Dated entries, each carrying a problem, a decision, a reason and a syntax reference, make up this PHLT 8032 cleaning log for a county survey extract. Searches like "phlt 8032 week 3 assignment example", "phlt8032 week 3 sample" and "phlt 8032 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished PHLT 8032 Week 3 cleaning log looks like
A log table running two to three pages, then a short narrative of the decisions that changed the analytic sample. Each entry has a date, the variable, what was found, what was done, why, the syntax line that did it, and how many cases it touched. The first entries handle the special codes flagged at setup: 88 on the poor-health days items recoded to zero, 77 and 99 declared user-missing so they drop out of calculations rather than inflate them. Later entries take height and weight values that produce implausible BMI, each checked against its paired measure before anything is excluded. A duplicate identifier is traced to an interview keyed twice. The narrative then reports how the working sample differs from the raw file and what that difference means for later results.
How a PHLT 8032 Week 3 example is structured
Entries are ordered by when decisions were made, not by variable, because a reader auditing the log needs to know which change came first when one depends on another. BMI plausibility checks, for instance, only make sense after height and weight units are confirmed. Every entry points to a line of syntax, so the log and the syntax file can be read against each other. A rules section precedes the table and states the flagging criteria in general terms, so individual entries cite a rule instead of improvising one. After the table, a missingness section describes the pattern of absent income answers by age group and district, since income nonresponse concentrated among older respondents will tilt any result that uses income. The closing narrative compares raw and cleaned case counts and names the analyses most affected.
Rules before entries
Flagging criteria are stated once, ahead of the table: what counts as implausible, what counts as a duplicate, when a value is corrected and when it is excluded. Entries then cite a rule by number, which keeps decisions consistent across hundreds of cases.
Eighty-eight is a zero
The days items use 88 for none. Left alone, those respondents would be averaged as reporting eighty-eight days in a thirty-day window. The entry recodes into a new variable, keeps the original, and reports the count of converted cases.
Refusals declared, not deleted
Don't know and refused codes become user-missing, so they drop out of each calculation without leaving the file. The log explains that choice against deleting the rows, which would also discard every other answer those respondents gave.
A height checked against its weight
Implausible BMI values are traced to their inputs before anything happens. One entry finds height keyed in centimeters in a field recorded in inches; the fix is documented, and only values with no traceable cause are excluded.
Income missing, and by whom
Income nonresponse is described by age group and district. The log names Little and Rubin's distinction between missingness unrelated to anything and missingness tied to observed characteristics, and states which the pattern suggests without claiming certainty.
Where marks go in PHLT 8032 Week 3
Traceability is what this rubric rewards before anything else. An entry reading outliers removed, with no rule, no count and no syntax reference, cannot be audited, and graders treat it as a change made in the dark. Special codes are read closely: recoding 88 to zero earns credit, while declaring it missing throws away every respondent who reported good health, and that error usually costs the accuracy line. Tabachnick and Fidell's argument for screening data before analysis is often expected, and citing it for what it says, not as decoration, is noticed. Overwriting original variables draws a deduction in many sections. The missingness paragraph earns the analytic share when it names a pattern and its likely effect, and loses it when absent values are simply counted and left.
Get a PHLT 8032 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Share the Week 3 prompt and rubric, and describe in general terms what went wrong in setup. The log comes back entry by entry with rules, reasons and syntax references, in 24-48h, with your first request free. Case counts in it are placeholders; those in your log must come from your file.
PHLT 8032 Week 3 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to delete cases with missing values?
Sometimes, but the log has to say how many, which ones and why, and what the deletion does to the sample. Listwise exclusion is the default in many procedures, and it quietly drops anyone missing any variable in the analysis. Stronger logs report the complete-case count for each planned analysis and name the groups most affected, rather than letting the software decide silently.
Should recodes overwrite the original variable?
Rarely. Recoding into a new variable keeps the original available if the decision is later questioned, and it lets a reader compare the two. Most rubrics reward that practice, and the log records both names. Overwriting is defensible only for pure corrections, such as fixing a keying error, and even then the entry states the original value so the change can be reversed.
How detailed does each log entry need to be?
Enough that a stranger to the file could repeat the decision without contacting you. That usually means the variable, the rule applied, the number of cases affected and the syntax line. A sentence of reasoning covers routine decisions; judgment calls, such as excluding a value with no traceable cause, deserve a short paragraph acknowledging the alternative that was rejected.