| Course | DBAX 8101 Business Research Project Mentoring |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Alignment check |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 8101 Week 7
Is It Still the Proposed Study? An Alignment Check of a Survey Study on Supervisor Support and Absenteeism Among Home Health Aides, Setting Current Wording Beside Proposal Wording Element by Element
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 8101: Business Research Project Mentoring
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Is It Still the Proposed Study? An Alignment Check of a Survey Study on Supervisor Support and Absenteeism Among Home Health Aides, Setting Current Wording Beside Proposal Wording Element by Element
Why Check Alignment Now
Answering mentor notes one at a time can move a study away from its own question without any single change looking wrong. A note asks for more background on turnover; a sentence on turnover enters the purpose. Another asks whether absenteeism predicts turnover; a hypothesis is added. After four rounds, the study can be measuring something different from what was proposed and approved. My study is a survey of home health aides at private agencies, testing whether perceived supervisor support predicts absenteeism. This check compares the current wording of each core element with the approved proposal and ties every difference to the note that produced it.
The Check
Table 1
Alignment of Core Elements, Proposal and Current Draft
| Element | Proposal wording | Current wording | Change and source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem | Absenteeism among home health aides disrupts client care and raises agency costs | Absenteeism and turnover among aides disrupt care and raise costs | Turnover added in round 2, after note asking for more context | |
| Purpose | To examine whether perceived supervisor support predicts absenteeism | To examine the relationship between supervisor support, absenteeism and turnover intention | Turnover intention added in round 3 | |
| Research question | Does perceived supervisor support predict absenteeism among home health aides? | Unchanged | None | |
| Hypotheses | H1: Higher support predicts fewer absences | H1 unchanged; H2 added: higher support predicts lower turnover intention | H2 added in round 3 after note asking about turnover | |
| Variables and instruments | Support measured with a validated scale; absences from agency records | Same, plus a turnover intention scale | Added in round 4 | |
| Analysis plan | Regression of absences on support, with controls | Regression for H1; second regression for H2 | Added in round 4 | |
Composite study.
What the Check Shows
Turnover has crept into four of six elements. The research question is unchanged, but the problem, purpose, hypotheses, instruments and analysis now cover a second outcome the question does not ask about. Each change was a reasonable answer to a note. Together, they turned a study of absenteeism into a study of absenteeism and turnover intention, without the research question or the approval changing to match.
This matters for two reasons. First, the study now has a purpose and hypotheses that its research question does not cover, which a committee will notice. Second, adding turnover intention adds a scale to the survey and a second analysis, which may require a larger sample than the power analysis assumed. The added outcome also changes the study's theoretical claim: Eisenberger et al. (2002) linked perceived supervisor support to employee retention, so a reader seeing turnover in the purpose may expect the study to test that link, which the research question does not. Creswell and Creswell (2018) emphasize that problem, purpose, questions and methods must align; the drift breaks that alignment.
Was Turnover Asked For?
Rereading the notes, I am not sure my mentor asked for turnover to be studied. The round 2 note said: "Readers will wonder how absenteeism relates to turnover." That could mean "study turnover" or "mention the relationship in the background." I took the broader meaning. The round 3 note, "Does absenteeism predict turnover in this population?", may have been a question about the literature rather than a request for a new hypothesis.
How the Drift Was Found
The drift was found only by placing the proposal's wording beside the current wording for each element. Reading the current draft alone, every element seemed consistent with its neighbors, because each had been updated as turnover crept in. It was the comparison with the approved proposal, which still asked only about absenteeism, that showed how far the study had moved.
Options
Two options are available. The first is to restore the original scope: remove turnover from the purpose, hypotheses, instruments and analysis, and keep it only in the background as context. The second is to expand the research question to include turnover intention and redo the power analysis. The first keeps the approved study; the second changes it and may need a new approval.
