instrument, the item formats and the research cited are real.

What this part is doingEach item is tagged with the analysis it serves, so an item that feeds nothing can be deleted before the instrument is printed rather than after the data are collected.

Section A: Screening, Borrowed Intact

1. Items A1 to A10. Source: the published hearing handicap inventory for the elderly, screening version, used without rewording (Ventry & Weinstein, 1982). Format: yes, sometimes, no, scored 4, 2, 0. Feeds: the severity banding that stratifies every later analysis.

Borrowing intact is a decision rather than a shortcut. Rewriting items from a validated screen produces a new instrument with no validation behind it, and the comparison with published prevalence estimates would be lost.

Section B: Use and Ownership

1. B1. Do you now use a hearing aid in either ear? Source: adapted from national survey wording. Format: yes, no. Feeds: the primary outcome.

2. B2. Have you ever owned one? Source: new. Format: yes, no, do not know. Feeds: separating never-users from people who tried and stopped, which the interviews showed are different groups.

3. B3. If you stopped, what happened? Source: interviews, five response options plus other. Format: select all. Feeds: description only, reported as counts.

Section C: Information, Built From the Interviews

1. C1. Before today, had you heard that some hearing aids can now be bought without seeing a specialist? Format: yes, no, not sure. Feeds: the information finding's prevalence estimate.

2. C2. As far as you know, are the devices sold in a drugstore the same as the ones fitted by a specialist? Format: same, different, do not know. Feeds: the same estimate, plus a cross-tabulation against severity band.

3. C3. If you wanted to find out which kind suits you, who would you ask? Format: one choice from six plus nobody. Feeds: description, and the county's referral planning.

4. C4. Has anyone explained the difference to you? Format: yes, no, cannot remember. Feeds: the information estimate's second indicator.

Section C exists because six of twelve interview participants could not say what the over-the-counter category is, and the interviews cannot say how common that is. This is the point where the qualitative phase becomes an item set. These four items are the only part of the instrument that could not have been written before the interviews, which is the test of whether the sequence was worth running.

Section D: Cost and Deferral

1. D1. Thinking about the last time you considered one, what was the main thing that stopped you? Source: interviews, seven options plus other, with price and not the right time as separate options rather than one. Format: single choice. Feeds: the comparison the interviews made necessary, since price and deferral were doing different work in the transcripts.

2. D2. At what price would you buy one today? Format: four bands plus would not buy at any price. Feeds: description, reported with the caution that stated willingness to pay is not behavior.

What this part is doingSeparating price from not the right time into two response options is the one place where an interview finding directly contradicts the standard item, and the instrument records why.

Section E: Social Context

1. E1. Who lives in your household? Format: four categories. Feeds: the social exposure stratification carried over from the sampling plan.

2. E2. In the last month, have you avoided a place or an event because of hearing? Format: yes, no. Feeds: the stigma theme's prevalence test, and the only behavioral item for it.

3. E3. Does anyone close to you use a hearing aid? Format: yes, no, do not know. Feeds: cross-tabulation against B1, since accounts of wearers in the interviews turned on whether the respondent knew one, which the stigma literature also reports (Wallhagen, 2010).

Section F: Demographics

Age band, sex, insurance type, and highest level of schooling. Four items, placed last, each used for description and for the two stratified comparisons named above. Nothing else is collected, because an item that feeds no analysis is a cost to the respondent and a risk to the response rate.

What this part is doingThe behavioral item in Section E is the only measure of the stigma theme, which the design states plainly rather than letting an attitude item stand in for a cost.

Format Rules Applied Throughout

1. No item asks for a recall period longer than one month except where the published screen does.

2. Response options are read in full rather than offering an agree-disagree scale, since acquiescence and satisficing rise with respondent burden and with vague scales (Krosnick, 1991).

