DNP 815 Week 7: case report on application of theory
Using the language of the theory is an explicit requirement, which means the case has to be re-described in the theory's own terms rather than described normally with the theory named alongside it.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
The theory has to speak, in its own language
This is where the Week 1 reflective analysis pays off, so start by rereading your own philosophy paper and choose a theory consistent with it — a report whose theory contradicts the philosophy you argued six weeks ago is visibly incoherent to a marker reading both. Then note the requirement that carries most of the distinctive marks: clear application using the language of the theory. That is not satisfied by describing your case in ordinary clinical terms and adding the theorist's name. It means re-describing the case in the theory's own vocabulary, so a patient's difficulty becomes a self-care deficit with a stated agency and demand, or a stimulus classified as focal, contextual or residual, or comfort needs located in specific contexts. That translation is the demonstration. Choosing a theory whose vocabulary you cannot comfortably use across a whole case is the error that surfaces halfway through drafting and is expensive to correct.
The empirical rationale is the second requirement people underweight. You are asked why you selected this theory, and the answer must be evidential rather than aesthetic: what studies have used it, in what populations, with what results, and whether any instrument derived from it has been validated. Middle range theories are far easier to defend on this ground than grand theories, which is a good reason to choose one. Then the research instrument, which the report asks you both to identify and to describe evaluating. Identify a real, named instrument with published psychometric properties rather than proposing to design a survey, and say how you would evaluate it — reliability, validity in your population, responsiveness to change, and burden on the patient completing it. Work all eight required sections in the order given, since the rubric follows it. Reliability without validity in your own population is not enough to justify a choice.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Select a theory consistent with your own stated philosophy.
- 02Re-describe a clinical case in a theory's own vocabulary.
- 03Justify a theory choice on empirical rather than aesthetic grounds.
- 04Identify a validated instrument and describe how it would be evaluated.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An introduction with a problem statement.
- 02A brief literature review and a synthesised discussion of its findings.
- 03The case described from a theoretical perspective, in the theory's language.
- 04The theory's tenets and the empirical rationale for selecting it.
- 05A proposed solution, a named research instrument, and an evaluation of that instrument.
- 06A summary and conclusion, plus the practice hours statement.
Problem, literature, case, solution, instrument
Problem statement and literature
Establish the clinical problem and review what is known about it.
The theory and why it
Set out the tenets and the empirical rationale for selecting this theory.
The case in the theory's language
Re-describe the case using the theory's own concepts and terms.
Solution and instrument
Propose the theoretically derived intervention and identify an instrument to evaluate it.
Evaluating the instrument
Describe reliability, validity, responsiveness and burden in your population.
Empirical evidence for the theory you selected
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- Nursing Science Quarterly
- Instrument databases
Search sequence
- 1.Reread your Week 1 philosophy paper before choosing a theory.
- 2.Search the theory AND your clinical problem for empirical applications.
- 3.Find an instrument derived from or compatible with the theory, with published psychometrics.
- 4.Check whether the instrument has been validated in a population like yours.
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
Application and Effectiveness of the Nola Pender Model in Nursing: A Narrative Review
PubMed Central, National Library of Medicine · 2025
A model reviewed for application and effectiveness, which is exactly the empirical rationale this report requires.
- 02
Applying the Pender's Health Promotion Model to Identify the Factors Related to Older Adults' Participation in Community-Based Health Promotion Activities
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
The same model applied to a defined population with measured factors, a template for the case section.
- 03
Brazilian nursing specific situation, middle and micro-range theories: a bibliometric study
Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem · 2024
The landscape of middle range theories, useful for choosing one with an empirical track record.
- 04
CASP Checklists
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme · 2024
Appraisal checklists for the literature review, and a discipline for judging the studies behind your theory choice.
- 05
Measuring psychological safety in healthcare teams: developing an observational measure to complement survey methods
BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2020
An observational measure developed and tested, which is a model for the instrument evaluation section.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Choosing a theory that contradicts the Week 1 philosophy paper.
- Describing the case normally and naming the theory beside it.
- Justifying the theory by preference rather than by evidence.
- Proposing to design a new survey instead of identifying a validated instrument.
- Omitting the evaluation of the instrument, which is a separate requirement.
Submission checklist
- Is the theory consistent with your own stated philosophy?
- Is the case genuinely re-described in the theory's vocabulary?
- Is the selection justified with studies rather than with reasons you like it?
- Is the instrument real and named, with psychometric properties?
- Are all eight sections present in the required order?
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.