PUBH 9101 Week 10 Promise Audit Example

Kept, Weakened or Broken: A Promise Audit Checking a Pool Inspection Capstone's First Chapter Against the Working Document It Now Introduces

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 9101: Completing Doctoral Capstone I

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Kept, Weakened or Broken: A Promise Audit Checking a Pool Inspection Capstone's First Chapter Against the Working Document It Now Introduces

Method

Every sentence in chapter 1 of the capstone studying Alder County's move to risk-tiered pool inspections that commits the study to something was extracted into a table: the problem statement, purpose, research question, significance claims and promised contributions. Each was matched with the part of the current working document meant to deliver it and given a verdict. Kept means the plan delivers the promise as written. Weakened means it delivers part. Broken means nothing in the plan delivers it.

The Audit

Table 1

Promises in chapter 1 and their verdicts

Seven commitments found in chapter 1; locations refer to the current draft.

Repairs

Each broken promise was rewritten rather than defended. The purpose now says the study examines a step on the path to safer pools, repeat critical violations, not illness itself. Outbreaks at treated recreational water venues are a serious national problem, with 493 reported between 2000 and 2014 (Hlavsa et al., 2018), but the study cannot link its records to illness, and the purpose now says so. The comparison with other counties became a limitation in chapter 3, and the cost claim was removed.

Each weakened promise was narrowed to match the plan. The perspectives sentence now reads "the perspectives of nine inspectors from three districts." The pool-type sentence now says that results will compare three tiers, with spas and splash pads combined, rather than individual pool types.

Why Audit Now

Chapter 1 was written a year before the working document. Since then, the sizing arithmetic forced cuts, the scope statement excluded outcomes, and the contingency note named fallbacks. Each change was sound, but none was carried back into chapter 1. A committee reads chapter 1 first and judges the rest against it. Mismatches between what a study promises and what its design can deliver are a recognized threat to the validity of the conclusions drawn (Shadish et al., 2002). National reviewers describe routine inspection data as a guide to which facilities need more frequent inspection (Hlavsa et al., 2016), which is the promise this study can keep. The audit will be repeated after chapter 4 is drafted, since findings often tempt writers to promise more in the conclusion than the analysis supports.

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.