| Course | PUBH 9101 Completing Doctoral Capstone I |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Status memo |
| Length | About 660 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 9101 Week 1
Memorandum
To: Capstone Chair
From: Doctoral Candidate, Public Health
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Status of the capstone plan at the start of the term
Purpose
This memo reports where my capstone plan stands at the start of the term. The study asks whether repeat critical violations at public swimming pools and spas changed within each risk tier after Alder County, a composite county, switched from a fixed schedule of two routine inspections per season to a risk-based schedule. Each element of the plan is marked settled, loose or not yet describable, with the sentence from the plan that earned the mark, so that you can check my judgment rather than take it on trust. The stakes are real: treated recreational water was linked to 493 reported outbreaks and at least 27,219 cases in the United States between 2000 and 2014 (Hlavsa et al., 2018), and routine inspection is the main way a county checks that pools are run safely.
The Elements
Table 1
Status of each plan element
| Element | Status | Sentence from the plan | |
|---|---|---|
| Research question | Settled | "Did the share of consecutive routine inspections both showing a critical violation change within each risk tier after the switch?" | |
| Setting | Settled | "Public pools, spas and splash pads permitted by the Alder County environmental health division." | |
| Design | Settled | "An interrupted time series within each tier, using district switch dates." | |
| Data source | Settled | "The division's inspection database, extracted under a data use agreement." | |
| Risk tiers | Settled | "Tiers as assigned by the division at the time of each inspection." | |
| Qualitative strand | Settled | "Semi-structured interviews with inspectors on how tiers are applied." | |
| Outcome definition | Not yet describable | "Repeat critical violations will be identified from inspection records." | |
| Switch dates | Not yet describable | "The switch took effect in 2023." | |
| Inspection pairs | Not yet describable | "Consecutive inspections will be compared." | |
| Sample for interviews | Loose | "Several inspectors will be interviewed." | |
| Analysis of interviews | Loose | "Interviews will be analyzed thematically." | |
| Approvals | Loose | "Approvals will be obtained as needed." | |
Twelve elements in all; the three not yet describable are discussed below.
The Three Not Yet Describable
Outcome definition. The plan does not say what counts as a repeat. It could mean the same violation code at two consecutive routine inspections, or any critical violation at both. These give different counts. Critical violations at pools include disinfectant levels out of range and missing safety equipment, which national inspection data show are common: in one multistate analysis, disinfectant concentration violations were found in 11.9% of routine inspections and safety equipment violations in 12.7% (Hlavsa et al., 2016). A pool could easily have a different critical violation each time. I lean toward any critical violation at both, but need the division's view on which codes it treats as critical.
Switch dates. The plan says 2023, but the division changed districts one at a time. Without each district's date, the time series has no clear interruption. The dates sit in internal policy memos I have not yet seen.
Inspection pairs. The plan does not say what happens when a complaint visit or a follow-up visit falls between two routine inspections. That choice changes which inspections are consecutive.
What I Need From You
Your view on whether any critical violation or the same violation should define a repeat, and whether waiting for the district memos before drafting the analysis section is acceptable. Choosing the design before the data are fully known follows standard advice for quasi-experiments, which is to settle the comparison in advance (Shadish et al., 2002). I will report again in two weeks with the loose elements tightened. For the interview sample, I expect to propose a number per district; for the analysis of interviews, a named approach and a second coder for a subset; and for approvals, a dated list naming the review board route and the data use agreement. Each will be stated as a decision, with the sentence in the plan rewritten to match.
