PU699 Unit 3 Competency Mapping Document Example

Course	PU699 Master of Public Health Capstone
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Competency mapping document
Length	About 890 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 PU699 Unit 3

Nine Claimed, Three Set Aside, Each With a Test a Stranger Could Run: A Unit 3 Competency Mapping Document Tying a Beach Advisory Capstone to the Accreditation List Before Any Evidence Exists

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PU699: Master of Public Health Capstone

Unit 3 Competency Mapping Document

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The Port Alder project and its artifacts are composite; the accreditation framework, its competency list and the research cited are real.

What this part is doingThe mapping is written before any evidence exists, because deciding now what each artifact must demonstrate shapes how it gets built.

Why Map Before Building

The program requires the capstone to demonstrate at least five foundational competencies from the Council on Education for Public Health list (Council on Education for Public Health [CEPH], 2016). A map drawn after the work is done tends to claim whatever the work happened to touch. Drawing it now lets each later unit be designed to produce the evidence a reviewer will look for, and it lets weak claims be dropped before time is spent on them.

Claimed Competencies, in Project Order

Each entry gives the competency, its domain, the artifact, the unit that produces it and the reviewer's test.

1. Competency 1, applying epidemiological methods in practice settings. Domain: evidence-based approaches. Artifact: the problem definition's comparison of advisory log and results. Unit 2. Test: recount the 19 of 64 from the two source tables.

2. Competency 2, selecting data collection methods for a public health context. Artifact: the data plan listing each predictor, its source and the time it becomes available each morning. Unit 5. Test: confirm every predictor would be available before 9 a.m.

3. Competency 3, "Analyze quantitative and qualitative data using biostatistics, informatics, computer-based programming and software, as appropriate." Artifact: the analysis script and its output. Unit 5. Test: rerun the script with its stated seed on the synthetic file and match the validation table.

4. Competency 4, interpreting results for policy or practice. Artifact: the interpretation section, especially the paragraph on what the model cannot show. Unit 5. Test: check that no sentence claims an illness reduction.

5. Competency 9, "Design a population-based policy, program, project or intervention." Artifact: the draft advisory protocol. Unit 7. Test: find the decision threshold, the posting deadline and the named role for each step.

6. Competency 10, budget and resource management. Artifact: the protocol's fiscal note. Unit 7. Test: recompute staff hours and the cost of the qPCR pilot from the stated rates.

7. Competency 13, stakeholders and coalitions. Artifact: the record of comments from the parks department and lifeguard captains and the protocol changes they produced. Units 7 and 8. Test: match each change to the comment that caused it.

8. Competency 19, audience-appropriate communication in writing and orally. Artifact: the presentation to the parks and health boards and the public sign text. Unit 8. Test: read the sign text without the slides and say what a parent should do.

9. Competency 22, applying systems thinking tools to a public health issue. Artifact: a causal diagram of the advisory system. Unit 6. Test: identify at least one feedback loop on the diagram.

Every test can be run by someone who never met the writer, which is the point of writing the test down before the artifact exists.

Why These Nine

The analysis claims, numbers 2 to 4, sit at the center because the project's main contribution is a local test of whether a predictive model would have done better than the current rule. Such models have supported advisories at a few Great Lakes beaches (Francy, 2009), but at Chicago's beaches they did not always reduce management errors (Nevers & Whitman, 2011), so a local test is the only honest basis for the claim. Design and budget follow from the protocol. The stakeholder and communication claims rest on two real meetings the department has agreed to hold. Systems thinking is claimed because the advisory problem involves public trust as well as bacteria, and a diagram should be able to show that.

Considered and Set Aside

1. Competency 6, structural bias and health equity. The project could examine which neighborhoods use which beaches, but the department has no attendance data by residence, and inventing a proxy would be weak. Set aside, with a note that the protocol's sign language and posting will be reviewed for equal reach.

2. Competency 15, evaluating policies for impact on health and equity. The pilot season will happen after the term ends, so no impact can be evaluated. Set aside; the protocol includes an evaluation plan the department can run.

