PUBH 4100 Week 9 Findings Write-Up Example

Course	PUBH 4100 Evaluating Public Health Programs
Week	Week 9
Paper type	Findings write-up
Length	About 680 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 4100 Week 9

Results With Their Uncertainty Attached: The Findings Write-Up From a Composite County's Evaluation of Free Swim Lesson Vouchers, Leading With Tables and Saying Plainly What the Figures Do Not Establish

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 4100: Evaluating Public Health Programs

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title promises uncertainty beside every result and a passage on what the figures do not show, the two features that turn results into findings.

How This Write-Up Is Ordered

Each section presents a table first, then states the result in one or two sentences with its confidence interval, and only then adds interpretation, in a clearly marked paragraph. This order keeps readers from meeting the evaluator's view before the numbers. All figures are composite and come from the summer 2026 evaluation of the swim lesson voucher program.

What this page is doingAnnouncing the order of results and interpretation shows the reader where description ends and judgment begins.

Finding 1: The Main Pass Rate

Of 820 children tested, 590 met water competence, 72.0%. The confidence interval runs from 68.8% to 74.9%.

Table 1

Water Competence at the Final Lesson Among Children Attending Six or More Lessons

Measure	Count	Percentage	95% confidence interval \|
Six-plus attenders	880	\| \|
Tested at final lesson	820	93.2% of attenders	\|
Met all five checklist elements	590	72.0% of tested	68.8% to 74.9% \|
Lower bound, if all 60 untested children failed	590 of 880	67.0%	63.9% to 70.1% \|

Note. Composite figures; Wilson confidence intervals.

Against the Agreed Standard

The point estimate exceeds the 70% threshold, but the interval spans it. Under the precision rule agreed before data collection, the finding carries the label "not clearly met." If the 60 untested children had all failed, the rate would be 67.0%, inside the zone requiring review.

Finding 2: Change From the First Lesson

At the first lesson, 18.5% of children already met the standard; at the final lesson, 72.0% did. Most children who passed at the end could not pass at the start.

Table 2

Water Competence at First and Final Lessons

Test	Children tested	Met all five elements	Percentage \|
First lesson	802	148	18.5% \|
Final lesson	820	590	72.0% \|

Note. Composite figures; 802 of the 820 final-test children also had a first-lesson test.

Finding 3: Variation by Pool

Pass rates ranged from 62.8% at pool D to 78.3% at pool A. Pool D also had the largest average class size.

Table 3

Pass Rate by Pool

Pool	Tested	Passed	Percentage	95% confidence interval \|
A	230	180	78.3%	72.5% to 83.1% \|
B	210	157	74.8%	68.5% to 80.2% \|
C	200	140	70.0%	63.3% to 75.9% \|
D	180	113	62.8%	55.5% to 69.5% \|

Note. Composite figures; pool E, where sessions were shortened, is reported separately in the delivery brief.

Finding 4: Which Elements Were Hardest

Treading or floating for one minute was passed by 78% of tested children and moving 25 yards by 80%; entering the water, surfacing and exiting were each passed by more than 90%. Water competence frameworks treat staying afloat as a core survival skill (Stallman et al., 2017), so the element with the lowest pass rate is also among the most important.

Finding 5: Scoring Consistency

A second instructor independently scored 82 randomly selected final tests. The two scorers agreed on the overall pass or fail result in 75 of 82 tests, 91.5%, with a Cohen's kappa of 0.79, a level commonly interpreted as substantial agreement (McHugh, 2012).

Interpretation

The program brought most completers to a level of water competence that few had at the start, and scoring was reasonably consistent. Whether it met its standard is unclear because the estimate sits close to 70% and the interval includes values below it. The gap between pool D and the others, together with larger classes there, points to class size as a factor worth testing.

What These Figures Do Not Establish

Nor can they establish the program as the cause of the rise from 18.5% to 72.0%, since children were not compared with others who had no lessons and may have practiced elsewhere. They do not describe children who received vouchers but attended fewer than six lessons. They do not show that children will keep these skills, or that drowning risk fell, even if research elsewhere links lessons in early childhood with fewer deaths in water (Brenner et al., 2009). The attribution argument that follows weighs how much of the change can reasonably be credited to the program.

