DNP 805 Week 8: evaluating health care technology
Three elements of the user-technology interface — not three features of the technology. Choosing measurable interface elements is what makes the assessment step possible at all.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Three elements, and they must be interface elements
The whole paper turns on the three elements you choose, so choose them as properties of the interface that can be measured rather than as things the software does. Efficiency measured as clicks or time to complete a defined task, error rate measured as wrong entries or corrections, learnability measured as time to competence for a new user, cognitive load measured by interruption and recall demands, and satisfaction measured by a validated instrument are all legitimate. Number of reports available and range of features are not, because they describe the product rather than the interaction. Getting this right at step three makes steps four and five straightforward; getting it wrong leaves you with nothing assessable and a paper that drifts into description. Choose the wrong three at step three and steps four and five have nothing to work with. Every one of them describes what the product has, not what using it costs.
Then do the assessment rather than describing how one would be done. You can walk a defined task through the interface and count the steps, apply a heuristic evaluation against a published set, or use a validated usability instrument — any of those is a method, and naming which one you used is what makes the section an assessment. Report what you found, including the numbers, because a claim that documentation takes too long carries very little next to a count of fourteen clicks for a task that could take four. For each element, the improvement must be practicable and supported: what specifically would change, who would have to do it, and what the literature says about that kind of change. Note also that the sources must be primary and within five years, which quietly rules out most of the usability textbooks it would be natural to reach for.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish an interface element from a product feature.
- 02Define a measurement approach for each chosen element.
- 03Conduct and report a usability assessment rather than describing one.
- 04Propose improvements that are practicable and supported by evidence.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A technology selected from the course.
- 02A defined measurement approach for the element.
- 03Three interface elements used for evaluation.
- 04An assessment performed with a named human factors method and its findings.
- 05A practicable, literature-supported improvement for each element.
- 06Primary sources within the last five years, in APA style.
Select, define measurement, assess, then propose
The technology and why it
Select a technology from the course and state your access to it.
Defining measurement
Explain how the element would be measured or evaluated.
Three interface elements
Name three evaluable properties of the user-technology interaction.
The assessment
Apply a named method and report the findings for each element.
Practicable improvements
Propose a change per element with literature support and an owner.
Human factors methods with published measures
Recommended databases
- NIST usability publications
- JAMIA
- AHRQ Digital Healthcare Research
- PubMed Central
Search sequence
- 1.Read the NIST usability protocol before choosing your three elements.
- 2.Search for a validated usability instrument used in health IT within the last five years.
- 3.Find one study reporting click counts or task times, which models your findings section.
- 4.Check whether your proposed improvement has been evaluated anywhere.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
(NISTIR 7804) Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records
National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2012
The federal protocol for evaluating record usability, which is the closest thing to a specification for this paper's method section.
- 02
Human factors in healthcare IT: Management considerations and trends
Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy · 2023
Human factors in health IT, including the management constraints that decide whether an improvement is practicable.
- 03
The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US nurses
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(8), 1632-1641 · 2021
Usability measured against a clinician outcome, a model for tying an interface element to something that matters.
- 04
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis of Hemodialysis Electronic Health Records
Cureus · 2024
A structured strengths and weaknesses analysis of a specific record system, useful as a worked assessment.
- 05
Involving Health Care Professionals in the Development of Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review
JMIR Human Factors · 2023
Clinician involvement in development, which is where most practicable improvements have to originate.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Choosing product features rather than interface elements.
- Describing how an assessment would work instead of performing one.
- Reporting impressions where counts or times were available.
- Proposing improvements no one in the organisation could implement.
- Citing usability textbooks when primary sources within five years are required.
Submission checklist
- Can each of your three elements be measured?
- Did you name the method you used?
- Are there numbers in the findings?
- Does each improvement say who would implement it?
- Are all sources primary and within five years?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.