| Course | HLTH 8242 Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 670 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8242 Week 9
Evaluation Plan: A Randomized Comparison of the Fallbrook Kit Program With Usual Mailed Outreach, Measuring the Targeted Constructs as Well as Return, and Using Mediation Analysis to Ask Whether Those Constructs Carried the Effect
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8242: Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evaluation Plan: A Randomized Comparison of the Fallbrook Kit Program With Usual Mailed Outreach, Measuring the Targeted Constructs as Well as Return, and Using Mediation Analysis to Ask Whether Those Constructs Carried the Effect
Questions
The evaluation asks two questions. Does the Fallbrook kit program increase the share of patients who return a completed kit within 30 days, compared with usual mailed outreach? And if it does, did it work through the constructs it was designed to change, salience, skill, experiential attitude and perceived norms, as the integrated behavioral model predicts (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015)?
Design
Eligible patients will be randomized individually, in equal numbers, to the full program or to usual outreach. Usual outreach is the network's current practice: a kit mailing with the laboratory's standard instruction sheet and one reminder letter at day 21. Randomization by computer, stratified by clinic and language, will be done by the quality office before the mailing, so that the outreach workers who make calls cannot influence assignment. A randomized design is feasible because the network mails kits in batches and can assign patients within a batch without changing anyone's access to screening; every patient still receives a kit.
Mailed fecal test outreach already has strong evidence against usual care, raising screening completion by 22 percentage points in a meta-analysis of US trials (Dougherty et al., 2018). The comparison here is different: it asks whether a theory-based version adds to standard mailed outreach.
Outcome
The primary outcome is a completed kit logged by the laboratory within 30 days of the kit mailing. It comes from records, not self-report. A secondary outcome is completion within 90 days, to see whether the program speeds return or adds returns that would not otherwise have happened.
Measuring the Constructs
A short survey will go to a random subsample of patients in both groups at day 10, before the second reminder, by text link or phone. It will measure intention to complete the test, salience (whether the patient has thought about the test in the past few days), self-reported knowledge of the collection steps, experiential attitude (how unpleasant the patient expects the test to be, on a labeled scale) and perceived descriptive norms (how many people the patient's age they think have done the test). Each measure is a few items adapted from the integrated behavioral model's recommended format, pretested with patients before use.
Mediation Analysis
If the program increases return, mediation analysis will test whether the effect ran through the measured constructs. In its simplest form, mediation asks whether the program changed a construct and whether that construct, in turn, was associated with return, holding assignment constant (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Because assignment is randomized, the effect of the program on each construct can be estimated without confounding. The link from construct to return is observational, so it will be interpreted with care, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Finding, for example, that the program raised salience and that salience accounted for part of the increase in return would support the program's theory; finding that it raised return without changing any measured construct would mean the theory did not explain how it worked.
Process Measures
Fidelity measures from the intervention draft will be reported: delivery rates for each mailing and text, call completion and adherence to the call guide. These allow the evaluation to distinguish a program that failed from one that was not delivered.
Satisfaction
A single satisfaction item will be included in the day 10 survey, because staff and patients care about it and it can flag problems with tone or language. No conclusion about effectiveness will rest on it. A patient can like a message that changes nothing, or dislike one that prompts action.
Sample Size and Analysis
Sample size will be set to detect a difference in 30-day return of a size the network considers worth the program's cost, with the subsample for the construct survey large enough to estimate the mediation paths. The main analysis will compare return proportions between groups by intention to treat.
References
Dougherty, M. K., Brenner, A. T., Crockett, S. D., Gupta, S., Wheeler, S. B., Coker-Schwimmer, M., Cubillos, L., Malo, T., & Reuland, D. S. (2018). Evaluation of interventions intended to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1645-1658. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed., pp. 95-124). Jossey-Bass.
HLTH 8242 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Students design an evaluation for their intervention. The plan should state its questions, describe the design and comparison, define the primary outcome and say how the theory's constructs will be measured. Faculty in this course value plans that test the mechanism, not only the outcome, often through mediation analysis. Process and fidelity measures should be included. The plan should be clear about what satisfaction measures can and cannot show. Sample size reasoning and the main analysis should be stated. Where randomization is possible, faculty expect a reason it is acceptable to the people served, such as every participant still receiving the basic service.