References

Brenner, R. A., Taneja, G. S., Haynie, D. L., Trumble, A. C., Qian, C., Klinger, R. M., & Klebanoff, M. A. (2009). Association between swimming lessons and drowning in childhood: A case-control study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(3), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.563

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

Stallman, R. K., Moran, K., Quan, L., & Langendorfer, S. (2017). From swimming skill to water competence: Towards a more inclusive drowning prevention future. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 10(2), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.25035/ijare.10.02.03

What the PUBH 4100 Week 9 instructions ask for

Findings assignments ask students to report evaluation results clearly and accurately. Instructors expect tables or figures with counts, percentages and confidence intervals, results stated before interpretation and an explicit comparison with any standard set in advance. Many prompts also ask for subgroup or site results, data quality findings and a passage setting out the limits of what the findings mean. A write-up of a few pages with several tables is typical. Citations support the measures and the interpretation of statistics such as agreement coefficients, and the write-up should apply any precision rule agreed earlier without bending it. Some prompts also ask for findings by site or subgroup, which can reveal delivery problems hidden in an overall rate.

How the PUBH 4100 Week 9 example is put together

The write-up explains its order: tables first, results second, interpretation last. Five findings follow, each with a table or short statement: the main pass rate with its interval and lower bound, applied to the agreed standard; change from the first lesson; variation by pool; the hardest checklist element, linked to water competence research; and scorer agreement with an interpretation source. A marked interpretation section draws cautious conclusions, and a closing section lists four things the figures do not establish, pointing to the attribution argument. Pool-level results are shown with their own confidence intervals, so differences between pools can be judged against their uncertainty.

Where the marks sit in the PUBH 4100 Week 9 rubric

Findings write-ups are judged on accuracy, uncertainty, separation of results from interpretation and honesty about limits. Accuracy credit comes from counts and percentages that match across tables. Uncertainty credit comes from confidence intervals on every key rate and the application of the precision rule. Separation credit comes from placing interpretation in its own labeled section. Honesty credit, often decisive, comes from reporting the standard as not clearly met despite a point estimate above it and from the section on what the figures do not show. Format and references complete the scoring. Write-ups that report a point estimate above the threshold as success, ignoring the interval, usually lose the uncertainty criterion. Linking the lowest-performing pool to its larger classes, while labeling the link as something to test, shows interpretation kept within the evidence.

Common PUBH 4100 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Findings sections often blur results and opinions. Present each result with its count, percentage and confidence interval, then state it in a plain sentence. Apply the standard you agreed earlier, including any rule for uncertain results. Report site or subgroup results and data quality checks. Put interpretation in its own section. End with what the figures cannot establish. Our team can write a first findings section from your results table at no charge. Check that every count matches across tables before you write a single sentence of interpretation, and that each percentage uses the right denominator.

Get a PUBH 4100 Week 9 example written to your instructions

Supply the Week 9 prompt and rubric in force and a write-up on the same pattern comes inside 24-48h, the opening request unpriced. Tables come back structured, with every value slot marked. Results held by a running evaluation, or by an employer, are generated nowhere at this desk, and the prose around each slot survives the swap.

More PUBH 4100 papers and BS in Public Health samples

PUBH 4100 Week 9 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 4100 Week 9 sample paper?

The complete Week 9 findings write-up can be read here, reporting a swim lesson evaluation with confidence intervals and a section on what the figures do not show.

Why report confidence intervals in evaluation findings?

They show how precise a result is, which determines whether it clearly meets, misses or is uncertain against a standard.

What if a result is above the target but its interval includes values below it?

Report it as not clearly meeting the standard, following a rule agreed in advance.

Why separate results from interpretation?

Readers should see the numbers before the evaluator's view so they can judge the interpretation for themselves.

What does a kappa of 0.79 indicate?

Substantial agreement between two scorers beyond what chance would produce.