Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
NursingDiscussion postStudy design

DNP 825 Topic 2 DQ 2: choosing a study design

Evaluating an intervention you are deliberately introducing is an interventional question, and in a real practice setting that almost always means a quasi-experimental design — which has specific, nameable weaknesses.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

01

Evaluating an intervention narrows the options

The task narrows the field before you start. Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs answer questions about exposures you observe rather than interventions you introduce, so naming one of them for an intervention evaluation is a category error however well you describe it. A randomised controlled trial is the design that answers the question best and is usually unavailable: you cannot randomise a ward's protocol, staff cannot be blinded to a workflow change, and withholding a change you believe helps raises its own problems. That leaves quasi-experimental designs, and being able to say which one is what the post is actually testing. A one-group pre-test post-test is the weakest, an interrupted time series is considerably stronger, and a non-equivalent control group design is stronger still where a comparable unit exists. Being able to say which quasi-experimental design you mean is what the post is actually testing, since the family covers approaches that differ enormously in what they can rule out.

Describe your population and intervention concretely before justifying anything, because the justification only works against a specific case. Then give the strengths and weaknesses the prompt asks for, and be precise. The strengths of a quasi-experimental design are feasibility, acceptability to staff, and the fact that everyone receives the intervention. The weaknesses are nameable threats rather than a general lack of rigour: history, meaning something else changed at the same time; maturation, meaning the outcome was already trending; regression to the mean, which matters enormously when you introduced the change because a rate looked bad; and selection, where the comparison unit differs systematically. Say which threat is most serious in your case and what you would do about it — multiple pre-intervention data points, a balancing measure, or a control unit — and the post has answered every part of the prompt. The most serious threat in your own case is worth naming out loud.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Match design to an interventional rather than an observational question.
  • 02
    Distinguish quasi-experimental designs from one another.
  • 03
    Name specific threats to internal validity rather than general limitations.
  • 04
    Propose a mitigation for the most serious threat.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

DNP 825 Topic 2 DQ 2 Which epidemiological study design would you use to evaluate an intervention in your practice DNP 825 Topic 2 DQ 2 Which epidemiological study design would you use to evaluate an intervention in your practice? Which epidemiological study design would you use to evaluate an intervention in your practice? Provide a description of the chosen population and the identified intervention. Provide support as to why you believe that the design you chose is the best option including the strengths and weaknesses of the design you have chosen.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. DNP 825 Topic 2 DQ 2 Which epidemiological study design would you use to evaluate an intervention in your practice Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    A named design suited to evaluating an intervention.
  2. 02
    The population and the intervention, described concretely.
  3. 03
    Support for the choice against the alternatives.
  4. 04
    Strengths and specific named weaknesses, with a mitigation.
03

Population, intervention, design, then its limits

01

The population and intervention

Describe who receives what, where and over what period.

02

Why the observational designs do not fit

Explain the difference between an observed exposure and an introduced intervention.

03

The design chosen

Name the specific quasi-experimental design and justify it against alternatives.

04

Threats and mitigation

Name history, maturation, regression and selection as they apply, and propose a response.

04

Designs described with their trade-offs

Recommended databases

  • StatPearls
  • PubMed Central
  • EQUATOR Network
  • CINAHL

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Read the study design taxonomy before choosing, to avoid a category error.
  2. 2.
    Search interrupted time series AND quality improvement for a worked nursing example.
  3. 3.
    Check how many pre-intervention data points you could actually obtain.
  4. 4.
    Look for a comparable unit that could serve as a non-equivalent control.
05

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.

  1. 01

    Epidemiology Of Study Design

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023

    The design taxonomy that separates observational from interventional questions, which is where the choice starts.

  2. 02

    STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

    EQUATOR Network · 2024

    What an observational study must report, useful for showing why it does not fit an intervention evaluation.

  3. 03

    CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

    EQUATOR Network · 2024

    The trial reporting standard, which makes explicit what a quasi-experimental design gives up.

  4. 04

    Ethical oversight in quality improvement and quality improvement research: new approaches to promote a learning health care system

    BMC Medical Ethics · 2015

    Ethical oversight of quality improvement, relevant to why randomisation is often not available to you.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Naming a cohort or case-control design for an intervention evaluation.
  • Proposing a randomised trial without addressing why it is not feasible.
  • Saying quasi-experimental without saying which one.
  • Listing weaknesses as a general lack of rigour.
  • Ignoring regression to the mean when the change was triggered by a bad rate.

Submission checklist

  • Does your design answer an interventional question?
  • Have you specified which quasi-experimental design?
  • Are the population and intervention concrete?
  • Are the weaknesses named threats rather than generalities?
  • Is there a mitigation for the most serious one?

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.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order