| Course | PUBH 6036 Public Health Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Research question workshop |
| Length | About 790 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 6036 Week 1
From a Worry About Night Bites to a Question One School Year Can Answer: A FINER Question Workshop on Bed Bug Infestation and Missed School Days Among Children in a Composite Housing Authority
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 6036: Public Health Research Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From a Worry About Night Bites to a Question One School Year Can Answer: A FINER Question Workshop on Bed Bug Infestation and Missed School Days Among Children in a Composite Housing Authority
The Interest, Stated Loosely
Children in apartment buildings with bed bugs seem to sleep badly and miss school. I work as a resident services coordinator at the Cedar Hollow Housing Authority, a composite agency with nine family buildings, and the sentence above is how the concern first reached me: from caregivers who asked for a letter to the school explaining why a child kept falling asleep in class. The sentence is a worry, not a question. It names no age, no measure of infestation, no outcome that could be counted and no time span. This workshop drafts three questions from it and keeps one.
Candidate 1
"Did the city's bed bug disclosure ordinance reduce infestations in rental housing?"
This draft fails feasibility first. An ordinance applies to a whole city at once, so there is no comparison group inside the city, and infestation counts before the law were never collected in a form I could reach. It also hides a causal claim, "reduced," that only a design with a credible comparison could support. It is interesting and relevant, but a master's student with one year and no citywide data cannot answer it.
Candidate 2
"What share of Cedar Hollow apartments have bed bugs?"
This draft is feasible. Wang et al. (2016) estimated building infestation rates of 3.8% to 29.5% across 43 low-income buildings in New Jersey with a combination of interviews, quick visual checks and interceptor cups set under bed and sofa legs, so a method exists. The problem is drift. The question has lost the children entirely. A prevalence figure would help the maintenance department plan, but it would say nothing about sleep or school, which is why the worry reached me in the first place.
Candidate 3
"Among children aged 6 to 12 living in Cedar Hollow family buildings, is a confirmed bed bug infestation in the home at the start of the school year associated with the number of school days missed during that year?"
This draft names a population, an exposure that can be confirmed rather than only reported, an outcome the school district already records and a time span of one school year. It survives.
Table 1
FINER Verdicts for the Three Candidates
| Criterion | Candidate 1: ordinance | Candidate 2: apartment share | Candidate 3: children and absence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feasible | Fails: no comparison group, no prior counts | Passes: interviews, inspection and traps | Passes if absence records can be linked with consent | |
| Interesting | Passes | Weak for this program's purpose | Passes | |
| Novel | Partly: few evaluations of disclosure laws | Weak: prevalence studies exist | Passes for children's school outcomes | |
| Ethical | Passes | Passes, with tenant privacy safeguards | Passes only with strong protection of lease status | |
| Relevant | Passes | Passes for maintenance, not for child health | Passes | |
Note. Criteria follow Hulley et al. (2013).
Why Two Letters Decided the Verdicts
Hulley et al. (2013) list five tests for a research question, but they did not weigh equally here. Nearly any question about children and housing can claim to be interesting and relevant, so those two rows separated nothing. Feasibility removed the first candidate and ethics shaped the third, because asking families about bed bugs inside a housing authority touches their lease. Novelty needs an honest line. Adults with infestations report more sleep disturbance and anxiety than unexposed tenants (Susser et al., 2012), so the link between infestation and poor sleep is not new. What appears untested is whether it reaches children's school attendance, and that is the only novelty this question claims.
The Survivor, Broken Into Parts
The population is children aged 6 to 12 in the nine family buildings, identified through household rosters. The exposure is an infestation confirmed by a trained inspector or by interceptor cups at a fall baseline visit, not a caregiver's impression alone, since nearly half of the infestations found by one building-wide protocol were in homes whose residents did not know about them (Wang et al., 2016). The outcome is days absent, taken from district attendance files with written caregiver permission. The time span is one school year, September to June.
What the Survivor Leaves Out
Adults' sleep and mental health, which the first studies examined, are outside the question. So are children under 6, children in senior or mixed buildings, sleep measured directly and the cost of treatment to families. School grades are left out as well, because they depend on too many other things to be read from one year of data. Naming these losses keeps the final question from being mistaken for the whole worry, and each could become a later study.
