PU699 Unit 10 Capstone Portfolio Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Master of Public Health Capstone Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This PU699 Unit 10 capstone portfolio packages the composite Port Alder beach advisory project into three folders named for what each reader will do. Purdue Global PU 699, the Master of Public Health Capstone, ends with a portfolio that MPH students' sites and reviewers can use. Adopt holds the revised protocol, fiscal note, lifeguard checklist, sign text, public notice, an October evaluation template and a redline tracing each change to its source. Rerun holds the script, a synthetic file, a README with the seed and the expected tables, so the analysis can be checked without releasing department records. Judge gives nine competency entries, each with a check that takes minutes. Sections record how the seminar changed two claims and what the project did and did not deliver.

CoursePU699 Master of Public Health Capstone
UnitUnit 10
Paper typeCapstone portfolio
LengthAbout 970 words, 6 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramMaster of Public Health (MPH)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PU699 Unit 10

1

Adopt, Rerun, Judge: A Unit 10 Capstone Portfolio for a Composite City's Same-Day Beach Advisory Project, Organized Around What Each of Its Three Readers Will Do With It

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PU699: Master of Public Health Capstone

Unit 10 Capstone Portfolio

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Port Alder, its documents and its data are composite; the competency framework, the methods and the research cited are real.

What this part is doingThe portfolio is organized around use because its three readers, a manager, an analyst and a faculty reviewer, want different things from the same project.
2

How to Read This Portfolio

One PDF of about forty pages in three bookmarked parts, plus a zipped analysis folder. A reader who wants only to use the protocol can stop after Adopt. A reader who wants to check the analysis needs only Rerun. A faculty reviewer can work through Judge alone, because each entry points to the exact page or file it relies on.

Folder One: Adopt

Contents, formatted as the department would issue them, with no citations or competency language inside:

1. The Beach Water Quality Advisory Protocol, revised after the parks department and lifeguard service reviews, with the 7:45 a.m. flag time and the Alder Point gull observation rule.

2. The fiscal note, about 9,700 dollars for the pilot season, including staff time to run and refit the model.

3. The lifeguard checklist.

4. The sign text in English and Spanish.

5. The public notice explaining that advisories now reflect same-day estimates.

6. The October evaluation template, with the two measures the boards asked for, by beach, against the two previous seasons.

A redline shows every change made since the Unit 7 draft, with a margin note naming the person or meeting that prompted it. That redline also carries the evidence for the stakeholder competency.

Folder Two: Rerun

1. The R script, about 160 lines, with comments explaining each step.

2. A synthetic data file with the same columns, value ranges and season structure as the real one, generated so that it contains none of the department's records.

3. A README giving the R version, the packages, the random seed of 2026 and the order to run the steps.

4. The expected output tables, including the validation comparison and the bootstrap interval, which the script reproduces exactly on the synthetic file.

The README opens with a custody note: the beach records belong to the department and remain on its server; the synthetic file reproduces their structure, not their findings, so a reviewer can confirm the code works without the department releasing its data before the boards act. A reviewer can confirm the analysis competency by running one command and comparing two tables, which is the difference between evidence and assertion.

Folder Three: Judge

Each entry names a competency from the accreditation list, points to the file that carries it and offers one check a reviewer can finish in minutes (Council on Education for Public Health [CEPH], 2016).

1. Epidemiology in practice, competency 1. Look in Rerun at the two source tables and confirm that only 19 of the 64 over-standard days had a warning posted.

2. Choosing data sources, competency 2. Open the README and confirm that every model input is published before the 6:30 a.m. run.

3. Analysis with software, competency 3. Run the script on the synthetic file; the validation table should read 19 and 38.

4. Interpreting results, competency 4. Read the limits section of the analysis and confirm it never claims fewer illnesses.

5. Program design, competency 9. In the protocol, find for each beach the rule that triggers a warning, the time it goes up and who raises it.

6. Budget, competency 10. In the fiscal note, redo the arithmetic for the 23 staff hours added after the seminar.

7. Stakeholders, competency 13, now written as a strategy. In the redline, pair each of the three changes with the comment that produced it.

8. Plain-language communication, competency 19. Show the sign text to someone outside public health and ask what a parent should do.

9. Systems thinking, competency 22. On the revised diagram, follow the loop from late warnings to falling trust to weaker compliance; the diagram is drawn to show feedback rather than sequence (Trochim et al., 2006).

What this part is doingTwo entries record how the seminar changed them, so the reviewer sees the claims were tested before they were submitted.
3

What Changed Between the Map and the Portfolio

The Unit 3 map claimed the same nine competencies. Two changed in substance. The systems thinking claim moved from a flowchart to a causal loop diagram after a classmate showed that the first diagram had no feedback, and the revised diagram changed the protocol by adding a public notice. The stakeholder claim was rewritten from a record of contacts into a strategy, and it held because the parks department and lifeguard service meetings took place and produced changes. The budget claim held after a correction for staff time. None was withdrawn.

