| Course | HLTH 8202E Survey Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Peer reply set |
| Length | About 500 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8202E Week 10
Week 10 Replies: Responses to Classmates' Draft Items
Three Peer Replies on Draft Survey Items: A Broadband Question That Joins Speed and Reliability, a Bus Route Question That Presumes Its Answer and a Pharmacy Question That Asks for a Year of Counting, Each With a Rewrite
Reply to Aisha
Aisha, your item reads: "How satisfied are you with the speed and reliability of your internet for video visits with your doctor?" Picture a rural resident whose connection is fast when it works but drops twice a week. She has no honest answer, because she is satisfied with one thing and not the other. Now picture a neighbor who has never tried a video visit. He is asked to rate something he has not done, and he will probably guess from what he has heard. In the response model of Tourangeau et al. (2000), the first respondent stumbles at judgment and the second at retrieval, since there is nothing to recall. A rewrite: first, "In the past 12 months, have you had a video visit with a doctor or nurse?" Then, for those who have: "During your video visits, how often did the connection drop or freeze?" and separately, "How often was the picture or sound too slow to follow?" Satisfaction can come after, if you still need it.
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, your item reads: "Do you agree that the new bus route has improved your access to health care?" A respondent who has never used the route, or who did not know about it, is invited to agree anyway, and agreement formats make that easy. Krosnick (1991) described this tendency to agree as one form of satisficing, which is stronger when a question is hard or the respondent is unsure. The item also tells the respondent what you expect to hear: that the route improved access. A rewrite that does not presume the answer: "Since the new Route 12 bus began in March, have you used it to get to a medical appointment?" with yes, no and I did not know about it. Then, for those who have: "Compared with before the route began, is it easier, about the same or harder for you to get to medical appointments?" That way the comparison is the respondent's, not the item's.
Reply to Hannah
Hannah, your item reads: "How many times did you pick up a prescription at the pharmacy in the past year?" Few people keep count, so most respondents will estimate, and estimates for frequent events tend to be rough. Someone who picks up four medicines monthly might answer 12, counting trips, or 48, counting prescriptions, or anything between. Sudman and Bradburn (1973) showed that recall over long periods leads people to forget events and to misplace them in time. A rewrite with a shorter window and a clearer unit: "In the past 30 days, how many separate trips did you make to a pharmacy to pick up prescriptions?" If you need a year, pharmacy records, with consent, would measure it directly.
References
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1973). Effects of time and memory factors on response in surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68(344), 805-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1973.10481428
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
HLTH 8202E Week 10 instructions, in plain terms
Students reply to classmates' draft survey items with constructive critique. Each reply should quote the item exactly, describe how a respondent would likely answer it and why that produces poor data, and offer a rewrite. Faculty value replies that show the consequence for real respondents rather than only naming a flaw. Citing research on the response process strengthens each reply. A set of replies that addresses different kinds of failure shows broader understanding. Replies should be collegial and focused on the item. Replies that catch different kinds of failure, across comprehension, judgment and recall, show the widest command of the material.
How this HLTH 8202E Week 10 example is built
The reply to Aisha quotes a broadband satisfaction item, describes a resident with fast but unstable service and a neighbor who never had a video visit, places each at a stage in Tourangeau and colleagues' model and offers a filter question plus two separate items on dropped connections and slow picture or sound. The reply to Marcus quotes a bus route agreement item, explains how it invites agreement and presumes its answer, cites Krosnick, and rewrites it as a use question followed by a comparison of ease. The reply to Hannah quotes a year-long pharmacy count, shows how respondents would count trips or prescriptions differently, cites Sudman and Bradburn, and rewrites it with a 30-day window and a defined unit, suggesting records for a full year.
HLTH 8202E Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks
Peer reply sets are graded on the quality of each diagnosis and rewrite. Replies that call an item double-barreled or leading without showing what a respondent would do earn partial credit. The rubric rewards exact quotation, a narrated respondent, a reason grounded in the response process and a rewrite that fixes the identified problem without changing the item's purpose. Faculty value variety across replies, since it shows command of different kinds of error. Citations should support each diagnosis. A collegial tone and a focus on the item rather than the classmate count. Accurate references complete the score.
HLTH 8202E Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks
Replies to draft items often say "this is confusing" or "consider rewording" without saying why or how. Others rewrite the item entirely, changing what it measures. Some sets repeat the same critique three times. To write stronger replies, quote the item and imagine one or two respondents answering it. Describe what each would do. Name the stage of the response process where the problem arises. Offer a rewrite that keeps the item's purpose. Choose items that fail in different ways. If you would like a set of replies modeled on your classmates' actual items, one can be drafted to your thread. Keep each reply to a paragraph or two, and end it with a question the classmate can answer by revising the item.
Get a HLTH 8202E Week 10 example written to your instructions
Copy your classmates' draft items word for word, leaving their names out, and forward them, plus the Week 10 reply prompt and rubric. Replies quoting each item, narrating the respondent it traps, showing a full rewrite and ending on a question are written in 24-48h, and your first request is free. The three items here are invented.
More HLTH 8202E papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8202E Week 1: Survey Topic Orientation Post
- HLTH 8202E Week 2: Open or Closed Item Post
- HLTH 8202E Week 3: Heat Survey Construct Memo
- HLTH 8202E Week 4: Heat Survey Item Bank
- HLTH 8202E Week 5: Heat Questionnaire Critique
- HLTH 8202E Week 6: Two-List Sampling Plan
- HLTH 8202E Week 7: Response Scale Review
- HLTH 8202E Week 8: Cognitive Pretest Plan
- HLTH 8202E Week 9: Survey Methods Section
- HLTH 8202E Week 11: Survey Instrument Defense
HLTH 8202E Week 10 questions, answered
Why narrate a respondent instead of naming the flaw?
A label tells a classmate what category the item belongs to, while a respondent shows what will happen to the data. Saying an item is double-barreled is correct; describing the resident with fast but unstable service, who has no honest option, makes the consequence impossible to miss. The strongest replies do both, naming the flaw once and showing it at work.
Should a reply always include a rewrite?
Usually, because a rewrite shows the problem can be solved and gives the classmate something concrete to test. Keep it close to the original so the change is visible, and do not fix problems the reply has not identified. If the right rewrite depends on the classmate's analysis plan, say so and offer two versions, which leads naturally into the closing question.
How many replies does a set usually contain?
Prompts vary, commonly two or three. More important than the count is variety: replies catching different kinds of failure, such as comprehension, judgment and recall, show a broader command of the response process than three replies about double-barreled items. If your section sets a minimum length, meet it with analysis of the respondent rather than general praise of the topic.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8202E Week 10 sample paper?
The complete Week 10 peer reply set appears above, with three replies that quote classmates' draft items on broadband, a bus route and pharmacy visits, narrate respondents and offer rewrites, citing three sources.
How does the reply rewrite the pharmacy question?
It shortens the window to the past 30 days, defines the unit as separate trips to pick up prescriptions and suggests pharmacy records, with consent, if a full year is needed.