PUBH 8211 Week 3 Design Rationale Example

Research Methods for Public Health Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This PUBH 8211 Week 3 design rationale example sets out what a survey alone and interviews alone could establish about hearing aid non-use among older adults at three rural clinics, then argues that the study needs both, in sequence. Walden PUBH 8211 asks students to justify their design against alternatives, and the brief shows that a survey could give a number and a pattern but not a process, that interviews could give experience but not frequency, and that putting the survey first lets its results choose whom to interview and what to ask. It explains why convergent and exploratory sequential designs were rejected, identifies integration at sampling and in a joint display and states the design's cost in time and skills. Students in the PhD in Public Health can see a mixed design justified by its parts.

CoursePUBH 8211 Research Methods for Public Health
WeekWeek 3
Paper typeDesign rationale brief
LengthAbout 510 words, 4 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolWalden University
ProgramPhD in Public Health
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 8211 Week 3

1

What Each Strand Could Establish Alone, and Why the Study Needs Both in Sequence: A Design Rationale for an Explanatory Sequential Study of Hearing Aid Non-Use Among Rural Older Adults

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8211: Research Methods for Public Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title weighs each strand on its own before arguing for their combination, because a mixed design is justified only by what neither strand could do alone.
2

What Each Strand Could Establish Alone, and Why the Study Needs Both in Sequence: A Design Rationale for an Explanatory Sequential Study of Hearing Aid Non-Use Among Rural Older Adults

What a Survey Alone Could Establish

Surveying every older adult given hearing aids by the three audiology clinics in Tall Pines, an invented rural region, could estimate how many report little or no daily use six months after fitting and which characteristics go with low use. It could compare clinics, levels of hearing loss, prices paid and distances traveled. It would give the region a number and a pattern. It could not explain how people move from wearing hearing aids to leaving them in a drawer, or what the measured characteristics mean in daily life.

What this page is doingStating the survey's reach and its limit in one paragraph sets up the case for a second strand.
3

What Interviews Alone Could Establish

In-depth interviews with a small number of people who stopped wearing their hearing aids could describe the experience of deciding to stop: the first uncomfortable weeks, a family member's comment, a battery that ran out on the day of a funeral. They could reveal reasons no one thought to put on a survey. They could not say how common any experience is, or whether the people interviewed resemble the region's hearing aid users as a whole.

Why Both, and in This Order

A review of hearing aid non-use identified reasons such as low perceived benefit, discomfort, maintenance problems, cost and attitudes (McCormack & Fortnum, 2013), but these came from studies in many settings, and little is known about how rural distance and service gaps shape them. The study therefore needs both a measure of how common non-use is in this region and an account of how it happens. The order matters. If the survey comes first, its results can tell the interview strand whom to interview and what to ask about; for example, if distance to the clinic turns out to be strongly associated with low use, interviews can explore how distance enters the decision. This is the explanatory sequential design, in which a qualitative strand follows and explains quantitative results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

Alternatives Considered

A convergent design, running survey and interviews at the same time, would be faster but would lose the chance for survey results to guide interview sampling and questions. An exploratory sequential design, starting with interviews and then building a survey, would suit a field with no existing measures; here a validated outcome instrument already exists, so the case for starting with interviews is weaker.

Where Integration Happens

Integration will occur at two points. First, at sampling, where survey results identify interview participants. Second, at interpretation, where a joint display will set each survey association beside the interview themes that explain, extend or contradict it. Mixed methods researchers describe such connecting and joint displays as concrete ways to integrate strands rather than reporting them side by side (Fetters et al., 2013).

The Cost of the Choice

The design takes longer: interviews cannot begin until survey analysis is far enough along to guide sampling. It also requires skills in both regression analysis and qualitative coding.

References

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

McCormack, A., & Fortnum, H. (2013). Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them? International Journal of Audiology, 52(5), 360-368. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2013.769066

PUBH 8211 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms

Design rationale assignments ask students to justify their chosen research design, often by comparing it with alternatives. In mixed methods courses, prompts typically require describing what each strand could and could not establish alone, explaining why the strands are combined in a particular sequence, identifying where integration occurs and naming trade-offs. A brief of moderate length is common. Instructors reward rationales that tie the design to the research questions, consider at least two alternative designs honestly, specify integration points concretely and admit the costs of the chosen design rather than presenting it as obviously best.

How this PUBH 8211 Week 3 example is built

The brief takes each strand alone in turn, stating what it could establish and what it could not, with a margin note on setting up the case for combination. A section explains why both strands are needed and why the survey comes first, drawing on a review of non-use reasons and a mixed methods text. Alternatives are considered and set aside. A section identifies two integration points, citing literature on integration practices. The brief closes with the design's costs. Each rejected alternative is described with the specific benefit it would have offered, not dismissed. The costs section is short but concrete, naming time and skills.

Reading the PUBH 8211 Week 3 rubric

Graders assess whether the rationale follows from the research questions, whether alternatives are fairly considered and whether integration is specified. Credit is highest for concrete descriptions of what each strand contributes and where they connect. Naming the design correctly and citing a recognized source shows command of mixed methods terminology. Honest discussion of costs demonstrates judgment. Questions printed in one place, numbered, make the rationale easy to follow. Rationales that claim mixed methods is always superior lose points. Rationales that give a concrete example of how survey results would shape interviews, such as exploring distance if it predicts non-use, make the sequential logic tangible. Graders also reward recognition that an existing validated instrument weakens the case for an exploratory design. Honest statements of cost show the student has weighed the design rather than defaulted to it.

Common PUBH 8211 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Students often justify mixed methods in general terms. Write one paragraph on what your survey could show alone and one on what your interviews could show alone. Then explain what neither can do and why the order matters. Name at least one alternative design and say why you rejected it. State exactly where your strands connect. For a design rationale built on your own questions, share them and your planned strands. Sketch your study as a timeline with arrows showing what each strand hands to the next. If an arrow is missing, your strands may not be integrated. Name the skills you will need and how you will get them.

Get a PUBH 8211 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Tell the desk your research question and whatever design your section is steering toward, then add the Week 3 rationale prompt and rubric. The rationale, returned in 24-48h, weighs what each strand could establish, rejects designs with reasons and lists what the choice obligates; the first is free. Its clinics and patients are hypothetical throughout.

Request this week free All PUBH 8211 weeks Finished samples

More PUBH 8211 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8211 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8211 Week 3 sample paper?

The Week 3 design rationale is printed above, justifying an explanatory sequential study of hearing aid non-use.

What is an explanatory sequential design?

Survey first, interviews second, with the interviews chosen to explain what the survey found.

Why put the survey before the interviews?

Survey results can then guide whom to interview and what to ask about.

Why not run both strands at the same time?

A convergent design would lose the chance for survey findings to shape interview sampling and questions.

Where do the strands integrate?

At sampling, where survey results select interviewees, and at interpretation, through a joint display.