References
Hlavsa, M. C., Cikesh, B. L., Roberts, V. A., Kahler, A. M., Vigar, M., Hilborn, E. D., Wade, T. J., Roellig, D. M., Murphy, J. L., Xiao, L., Yates, K. M., Kunz, J. M., Arduino, M. J., Reddy, S. C., Fullerton, K. E., Cooley, L. A., Beach, M. J., Hill, V. R., & Yoder, J. S. (2018). Outbreaks associated with treated recreational water: United States, 2000-2014. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(19), 547-551. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6719a3
Hlavsa, M. C., Gerth, T. R., Collier, S. A., Dunbar, E. L., Rao, G., Epperson, G., Bramlett, B., Ludwig, D. F., Gomez, D., Stansbury, M. M., Miller, F., Warren, J., Nichol, J., Bowman, H., Huynh, B.-A., Loewe, K. M., Vincent, B., Tarrier, A. L., Shay, T., . . . Beach, M. J. (2016). Immediate closures and violations identified during routine inspections of public aquatic facilities: Network for Aquatic Facility Inspection Surveillance, five states, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 65(5), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6505a1
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
PUBH 9101 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
The first assignment in a capstone completion course often asks candidates to report the current state of their plan to their chair or committee. Prompts usually call for a memo or brief report that lists the major elements of the study, rates how complete each one is and identifies what must be resolved first. Many instructors ask candidates to support each rating with evidence from the plan itself. Reports that declare a plan nearly finished without showing the text behind that claim, or that list problems without saying what the candidate needs from the chair, typically receive weaker marks, because the point of the week is a shared, accurate picture of where the work stands.
How this PUBH 9101 Week 1 example is built
The memo states its purpose and the study question in one opening paragraph, adding a short note on why pool inspections matter. A table lists twelve plan elements, each with a status and the exact sentence from the plan that justifies it. Three paragraphs then take the elements that cannot yet be described, explaining what is missing and why it matters: whether a repeat means the same violation or any critical violation, when each district actually switched, and how follow-up visits affect pairing. A closing section asks the chair two direct questions and previews what the next report will settle. The tone is factual throughout, with no attempt to make the plan sound further along than it is. Each status in the table can be checked against the quoted sentence beside it.
PUBH 9101 Week 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders typically evaluate accuracy of the self-assessment, use of evidence from the plan, clarity about what is unresolved and the usefulness of the request to the chair. Quoting the plan beside each rating earns credit because it lets the reader verify the judgment. Explaining why an unresolved element matters, with reference to the literature or the data, demonstrates understanding. Specific questions for the chair show the candidate knows which decisions are theirs and which need input. A memo that previews the next report shows planning beyond the current week and is usually well received by capstone faculty.
Common PUBH 9101 Week 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Open your plan and list every element a committee would expect, from question and setting to approvals. For each, copy the sentence that currently describes it. If you cannot find a sentence, the element is not yet describable. If the sentence uses vague words, it is loose. Write a short paragraph on each element you cannot yet describe, saying what you need to settle it. End with the questions only your chair can answer. If you are unsure how to rate your own plan honestly, we can draft a sample status memo from your current document. Date the memo and keep a copy for comparison.
Get a PUBH 9101 Week 1 example written to your instructions
List the parts of your approved plan you would struggle to explain to a stranger, and attach the Week 1 prompt and rubric. The memo grades each element settled, loose or undescribable, quotes your plan as its evidence, and ends on questions for your chair. First memo free, in 24 to 48 hours; the county and its inspection program are invented.
More PUBH 9101 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PUBH 9101 Week 2: Decision Sweep
- PUBH 9101 Week 3: Procedure Draft
- PUBH 9101 Week 4: Source Access Plan
- PUBH 9101 Week 5: Dependencies Plan
- PUBH 9101 Week 6: Sizing Arithmetic
- PUBH 9101 Week 7: Contingency Note
- PUBH 9101 Week 8: Out-of-Scope Statement
- PUBH 9101 Week 9: Peer Stall Test
- PUBH 9101 Week 10: Promise Audit
- PUBH 9101 Week 11: Working Document
- PUBH 9102 Week 1: Progress Account
- PUBH 8546 Week 1: Discussion Post
- PUBH 9103 Week 1: Weakest Conclusion Post
- PUBH 8503 Week 1: Discussion Post
PUBH 9101 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 9101 Week 1 sample paper?
The full Week 1 status memo appears above, reporting a pool inspection capstone plan to its chair.
What three statuses does the memo use?
Settled, loose and not yet describable, each supported by a sentence quoted from the plan.
Which elements are not yet describable?
The outcome definition, the district switch dates and how inspections are paired.
Why does the definition of a repeat matter?
Counting any critical violation at both visits gives a different total from counting only the same violation twice.
What does the memo ask the chair?
How to define a repeat and whether to wait for district switch memos before drafting the analysis.