Instruction quoted on one side, record on the other: this protocol comparison example from Week 2 of PUBH 9102 grades each gap in a county scheduling study none, minor or consequential. Searches like "pubh 9102 week 2 assignment example", "pubh9102 week 2 sample" and "pubh 9102 week 2 example" land here.
What a finished PUBH 9102 Week 2 protocol comparison looks like
A two-column table takes up most of the pages, one row for each protocol element. On the left, the working document is quoted; the right describes the record and cites the file or field-note entry that shows it. Rows cover the inspection window, the switch date by district, the pairing rule, the handling of inspection types, tier assignment, interview mode, interview length and the coding arrangement. A narrow third column holds the verdict. Four rows show no gap. The pairing rule shows a minor one, an edge case resolved by a rule recorded at the time. Three are consequential: the shortened window, the mixing of inspection types in older records, and a single coder replacing two. Beneath the table, each consequential gap receives a paragraph naming what it could change in the analysis, without guessing the direction.
How a PUBH 9102 Week 2 example is structured
Quoting the protocol, not summarizing it, stops the comparison from quietly improving the plan in hindsight, the error this course watches for most. Citing a file or field note for each record entry makes the right column evidence instead of memory. Rows follow the working document's order so a reader can hold the two side by side without hunting. The three-level verdict avoids two failures, treating every gap as a crisis or treating none as one; minor gaps are acknowledged and set aside in a line. Consequential gaps earn paragraphs because they will reappear in the deviation log and in the limitations, and their possible effects need stating early. Those paragraphs name what each gap could change, the pre-switch baseline for instance, without predicting how, since nothing has been analyzed. Rows showing no gap stay visible, proving the whole protocol was covered.
Quoted, not recalled
The working document's wording on the left, verbatim, so the plan cannot improve in hindsight.
Record with a source
Each right-hand entry cites the extract file or dated field note that shows what was done.
None, minor, consequential
A verdict column that keeps small gaps small and flags the three that could move a result.
What each large gap could change
A paragraph per consequential gap naming the affected analysis, with no guess about direction.
Where marks go in PUBH 9102 Week 2
Fidelity to the original wording is checked first, because a comparison that paraphrases the protocol can make it match the record by accident. Quoting secures that share here. The sourced right column carries the next portion; describing what was done without pointing to a file or dated note leaves the chair relying on memory. Proportion in the verdicts is rewarded: marking every difference consequential buries the three that matter, while marking none invites suspicion. Keeping no-gap rows visible earns credit for completeness. The paragraphs on consequential gaps draw a strong share for naming affected analyses without speculating on direction. Comparisons come up short when they cover only elements that changed, when record entries lack sources, or when a consequential gap is quietly downgraded to minor because its fix was easy.
Get a PUBH 9102 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send your working document and whatever shows how the study actually ran, extract notes, field notes, correspondence, plus the Week 2 prompt and rubric. The comparison quotes each protocol element beside the sourced record and grades every gap. Returned within 24 to 48 hours, free on a first request; this inspection protocol and its coding arrangement never existed.
PUBH 9102 Week 2 questions, answered
What counts as the record?
Anything created at the time that shows what was done: data files, extraction logs, emails setting a date, field notes, consent forms, meeting notes. Recollection written now is weaker and should be labeled as such. If a protocol element left no trace, say so in the row; that absence is worth noting, since later readers will face the same gap.
How do I decide whether a gap is consequential?
Ask whether it could change a number the study reports or the population a claim covers. A shortened window, a different coder arrangement or a changed definition usually could. A meeting held a week late usually could not. When genuinely unsure, mark it consequential; downgrading later is easy, but a gap undersold now is hard to raise again.
Does this replace the deviation log?
No. The comparison is a snapshot taken element by element; the log, which usually follows, is chronological and records when each departure happened, why, and who agreed to it. The two overlap in content but answer different questions. Building the comparison first makes the log faster, since each consequential gap becomes an entry.