| Course | PUBH 9102 Completing Doctoral Capstone II |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Display check |
| Length | About 650 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 9102 Week 9
Which Sentence Needs It? A Display Check Tracing Five Tables and Figures to the Results Chapter of a Study on Tiered Pool Visits
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 9102: Completing Doctoral Capstone II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Which Sentence Needs It? A Display Check Tracing Five Tables and Figures to the Results Chapter of a Study on Tiered Pool Visits
The Test
Analysis of risk-based inspection scheduling in Alder County, an invented county, produced five displays. For each one this check asks a single question: which sentence in the results chapter needs it? A display earns its place only if some sentence points to it and would be weaker without it, either because the sentence summarizes what the display shows in full or because the display lets a reader verify the sentence. Displays that no sentence needs move to an appendix or come out.
The Five Displays
Table 1
Displays traced to the results text, with decisions
| Display | Sentence that needs it | Decision | Reason | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figure 1. Flow of facilities and pairs | 4.1: "The analytic set held 319 facilities and 2,176 pairs" | Keep unchanged | Every exclusion the sentence summarizes is shown with its count | |
| Table 2. Repeat share by tier and period | 4.2: the three tier sentences | Keep unchanged | Each sentence quotes two cells; the table carries numerators and denominators | |
| Table 3. Violation types in repeat pairs | 4.4: the sentence giving the share of repeat pairs with low disinfectant | Move to appendix | One sentence uses one row; the other eleven rows are not discussed | |
| Table 4. Characteristics of interviewed inspectors | None | Remove | Service bands and districts already appear in the non-response note and methods; with six people, the table risks identifying them | |
| Figure 5. District map with repeat shares | None | Remove | Three districts do not need a map; the map invites a geographic reading the study did not test | |
Numbering follows the order of the draft chapter; final numbers will be reassigned after removals.
Two That Survive
The flow figure and the tier table carry the chapter. Sentence 4.1 compresses six exclusions into one total, and the figure is how a reader checks that total without trusting the text. The tier table is needed by three sentences at once, and each of those sentences repeats only the two cells it reports. A good display reduces what the text has to say instead of repeating it (Schwabish, 2014), and these two do that.
One Moved
The violation-type table has twelve rows, of which the results text uses one. Keeping it in the chapter would suggest that all twelve were analyzed and that their pattern matters. Moving it to an appendix keeps it available for readers who want the breakdown, especially those in other health departments who compare their own common violations with national data showing disinfectant and safety equipment problems near the top at routine inspections (Hlavsa et al., 2016).
Two Removed
The inspector table looked useful but answered no question asked in chapter 4. Its content belongs to methods, where it already appears in prose, and in a group of six from one division, cross-tabulating district and length of service could let a colleague recognize who said what. Removing it protects the people who agreed to be interviewed, a concern that reporting guidance for observational studies raises whenever participant numbers are small (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007).
The district map took the longest to make and was the hardest to remove. It shaded each district by its post-switch repeat share. No sentence in the results refers to differences between districts, because the study was not designed to compare them; the districts differ in switch date, size and facility mix, and the map would invite exactly the comparison the design cannot support.
What the Chapter Gains
After the check, chapter 4 has two displays in the body and one in an appendix. Each surviving display is cited by number in the sentence that needs it, and each caption describes contents without stating a finding, following last week's firewall. The chapter is shorter by about three pages, and every number in the text can now be found in one place.
References
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
Schwabish, J. A. (2014). An economist's guide to visualizing data. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 209-234. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.1.209
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), Article e297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
What the PUBH 9102 Week 9 instructions ask for
Display check assignments ask candidates to review every table and figure in their results and decide whether each one belongs. Prompts commonly ask candidates to link each display to the text that uses it, to say what it adds and to keep, revise, move or remove it accordingly. Some instructions also ask about captions, numbering and consistency between displays and text. Faculty use the task to trim results chapters that carry more displays than findings. Checks that keep everything, or that remove displays without saying why, usually earn less than those that apply one clear test and record a decision and reason for each. Some prompts also ask whether each caption describes contents or states a finding.
How the PUBH 9102 Week 9 example is put together
The check opens by stating its single test and the four possible outcomes. A table lists all five displays with the sentence that needs each, the decision and a reason in one line. Sections follow for the two kept, the one moved and the two removed. The kept displays are shown to reduce what the text must say. The violation table moves because only one of its twelve rows is discussed, though it stays useful to other health departments. The inspector table is removed for privacy and duplication, and the district map because the design cannot support district comparisons. A closing section reports what the chapter gained.
PUBH 9102 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Credit on a display check usually goes first to the consistency of the test: every display meets the same question, and a reader can see the answer in the table. Naming the sentence that needs each display earns a large share because it proves the link. Reasoned removals score well, especially when the reason is methodological or ethical rather than cosmetic, as with the map and the inspector table. Moving a display to an appendix, instead of deleting it, shows judgment about different readers. Sources on visual design and on reporting with small groups support specific decisions. A brief account of what changed in the chapter rounds out a complete check.
PUBH 9102 Week 9 help from the desk
List every table and figure in your results. For each, find the sentence that points to it; if you cannot, that display is a candidate for removal. Ask what a reader would lose if it went. Consider privacy whenever a display breaks a small group into cells. Watch for displays that invite comparisons your design cannot support. Move useful but undiscussed material to an appendix. Then renumber and check captions. If you are attached to displays that may not belong, we can run a sample check on your chapter. A display that took weeks to build can still be the wrong one for the chapter, so judge it by the sentence that needs it and not by the work it cost. Keep removed displays in your files in case a committee member asks for them.
Get a PUBH 9102 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send every table and figure you have made, the results text that cites them and the Week 9 prompt and rubric. Each display is traced to the sentence needing it, then kept, moved or removed with a reason, including any risk of identifying participants. Initial checks cost nothing and come back in 24 to 48 hours; the map and tables described are constructed.
More PUBH 9102 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PUBH 9102 Week 1: Progress Account
- PUBH 9102 Week 2: Protocol Comparison
- PUBH 9102 Week 3: Deviation Log
- PUBH 9102 Week 4: Participation Count
- PUBH 9102 Week 5: Non-Response Note
- PUBH 9102 Week 6: Substitution Memo
- PUBH 9102 Week 7: Description Pass
- PUBH 9102 Week 8: Interpretation Firewall
- PUBH 9102 Week 10: Reconciliation Pass
- PUBH 9102 Week 11: Execution Write-Up
- PUBH 9103 Week 9: Defense Rehearsal
- PUBH 9101 Week 9: Peer Stall Test
- HLTH 8003 Week 9: Rebuttal Section With Concession
- PUBH 8546 Week 9: Signal Assessment
PUBH 9102 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 9102 Week 9 sample paper?
The Week 9 display check appears in full above, testing five displays in a composite pool inspection capstone.
What single question does the check ask?
Which sentence in the results chapter needs this display?
Why was the district map removed?
The study was not designed to compare districts, and the map would invite that comparison.
Why was the inspector table removed?
Its content was already in the methods, and splitting six people into cells risked identifying them.
Is moving a table to an appendix the same as deleting it?
No. The violation table stays available for readers who want the full breakdown.