Nine CEPH foundational competencies, every one paired with a Hollin artifact and a test, fill the PU699 Unit 3 competency mapping document, with three others declined. Searches like "pu 699 unit 3 assignment example", "pu699 unit 3 sample" and "pu699 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished PU699 Unit 3 competency mapping document looks like
Six pages built around one table. Its rows are the competencies claimed, quoted in the wording of the criteria version the program adopts, among them 'Analyze quantitative and qualitative data using biostatistics, informatics, computer-based programming and software, as appropriate' and 'Design a population-based policy, program, project or intervention.' Columns give the domain, the artifact, the unit that will produce it, and a reviewer's test: rerun the analysis script and match the rate table; read the draft rule's registration clause; find the owners' comments that changed it. A second, shorter table lists three competencies considered and declined, negotiation and mediation among them, with the reason each falls outside what this project will do. A paragraph states that concentration competencies follow the program's own list and are mapped the same way.
How a PU699 Unit 3 example is structured
An opening paragraph explains why the mapping is written before the evidence exists: deciding now what each artifact must demonstrate shapes how it gets built. The claimed table comes next, ordered by the project's sequence rather than the criteria's domains, so analysis competencies sit near the top and communication ones near the end. Beneath the table, each claim gets a short paragraph naming the feature of the artifact that will carry the evidence, for instance the seeded simulation that lets a stranger reproduce the distance result. Declined competencies follow with reasons. A risk paragraph flags the two weakest claims, the coalition claim and the systems thinking claim, and says what would have to happen for each to hold. Dates close the document: the unit in which each claim will be reopened and tested against what was actually produced.
Quoted wording, the program's version
Each competency appears exactly as the program's adopted criteria word it, with its domain beside it, from Evidence-based Approaches to Public Health through Systems Thinking. Paraphrase is avoided because reviewers match rows to the list word for word.
A test instead of a promise
The final column says what a reviewer would do to confirm a claim: rerun the script, compare two figures, read one clause against the comment it answered. A claim without a test does not enter the table.
Three declined, with reasons
Negotiation and mediation is declined because the health director, not the writer, will lead talks with building owners. Program evaluation methods and one communication competency are declined because the project will not produce work that shows them.
Two claims marked at risk
The coalition claim depends on meeting the building owners' council, not just writing to it, and the systems thinking claim depends on a diagram with feedback, not a flowchart. Both are flagged here for recheck.
Nothing about credentials
One sentence states that the mapping shows what the project demonstrates for the program and implies nothing about eligibility for any certification examination, a matter the credentialing body alone decides.
Where marks go in PU699 Unit 3
Claims with nothing to test are the chief weakness graders find in PU699 mapping documents. A row saying the project will demonstrate policy design, with no clause, table or date attached, cannot be confirmed by anyone who did not write it. Overclaiming comes close behind: mapping every foundational competency on the list to one capstone signals that none was chosen. Competency wording altered in paraphrase, or taken from an outdated criteria version, costs accuracy credit. Rubrics commonly reward claims ordered by the project's own logic, one primary artifact per claim, stated tests, declined competencies explained, and weak claims flagged early. A document that treats the mapping as fixed, with no date for rechecking it, loses ground later when the finished work fails to match.
Get a PU699 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Paste the competency list your program uses, exactly as worded, with a sketch of each artifact the capstone is planned to yield and the Unit 3 prompt and rubric. Within 24-48h a free first custom sample, written to those instructions, ties each claim to one artifact and a test, and says plainly which competencies the project cannot reach.
PU699 Unit 3 questions, answered
Which CEPH competencies should an MPH capstone claim?
Those your project will produce evidence for, within whatever minimum your program sets. Many programs ask the culminating project to address a selection of foundational competencies along with concentration ones, rather than all of them. Choose by looking at the planned artifacts first: a project with a data analysis and a policy draft naturally evidences analysis and policy design, and forcing others in weakens every row.
Can one artifact evidence several competencies?
It can, though each claim should rest on a different feature of it. A draft regulation might evidence policy design through its requirements and budget principles through its fee schedule. Citing the same pages for four competencies suggests the mapping was filled backward. Where an artifact carries more than two or three claims, consider whether a smaller, separate piece of work would evidence one of them better.
Is it acceptable to decline a competency in the mapping?
Usually, and an explained omission tends to read better than a stretched claim. State which competency is set aside and why the project cannot produce evidence of it, such as a negotiation led by someone else. If your program requires every listed competency somewhere in its curriculum, check whether other coursework covers it, and follow the prompt's rules on what the capstone itself must include.