How this HLTH 8242 Week 9 example is built
The plan states two questions, effectiveness and mechanism, citing Montano and Kasprzyk. The design section describes individual randomization within mailing batches, the usual outreach comparison and why the design is feasible, and cites Dougherty and colleagues to show the comparison is with standard outreach rather than none. The outcome section defines 30-day and 90-day return from laboratory records. The construct section describes a day 10 survey in both groups. The mediation section cites MacKinnon and colleagues and explains how randomization strengthens one path while the other remains observational. Sections on process measures, satisfaction and sample size close the plan.
Reading the HLTH 8242 Week 9 rubric
Evaluation plans are graded on whether they can test the theory as well as the program. A plan that counts returns and asks about satisfaction earns middle marks. The rubric rewards a credible comparison, an objective primary outcome, measures of the targeted constructs and an analysis that links them to the outcome. Faculty value honest treatment of what mediation can show, including which paths are observational. Fidelity measures should be included so a null result can be interpreted. Satisfaction should be kept in its place. Plans that state the primary outcome before any data are collected, and explain how the construct survey avoids influencing behavior, show methodological care. Faculty also look for an intention-to-treat analysis named explicitly.
HLTH 8242 Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks
Evaluation plans often measure only the behavior, so they can say whether a program worked but not why. Others rely on satisfaction surveys as evidence of success. Some propose designs the setting could never support. To write a stronger plan, state your two questions: did it work, and through what? Choose a comparison your setting allows. Use records for the primary outcome. Measure the constructs your program targets, in both groups, before the outcome is known. Plan a mediation analysis. Add fidelity measures. Fix your primary outcome before data collection and name an intention-to-treat analysis. Time the construct survey so it measures the mechanism before the outcome is known. Explain which mediation paths randomization protects and which remain observational. An evaluation plan for your own intervention, built this way, can be written for you.
Get a HLTH 8242 Week 9 example written to your instructions
An evaluation plan needs the claim it will test, so send your logic model or intervention draft with the prompt and rubric. The HLTH 8242 plan that comes back measures each targeted construct, names the test linking construct change to behavior and says what an unwelcome result would mean. It arrives in 24 to 48 hours; nothing is charged for a first one.
More HLTH 8242 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8242 Week 1: Target Behavior Orientation Post
- HLTH 8242 Week 2: Target Behavior Brief
- HLTH 8242 Week 3: Risk Message Discussion Post
- HLTH 8242 Week 4: Theory Selection Memo
- HLTH 8242 Week 5: Kit Return Barrier Analysis
- HLTH 8242 Week 6: Mechanism Logic Model
- HLTH 8242 Week 7: Construct Activity Map
- HLTH 8242 Week 8: TIDieR Intervention Draft
- HLTH 8242 Week 10: Incentive Design Peer Critique
- HLTH 8242 Week 11: Program Design Defense
- HLTH 8202E Week 9: Survey Methods Section
HLTH 8242 Week 9 questions, answered
Is a randomized design expected in a course evaluation plan?
Not always. Many sections accept a pre-post or comparison-group design if its weaknesses are stated. The sample proposes randomization because mailed outreach makes it feasible and because it is the cleanest way to attribute a change in return to the program. If your setting cannot randomize, say what the weaker design cannot rule out.
What does mediation analysis add?
It asks whether the program changed behavior through the constructs it targeted. A program can raise return for reasons its theory never predicted, such as staff enthusiasm. Estimating the indirect effect through each construct tests the mechanism directly. The sample describes the logic and leaves the numbers to the data, since any predicted size would be invented.
Why collect satisfaction at all?
As a process measure, it can reveal delivery problems, a confusing insert or an unwelcome call. It cannot show that a construct moved or that behavior changed, so the sample keeps it secondary. Where satisfaction is required, include it and state plainly which question it answers and which it leaves open, so your reader never mistakes it for an outcome.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8242 Week 9 sample paper?
You can read the complete Week 9 evaluation plan here; it proposes a randomized comparison of the kit program with usual outreach, measures targeted constructs and uses mediation analysis, with three references.
What is the comparison group in the plan?
Usual outreach: a kit mailing with the laboratory's standard instruction sheet and one reminder letter at day 21, so every patient still receives a kit.