Recommendation and Question
I recommend the first option, and I will ask my mentor before changing anything: "Four rounds of notes have added turnover intention to the purpose, hypotheses and analysis, though the research question still asks only about absenteeism. Did you intend turnover to become part of the study, or only to be discussed as background?" Kamler and Thomson (2014) note that doctoral writing involves negotiating meaning with supervisors; asking directly is that negotiation.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Reading the DBAX 8101 Week 7 instructions
Week 7 asks you to check whether your study has drifted from its approved proposal. List the core elements, such as problem, purpose, research question, hypotheses, variables and analysis plan. For each, set the proposal's wording beside the current wording and record any change with the note that produced it. Identify any outcome or idea that has spread across elements without the research question changing to match. Explain the consequences for alignment, sample size or approval. Lay out your options, recommend one and ask your mentor directly whether the change was intended before you revise, since notes can be read more broadly than they were meant.
How the DBAX 8101 Week 7 example is put together
The check opens by explaining how drift happens. A table compares six elements across proposal and draft and ties each change to a round of notes. A section shows turnover spreading to four elements, citing Creswell and Creswell on alignment and Eisenberger and colleagues on the theory a reader would expect. A section rereads two notes and questions whether turnover was requested. A section explains how the drift was found. A section lays out two options. A closing section recommends restoring scope and quotes the question for the mentor, citing Kamler and Thomson. Every change in the table names the round of notes that produced it, which makes the drift traceable.
Where the marks sit in the DBAX 8101 Week 7 rubric
Alignment checks earn credit for catching drift that no single edit reveals. Comparing each element with the proposal is weighted heavily. Tying changes to specific notes shows how the drift happened. Explaining consequences for alignment, sample size and approval demonstrates methodological awareness. Rereading notes to question one's own interpretation shows reflection. Laying out options and asking the mentor before revising shows good judgment. Checks that compare only the current draft's internal consistency, accept drift without discussion or revise before confirming intent tend to receive lower marks. A single comparison table is the expected format for this doctoral check. Admitting that a note may have been read too broadly shows the self-scrutiny the course is designed to build.
DBAX 8101 Week 7 help from the desk
Open your approved proposal and your current draft. For each core element, copy both versions into a table and mark every difference. Then find the note that led to each change. Look for any idea that has spread across several elements while the research question stayed the same; that is drift. Students often check their draft for internal consistency, which can hide drift because every element has moved together. Compare against the proposal, not against the draft itself. Then ask your mentor whether the change was intended. Deciding between restoring scope and expanding it is easier with the trade-offs laid out, which our writers can do with you. Compare against the proposal, never against the draft alone.
Get a DBAX 8101 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 7 prompt and rubric, your problem, purpose and research question as they now read, and the proposal versions if they differ. An alignment table with causes, a diagnosis and a decision returns in 24-48h, and the first comes free. The home-health agencies in it are invented, so which element of yours moves back is a call you make.
More DBAX 8101 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 8101 Week 1: Project Status Discussion Post
- DBAX 8101 Week 2: Doctoral Draft Map
- DBAX 8101 Week 3: Standing Objection Analysis
- DBAX 8101 Week 4: Targeted Framework Revision
- DBAX 8101 Week 5: Literature Source Check
- DBAX 8101 Week 6: Second Pass Revision
- DBAX 8101 Week 8: Whole-Document Citation Pass
- DBAX 8101 Week 9: Plain-Language Study Summary
- DBAX 8101 Week 10: Doctoral Revision Log
- DBAX 8101 Week 11: Project Handoff Note
- DBAX 8006 Week 7: Scheduling Consequence Analysis
DBAX 8101 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 8101 Week 7 sample paper?
The alignment check, comparison table included, is posted below free.
What study does the DBAX 8101 Week 7 check examine?
A survey of supervisor support and absenteeism among home health aides.
What drifted into the study?
Turnover intention, now in four of six core elements.
Why is that a problem?
The research question still asks only about absenteeism, and the sample may be too small.
What does the author ask the mentor?
Whether turnover was meant to become part of the study or only background.