3. Competency 17, negotiation and mediation. The project has no dispute to mediate, and claiming it from routine meetings would overstate the evidence.

What this part is doingSet-aside competencies are given reasons tied to the project's real limits, so the reviewer sees judgment rather than a short list.

Risks to the Claims

Two claims are weakest. The stakeholder claim depends on meetings the writer does not control; if the lifeguard captains decline, the claim will be withdrawn rather than stretched. The systems thinking claim depends on producing a diagram that is more than a flowchart, which the Unit 6 seminar will test. Both risks are named now so that their outcome can be reported honestly in the portfolio.

From Map to Portfolio

This document becomes the Judge section of the Unit 10 portfolio. Each entry there will quote the competency, name the artifact and give the reviewer's test, unchanged from this document unless a seminar or a meeting changes the evidence, in which case the change and its reason will be recorded.

What this part is doingThe closing commits to recording any change in a claim, which makes the map a working document rather than a promise made once.

References

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

Francy, D. S. (2009). Use of predictive models and rapid methods to nowcast bacteria levels at coastal beaches. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 12(2), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980902905767

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

Reading the PU 699 Unit 3 instructions

Unit 3 generally asks you to map your capstone to the program's required competencies. List the competencies you will claim, quoting or naming them as the program does. For each, identify the specific artifact that will provide evidence, the unit in which it will be produced and how a reviewer could verify it. Explain why you chose these competencies and how they relate to the project's main contribution. Note competencies you considered and set aside, with reasons tied to the project's limits. Identify the claims most at risk. Most programs set a minimum number of competencies; meet it with claims you can support rather than stretch. A table or numbered list with short explanations is usually expected.

Inside the PU699 Unit 3 example

The document opens by explaining why mapping comes first. Nine numbered claims follow in project order, each giving competency, domain, artifact, unit and a reviewer's test, with two competencies quoted in the program's wording. A highlighted line explains why every test is written for a stranger. A section justifies the selection, citing the predictive model literature to explain why a local test is the honest basis for the analysis claims. Three set-aside competencies follow with reasons drawn from missing data, the timing of the pilot and the absence of a dispute. A risks section names the stakeholder and systems claims as weakest, and a closing section explains how the map becomes the portfolio's Judge folder.

PU699 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points

Grading for competency mapping typically rewards specificity and verifiability. Points go to claims tied to identifiable artifacts with clear tests, rather than general statements of intent. Credit rises for choices that follow from the project's design and for reasoned omissions. Instructors value early identification of weak claims and a plan for handling them. Correct use of the program's competency language matters. Organization and brevity help, since reviewers read many maps. Citations are usually few but should support any claim about the project's evidence base. Maps that claim many competencies for one artifact, or that cannot be checked, lose the most points. Graders also check that the competency wording matches the version of the list your program has adopted, since numbering and phrasing changed between editions.

Common PU699 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The usual problem is a map written after the work, which claims whatever the project happened to touch. Map first, then design artifacts to provide the evidence. Another is vague artifacts, such as a final paper, that could support anything. Name the section or file. Avoid claiming a competency because it sounds impressive when no artifact will show it. Explain omissions briefly. Flag weak claims now rather than defending them later. If you know your project but not which competencies fit, send us the plan and we will draft a map with artifacts and reviewer tests. And keep the set-aside list short and specific, two or three entries with real reasons, so it reads as judgment rather than as filler.

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. 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 PU699 papers and MPH samples

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.

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.

Where can I find a free PU699 Unit 3 sample paper?

This page has the complete Unit 3 competency map for the beach advisory capstone, with all nine claims and their tests.

Can one artifact provide evidence for more than one competency?

Yes, if each claim rests on a different feature of it, such as an analysis script for data analysis and its interpretation section for interpreting results.

Why write a test for each competency claim?

A test lets any reviewer confirm the claim quickly and forces you to build the artifact so the evidence is visible.