PHLT 9000 Week 6 Figure and Table Audit Example

Dissertation Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This PHLT 9000 Week 6 figure and table audit example sets four displays and a codebook excerpt from a composite dissertation on hoarding complaint triage beside the paragraphs that introduce them and records where they disagree. Walden PHLT 9000 asks candidates to check that displays and text tell the same story, and the audit finds a participant table one row short, a thematic map carrying a theme's old name, a quotation table promoting a divergent account to a fourth theme, a triage pathway credited to participants though drawn from written protocols and a codebook from the middle of analysis. Each is explained and fixed, with the misattributed pathway singled out because it reversed a finding. The audit reflects the final checks any PhD in Public Health thesis needs.

CoursePHLT 9000 Dissertation
WeekWeek 6
Paper typeFigure and table audit
LengthAbout 620 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolWalden University
ProgramPhD in Public Health
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PHLT 9000 Week 6

1

Where Displays and Paragraphs Tell Different Stories: An Audit of Four Tables and Figures and a Codebook Excerpt in a Composite Dissertation on Hoarding Complaint Triage

Student Name

Walden University

PHLT 9000: Dissertation

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title frames the audit as a search for disagreement between each display and its text, the only kind of problem the audit records.
2

Where Displays and Paragraphs Tell Different Stories: An Audit of Four Tables and Figures and a Codebook Excerpt in a Composite Dissertation on Hoarding Complaint Triage

Why Audit the Displays

Tables and figures are often drawn early and revised late, if at all. In this dissertation, the participant table was built after the last interview, the thematic map during coding, the quotation table after the first results draft and the triage pathway figure from department documents gathered during fieldwork. Each was accurate when made. The text has since changed. This audit sets every display beside the paragraph that introduces it and records only where the two now disagree.

What this page is doingExplaining when each display was made accounts for why they drifted, which makes the audit a repair rather than a criticism.
3

The Audit

Table 1

Display Audit Findings (Composite)

DisplayWhat the text saysWhat the display showsDisagreement |
Table 4.1 Participant characteristics24 participants23 rowsOne participant from the third department omitted |
Figure 4.1 Thematic mapTheme 3 is "partner capacity"Theme 3 labeled "whose list it is on"Theme renamed in text, not in figure |
Table 4.2 Themes with illustrative quotationsDivergent account from one nurse-led departmentDivergent account listed as a fourth themeStatus of divergent account differs |
Figure 4.2 Triage pathway"As described by participants"Steps match two departments' written protocolsSource of the pathway misattributed |
Appendix C Codebook excerptCodes grouped under three themes41 codes under five provisional categoriesCodebook reflects an earlier stage of analysis |

Note. Composite audit of chapter 4 displays and appendix.

The Disagreements, One by One

A Missing Participant

Table 4.1 lists 23 participants. The omitted row belongs to a public health nurse interviewed late at the third department, after the table was drafted. Her interview is quoted twice in chapter 4. The row will be added and the department totals corrected.

A Renamed Theme

During writing, the third theme's working name, "whose list it is on," became "partner capacity," which describes it more precisely. The figure kept the old name, so a reader moving from map to text would think there were four themes. The figure will be relabeled.

A Divergent Account Shown as a Theme

The text treats the nurse-led department's approach, in which the resident's own health drove triage, as a divergent account that contrasts with the three themes. Table 4.2 lists it as a fourth theme. Braun and Clarke (2006) describe themes as patterns across the data set, and an account from one department is not a pattern across departments. The table will show it in a separate row labeled as a divergent account.

A Pathway Credited to the Wrong Source

Figure 4.2 shows a triage pathway from complaint to inspection decision, and its caption says it was drawn from participants' descriptions. In fact, it was drawn from the written intake protocols of two departments. Participants described practice that often departed from those protocols, which is one of the study's findings. Presenting the protocol pathway as participants' account reverses that finding. The caption will state the true source, and a short paragraph will contrast protocol and practice.