What the Project Delivered, and What It Did Not

It delivered a protocol the department can pilot next summer, a validated comparison in which the morning model, at three of the four beaches, would have put a warning up on far more of the over-standard days without posting more needless ones, and an honest finding that it would not help at the fourth. That beach-by-beach result matches what earlier work at Chicago beaches found (Nevers & Whitman, 2011). It did not deliver evidence of fewer illnesses, which no part of the project could measure, and it did not settle whether rapid testing should replace culture, which the pilot season is designed to inform.

Instructions for the October Report

The evaluation template in Adopt produces the October report directly. The analyst refits the model with the 2026 season, reruns the validation and fills the template. If the model beats the rule at a beach again, the beach stays a model beach; if not, it moves to the rule. The report goes to both boards with the decision about a second season.

What this part is doingThe portfolio ends with instructions someone else can follow in October, which is the test of whether the project outlives the term.
4

References

Council on Education for Public Health. (2016). Accreditation criteria: Schools of public health and public health programs. Council on Education for Public Health.

Nevers, M. B., & Whitman, R. L. (2011). Efficacy of monitoring and empirical predictive modeling at improving public health protection at Chicago beaches. Water Research, 45(4), 1659-1668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.12.010

Trochim, W. M., Cabrera, D. A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2006). Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 538-546. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066001

Reading the PU 699 Unit 10 instructions

The final unit usually asks you to assemble a capstone portfolio that presents your deliverable, your evidence and your competency claims. Organize it for its readers, whether site staff, analysts or faculty reviewers, rather than in the order the work was done. Include the final deliverable in usable form with a record of revisions. Make your analysis reproducible, using a synthetic dataset if real data are confidential. Present each competency claim with its artifact and a quick verification. Explain how claims changed during the term. Summarize what the project delivered and what it did not. Add instructions for whoever will continue the work. Many programs ask for a single PDF with bookmarks and a separate analysis folder.

Inside the PU699 Unit 10 example

The portfolio opens with a guide to its three parts. Adopt lists six documents in the department's formats and a redline that traces revisions to the people who prompted them. Rerun lists the script, synthetic file, README and expected tables, with a custody note, and a highlighted line explains how one command confirms the analysis claim. Judge gives nine numbered entries, each naming a competency, its file and a quick check, with a margin note on the two claims the seminar changed. Sections follow on changes between map and portfolio, what the project delivered and did not, and instructions for the October report. A one-page guide at the front tells each reader which folder to open first.

Reading the PU699 Unit 10 grading rubric

Capstone portfolios are generally graded on completeness, usability and the strength of competency evidence. Points go to a deliverable ready for the site's use, documented revisions and a reproducible analysis. Credit rises when each competency claim can be verified quickly through a named artifact. Instructors value honest accounts of how claims changed and of what the project did not achieve. Organization for distinct readers and clear instructions for continuation show professional judgment. Formatting, bookmarks and correct citations complete the rubric. Portfolios that bundle every assignment without structure, or that make claims a reviewer cannot check, tend to lose points. Instructions that let someone else run the next evaluation without the writer present are a strong sign the project will outlive the term.

Common PU699 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common shortfall is a portfolio that simply collects every assignment in order. Organize it by what readers need. Another is analysis that cannot be rerun because the data are confidential; provide a synthetic file and a README. Students sometimes keep competency claims unchanged despite evidence from the seminar; show the revisions. Avoid academic apparatus inside documents meant for site use. Include instructions for whoever continues the work. Once your capstone pieces exist, we can organize them into a portfolio built around its readers, with a reproducible analysis folder and quick competency checks. Test the Rerun folder on a different computer before you submit it.

Get a PU699 Unit 10 example written to your instructions

Everything the portfolio needs is yours: the finished deliverable in your site's format, any analysis files you are permitted to share, your competency list, and the Unit 10 prompt and rubric. Send those and a free first custom sample arrives in 24-48h, written to your instructions, sorted by what each reader will do and with a check beside every claim. 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.

Request this unit free All PU699 units Finished samples

More PU699 papers and MPH samples

PU699 Unit 10 questions, answered

Should the portfolio include every assignment from the term?

Rarely in full. Many capstone portfolios include the final deliverable, the analysis and the competency evidence, with earlier drafts represented only where they show development a reviewer needs to see, such as a redline. Check whether your section asks for originals in an appendix. Including everything tends to bury the pieces that carry your claims.

How can analysis be shared if the data are confidential?

Share the method rather than the records. A script, a data dictionary and a synthetic file with the same structure let a reviewer see and run every step without seeing a single real case. State plainly where the real data are held and who approved their use. If your site allows only aggregate tables, include those with small cells suppressed and say so.

Can the portfolio be reused for job applications?

Parts of it, with permission. A practice deliverable and a reproducible analysis make strong work samples, but the documents belong partly to the site, so ask before sharing them outside the course. Leave the graded copy untouched, and make a separate public version with internal details removed. Nothing in the portfolio should suggest it qualifies you for a credential.

Where can I find a free PU699 Unit 10 sample paper?

The complete Unit 10 portfolio for the beach advisory capstone, with all three folders described, is on this page.

What is a synthetic data file?

A file with the same columns, value ranges and structure as the real data but none of the real records, so others can run your code without seeing confidential information.