3. Do not know is offered where it is a real answer and withheld where it is an escape from a judgment the study needs.

4. Items are printed at 14 point with high contrast, since the population is older and the instrument is mailed.

5. No item mentions the study's own findings, which would prime the answer.

Pilot Plan and What It Will Test

Twenty residents, mailed, with ten followed up by telephone to ask what each question made them think of. Three specific risks to test: whether C2 is understood as a question about the devices rather than about the shops; whether D1's price and timing options are heard as distinct; and whether the screen's older wording reads oddly beside the new items. The pilot's purpose is item comprehension rather than reliability estimation, which this design cannot produce at that sample size, and the report will say so.

What This Instrument Cannot Do

It cannot measure hearing loss, only self-reported handicap, so the denominator differs from audiometric studies and the comparison with them is approximate. It cannot establish why anybody answers as they do, which is the strand the interviews hold. And a mailed instrument will under-reach the most isolated residents, the same limit the sampling plan named, which means both strands of this study share one blind spot rather than covering for each other.

References

Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

Ventry, I. M., & Weinstein, B. E. (1982). The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: A new tool. Ear and Hearing, 3(3), 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-198205000-00006

Wallhagen, M. I. (2010). The stigma of hearing loss. The Gerontologist, 50(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnp107

What the PU565 Unit 7 assignment asks for

Unit 7 usually asks for a survey instrument with its design logic exposed. Tag every item with where it came from, what format it uses and which analysis it serves, and delete any item that feeds nothing. Borrow validated instruments intact and explain why rewording would cost you their validation and any comparison with published estimates. Show which items could not have been written before your qualitative phase, because that is the test of whether a sequential design was worth running. State format rules: recall periods, when to offer do not know, reading level, type size for an older population. Describe the pilot and what it will test. Close with what the instrument cannot measure.

How this PU565 Unit 7 example is built

The instrument on this page runs in six sections, each item carrying source, format and analysis. The screen is borrowed intact with the reasoning given, and the use items separate never-users from people who tried and stopped. Section C holds the four items built from interviews, and a highlighted line notes that these are the only part of the instrument that could not have existed earlier. A note in the margin explains why the single barrier item was split so that price and timing stand apart. Social context items follow, with a further note on the one behavioral measure of stigma. Five format rules, a pilot plan with three named risks, and three honest limits close the design.

Where the points sit in the PU565 Unit 7 rubric

Rubrics for an instrument design score discipline. The heaviest weight is on items that each name an analysis, since an instrument where items feed nothing is a questionnaire rather than a design. Credit goes to borrowing validated scales without rewording and explaining that decision. Points go to showing which items derive from the qualitative phase, which is how this course tests integration at the methods level. Format rules earn marks, especially recall periods, the handling of do not know and accommodations for an older sample. A pilot described as testing comprehension rather than reliability is rewarded, as is stating what the instrument cannot measure. APA 7 citation of the borrowed instrument is required.

Common PU565 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The commonest failure is an instrument of interesting questions with no analysis behind them, which produces data nobody can use and a long form respondents abandon. The second is rewriting a validated screen to modernize its wording, which quietly discards its validation and any benchmark. Third, do not offer an agree-disagree scale by default, since it invites acquiescence and satisficing; read out real response options instead. Avoid treating a willingness-to-pay figure as behavior. And split response options that your interviews showed to be doing different work, rather than preserving the standard single item. Send us your prompt and an instrument built to it comes back inside two days.

Get a PU565 Unit 7 example written to your instructions

Published items, new ones or a mix: say which your PU565 section requires and what the Unit 7 survey must measure. Share the prompt and rubric, plus any interview findings the instrument should build on. Every item arrives sourced, formatted and tied to the question it answers, in a free first custom sample turned around 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 PU565 papers and MPH samples

PU565 Unit 7 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PU565 Unit 7 sample paper?

The whole instrument, all six sections with item labels, is open on this page.

Why label every item with an analysis?

So that items feeding nothing can be deleted before printing. Respondent burden is a cost and a risk to the response rate.

Should a validated screen be reworded?

No. Rewriting it creates an unvalidated instrument and breaks comparison with every published estimate that used the original.

Which items prove the sequence was worth it?

The four written from interview findings. Nothing in the published literature would have produced them.

What can this instrument not do?

Measure hearing loss, explain any answer, or reach the most isolated residents, which is a limit it shares with the interview strand.