| Course | HLTH 6110 Health and Wellness Education Competency Based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Self-inventory |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6110 Week 3
A Self-Inventory Against the Nine 2025 Areas of Responsibility on a Four-Point Evidence Scale: One Rating per Area, and for Each Rating a Dated Piece of Work Rather Than a Feeling About It
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6110: Health and Wellness Education Competency Based Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Self-Inventory Against the Nine 2025 Areas of Responsibility on a Four-Point Evidence Scale: One Rating per Area, and for Each Rating a Dated Piece of Work Rather Than a Feeling About It
Scale and Rule
This inventory rates my current practice against the nine areas that the 2025 practice analysis confirmed (Gardner et al., 2026). I work as a health education specialist in the chronic disease unit of a composite county health department, Harlan County Public Health, and have held the CHES credential for three years. The section's scale is about evidence, not confidence: 1 means no evidence of having done work in the area; 2 means work done under supervision; 3 means work done independently once; 4 means work done independently more than once, in different settings. Each rating must point to a dated piece of work. The rule matters because self-ratings made without evidence are unreliable; in a systematic review of physicians, most comparisons found little or no relationship between self-assessment and external measures of competence (Davis et al., 2006).
The Inventory
Table 1
Current Practice Rated by Area of Responsibility, With Justification
| Area | Rating | Justification | |
|---|---|---|
| I. Assessment | 3 | Designed and analyzed a 22-question survey of senior center members on blood pressure monitoring at home, March 2026, 186 responses | |
| II. Planning | 4 | Wrote session plans for the six-session blood pressure workshop, revised for three cohorts in 2025 and 2026 | |
| III. Implementation | 4 | Delivered the workshop to four cohorts at three senior centers, 2025 to 2026 | |
| IV. Evaluation | 2 | Built the workshop's pre- and post-test with the unit epidemiologist, who designed the analysis, fall 2025 | |
| V. Research | 1 | No research study designed, conducted or published | |
| VI. Advocacy | 2 | Drafted testimony on a tobacco retail license ordinance, January 2026, delivered by the unit director | |
| VII. Communication | 4 | Wrote and pretested workshop text reminders, three cohorts; wrote two fact sheets on home monitoring, 2025 | |
| VIII. Administration and Management | 1 | No budget authority or supervision of staff | |
| IX. Ethics, Leadership, and Professionalism | 3 | Wrote the unit's procedure for referring participants' clinical questions to a nurse, May 2026 | |
Ratings use the section's four-point evidence scale; each justification names work a reviewer could request.
Reading the Pattern
The inventory is uneven in a way that tracks my job. The areas my role requires every month, planning, delivering and communicating, carry 4s. The areas my role assigns to others, research, budgets and supervision, carry 1s. Evaluation and advocacy sit at 2 because I did the work alongside someone who held the decisive part: the epidemiologist designed the analysis, and the director delivered the testimony.
Two ratings deserve a caution. Assessment is a 3 rather than a 4 because the survey was a single project in one setting. Ethics is a 3 because writing a procedure once shows I can do it, not that I do it routinely. A 2025 recommendation from the practice analysis sponsors says master's programs should prepare graduates for both entry-level and first-level advanced sub-competencies in all nine areas (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Society for Public Health Education, 2025). By that measure, my 1s and 2s, not my 4s, describe the work this course should help me document or begin.
Use Later in the Term
The ratings become the rows of the evidence map, and the 1s and 2s become the starting list for the gap analysis.
References
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. JAMA, 296(9), 1094-1102. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.9.1094
Gardner, A. J., Chaney, B. H., Hembry, I. F., Henderson, J., Houston, M., Datema, W., Sherry, C., Dixon, S., & Opp, M. (2026). The Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis III 2025 (HESPA III 2025): Process and outcomes. Health Education & Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981261479329
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Society for Public Health Education. (2025). Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis III 2025 (HESPA III 2025): Executive summary. https://www.nchec.org/practice-analysis
What the HLTH 6110 Week 3 instructions ask for
The self-inventory asks practitioners to rate their current practice in each published area of responsibility and justify each rating with specific work. The prompt usually supplies a rating scale or asks students to define one; strong inventories define levels by kinds of evidence rather than by how confident the writer feels. A table is expected, with one row per area, a rating column and a wider justification column. Justifications should name dated, checkable work. A short narrative reads the pattern of ratings and explains it, often by reference to the writer's role. Instructors reward honesty in low ratings and caution about high ones. The inventory is typically two or three pages. Sources include the framework and evidence on self-assessment. Ratings justified by phrases such as "I feel comfortable with" undermine the purpose of the exercise.