What this page is doingCatching a figure that silently contradicts a finding is the most consequential result an audit like this can produce.
4

An Out-of-Date Codebook

The appendix codebook excerpt comes from the midpoint of analysis. It will be replaced with the final codebook, showing codes under the three themes, and a note will explain that earlier versions are kept in the audit trail, consistent with the dependability practices described in chapter 3 (Nowell et al., 2017).

What the Audit Did Not Check

The audit ignored formatting, typography and style, which a later pass will handle. It also did not judge whether each display is necessary; the committee may still suggest cutting one. Its only question was whether each display and its text tell the same story, which reporting standards for qualitative research treat as part of presenting findings accurately (O'Brien et al., 2014).

References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

What the PHLT 9000 Week 6 instructions ask for

Display audits ask candidates to compare every table and figure in their dissertation with the text that discusses it. Instructors expect a systematic check rather than a general review: each display is listed with what the text claims, what the display shows and any disagreement. Prompts usually ask for corrections and a note on how disagreements arose. Common problems include counts that changed after a table was drawn, labels from earlier drafts, captions that misstate the source of a figure and appendices from an earlier stage of analysis. A brief with an audit table is typical. Candidates may cite qualitative reporting standards on presenting findings accurately and methods sources on what counts as a theme.

How the PHLT 9000 Week 6 example is put together

The brief explains when each display was made and why that caused drift. Table 1 lists five displays with what the text says, what the display shows and the disagreement. Five subsections then treat each: a missing participant row, a renamed theme not updated in a figure, a divergent account shown as a theme, a pathway figure whose caption names the wrong source and an outdated codebook. The pathway subsection explains why the misattribution matters most, since participants' practice departed from the protocols. A closing section states what the audit did not check, formatting and necessity, and cites reporting standards on accurate presentation.

PHLT 9000 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks

Display audits are assessed on thoroughness, precision and the seriousness given to substantive errors. The sample checks every display and the appendix, which earns thoroughness credit. Precision comes from naming the exact disagreement in each case rather than describing displays as "inconsistent." The strongest feature is recognizing that a misattributed figure contradicted a finding, which shows the candidate understands how displays carry claims. Treating the divergent account correctly, with reference to what makes a theme, earns methodological credit. Stating what the audit excluded keeps it focused. Format and references complete the scoring. Audits that correct typography in displays while missing a reversed finding usually lose most of the substantive marks. Leaving formatting to a later pass, and saying so, shows the audit was scoped deliberately.

Common PHLT 9000 Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Display problems hide because tables and figures are made early and rarely reread. List every display with the paragraph that introduces it. For each, compare counts, labels, sources and categories with the current text. Pay special attention to captions that describe where a figure came from. Check whether any display presents something as a pattern that the text treats as a single case. Replace appendices from earlier stages with final versions. Record what you did not check. We will audit your own tables and figures once without charge. Note when each display was made, since the oldest are the most likely to have drifted. Fix captions first, because a wrong source line can reverse what a figure seems to say.

Get a PHLT 9000 Week 6 example written to your instructions

Upload chapter 4 with its tables, figures and appendix displays, along with the Week 6 audit prompt and rubric. Each display is set beside the paragraph citing it, mismatches in names, attribution, source or disclosure named, and a one-sentence repair given for each. The first audit is free, returned in 24 to 48 hours. Its departments and excerpts are fictional.

Request this week free All PHLT 9000 weeks Finished samples

More PHLT 9000 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PHLT 9000 Week 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PHLT 9000 Week 6 sample paper?

A complete Week 6 figure and table audit is available here, comparing four displays and a codebook excerpt with their text, with an audit table and real sources.

How do I check that my tables match my text?

Set each display beside the paragraph that introduces it and compare counts, labels, categories and stated sources, recording only disagreements.

Can a divergent case be shown as a theme?

Not usually. A theme is a pattern across the data set; an account from a single site or participant should be labeled as divergent and presented separately.

Why does a figure's caption matter?

The caption tells readers where the content came from. A figure drawn from protocols but captioned as participants' account can reverse what the study found.

Should the appendix codebook be the final version?

Yes, with a note that earlier versions are kept in the audit trail, so readers see the codes that produced the reported themes.