References
Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D. G., & Newman, T. B. (2013). Designing clinical research (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Susser, S. R., Perron, S., Fournier, M., Jacques, L., Denis, G., Tessier, F., & Roberge, P. (2012). Mental health effects from urban bed bug infestation (Cimex lectularius L.): A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 2(5), Article e000838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000838
Wang, C., Singh, N., Zha, C., & Cooper, R. (2016). Bed bugs: Prevalence in low-income communities, resident's reactions, and implementation of a low-cost inspection protocol. Journal of Medical Entomology, 53(3), 639-646. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw018
The Walden PUBH 6036 Week 1 instructions
The opening assignment in a research methods course nearly always asks for a topic turned into a question, and this one asks for the turning to be shown. Students write a broad statement of interest, draft at least two or three candidate questions and judge each against named criteria, most often FINER: feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant. Prompts then want the chosen question broken into its parts, usually population, exposure or intervention, outcome and time frame. Some instructors require the question to fit a study the student could plausibly carry out during the program. A short justification drawn from a source or two is expected, and the whole piece rarely runs past three pages. What separates submissions is whether each rejected draft fails for a stated reason or simply disappears.
Inside the PUBH 6036 Week 1 example
The brief begins with the worry in one deliberately loose sentence and explains where it came from: caregivers asking for school letters. Each of the three candidates gets its own short section with the question quoted as drafted and a paragraph on why it stands or falls. A single table then lays the five FINER letters across all three candidates, so the reader can compare verdicts row by row. A section titled for the two letters that mattered argues that feasibility and ethics did the real sorting, and it limits the novelty claim to children's attendance, since adult sleep effects are already documented. The survivor is split into population, exposure, outcome and time span, each with its data source, and a final paragraph names five things the question gave up.
PUBH 6036 Week 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Question workshops are graded on the quality of reasoning more than on the final question. Instructors look first at whether each candidate is tested against the same criteria and whether rejections cite a specific criterion. The second area is precision: a survivor that names age range, setting, how exposure will be confirmed, the outcome's source and the time span earns more than one that says children and housing. Honest handling of novelty matters, because claiming that nothing is known when adult studies exist invites a reader to check. Feasibility judgments should mention real data access, such as needing caregiver consent before a school district releases attendance. Clear writing, accurate citation of the criteria's source and a tidy table make up the remaining credit in most versions of this rubric.
PUBH 6036 Week 1 help from the desk
Three habits sink most workshops. The candidates are too similar, so the comparison teaches nothing; the table approves every criterion for every draft; or the final question still contains a causal verb such as reduces or causes. Write your first candidate as broad as your real worry, then let each later draft fix the specific problem the previous one revealed. Check feasibility by naming where every variable would come from and who would have to agree to share it. If your outcome sits in records held by another agency, say how you would get permission. Keep a short list of what you cut; graders often read it closely. We can draft a question workshop around your own topic, built to your section's prompt and criteria.
Get a PUBH 6036 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 prompt and rubric along with the broad topic you are starting from, however loose it is. The workshop comes back inside 24-48h with three drafts, a FINER verdict on each and a survivor broken into parts, and the first one is free. Its housing authority is invented, so the question you keep has to grow from a setting you know.
More PUBH 6036 papers and MPH samples
- PUBH 6036 Week 2: Study Critique
- PUBH 6036 Week 3: Design Comparison
- PUBH 6036 Week 4: Cross-Sectional Design Memo
- PUBH 6036 Week 5: Experimental Design Memo
- PUBH 6036 Week 6: Human Subjects Protocol
- PUBH 6036 Week 7: Sampling Plan
- PUBH 6036 Week 8: Measurement Memo
- PUBH 6036 Week 9: Qualitative Design
- PUBH 6036 Week 10: Peer Replies
- PUBH 6036 Week 11: Methods Proposal
- PUBH 6213 Week 1: Announcement Read
- PUBH 6005 Week 1: Introduction Post
- HLTH 6800 Week 1: Capstone Claim Discussion Post
- HLTH 6475 Week 1: Program Parts Discussion Post
PUBH 6036 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 6036 Week 1 sample paper?
The full Week 1 question workshop sits above on this page, testing three draft questions about bed bugs and children's school attendance against FINER.
What does FINER stand for in a research question?
Feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant, five tests from Hulley and colleagues that help decide whether a question is worth studying and can be answered.
Why was the disclosure ordinance question rejected?
A citywide law offers no comparison group inside the city, earlier infestation counts were never collected, and its verb assumes a causal effect.
How specific should a final research question be in Week 1?
Specific enough to name the population, how the exposure is confirmed, where the outcome comes from and the period covered.
Should I claim my research question is completely new?
Only if it is; here the brief claims novelty only for school attendance, because studies of adults' sleep already exist.