How the HLTH 6110 Week 3 example is put together
The inventory opens by naming the framework, the writer's role and credential and the four-level scale, explaining that each level corresponds to a kind of evidence. It cites a systematic review finding that most comparisons between physicians' self-assessments and external measures showed little or no relationship. The nine-row table follows, each row with a rating and a dated piece of work, such as a survey with 186 responses, a workshop delivered to four cohorts and testimony drafted but delivered by the unit director. The narrative explains the uneven pattern by the writer's job: high ratings where the role requires monthly work, low ratings where the role assigns work to others. Two ratings are flagged as cautious, and a recommendation from the practice analysis sponsors about master's preparation reframes the low ratings as the course's agenda. A closing line links the ratings to the evidence map and gap analysis.
HLTH 6110 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Inventories are typically graded on the scale, the justifications, honesty, interpretation and presentation. The scale earns credit when its levels are defined by observable evidence. Justifications are the core of the grade: each should name specific, dated work a reviewer could request, not a feeling. Honesty is rewarded where low ratings are stated plainly and high ratings are qualified when the evidence is thin. Interpretation should explain the pattern rather than restate the table. Linking the inventory to later assignments shows purpose. A clean table matters. The reference list holds a systematic review in a medical journal, a journal article on the 2025 practice analysis and a professional executive summary.
Common HLTH 6110 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Self-inventories most often go wrong by rating confidence instead of evidence. Another frequent problem is justifying a rating with a general description of a job rather than a specific piece of work. Students also inflate ratings in areas they have studied but not practiced. Before submitting, define each point on your scale by what kind of evidence it requires. For each area, name the single strongest piece of dated work you could show a reviewer. Rate work done with someone else lower than work done alone. Read the pattern and explain it by your role or setting. Say which low ratings the course should help you address. A custom inventory can rate practice against a different framework, such as public health core competencies or a community health worker standard.
Get a HLTH 6110 Week 3 example written to your instructions
The desk writes a sample inventory built on the same published list and the rubric your section issued, free the first time, delivered in 24-48h. Your ratings and the work behind them are yours alone to assign, so the model runs on stand-in entries and shows what a justification strong enough to survive a reader looks like.
More HLTH 6110 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6110 Week 1: Responsibility Area Placement Post
- HLTH 6110 Week 2: Ethics Provision Standards Analysis
- HLTH 6110 Week 4: Artifact Narrative Paper
- HLTH 6110 Week 5: Competency Evidence Map
- HLTH 6110 Week 6: Artifact Claim Peer Reply
- HLTH 6110 Week 7: Recorded Session Critique
- HLTH 6110 Week 8: Skill Demonstration Write-Up
- HLTH 6110 Week 9: Portfolio Section Example
- HLTH 6110 Week 10: Competency Gap Analysis
- HLTH 6110 Week 11: Capability Statement Example
- HLTH 6051 Week 3: Rights Standards Audit
- HLTH 6038 Week 3: Health Belief Model Map
- HLTH 6031 Week 3: Advocacy Issue Brief
- HLTH 6005 Week 3: CHES Credential Brief
HLTH 6110 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6110 Week 3 sample paper?
This page contains a complete Week 3 self-inventory rating nine areas of responsibility on an evidence scale, with a dated justification for each rating and three references.
What scale does the HLTH 6110 Week 3 example use?
A four-point scale defined by evidence: 1 for none, 2 for supervised work, 3 for independent work done once and 4 for independent work done repeatedly in different settings.
Which areas receive the lowest ratings?
Research and Administration and Management, rated 1, because the writer's role includes neither; Evaluation and Advocacy are rated 2 because the work was shared.
Why tie ratings to evidence rather than confidence?
A review of physicians found that most comparisons between self-assessment and external measures showed little or no relationship, so a rating needs a record behind it.
What should a master's program prepare graduates to do?
The practice analysis sponsors recommend that master's programs prepare graduates for entry-level and first advanced-level sub-competencies in all nine areas.