DNP 830 Topic 1: examining methodology and design
The table is the easy part and it is not where the marks are. Internal and external validity for each of the three studies, plus what a different design would have changed, is the actual assignment.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Three articles, one table, and the validity argument
The specification is tight and every element of it is checkable, so read it as a list before you read it as a task. Three articles related to your DPI topic, one quantitative, one qualitative, one mixed-method. A comparison table in correct APA format, appended rather than embedded in the body. A paper of 1,000 to 1,250 words. Within that paper, the methodologies and designs discussed, the external and internal validity issues associated with each, an account of how a different methodology or design might have benefited each study, and a summary. Learners lose marks here on completeness rather than on quality — the validity discussion gets one shared paragraph instead of one per study, or the different-design counterfactual is skipped because it is the hardest part. Build the checklist first and tick items off against your draft, because at 1,250 words the temptation is to let the strongest section expand until it has quietly eaten the space another required element needed.
Get the validity vocabulary right, because it is the technical core. Internal validity is whether the study can support the causal claim it makes about its own participants — threats are selection, history, maturation, instrumentation, attrition. External validity is whether the finding travels to other people, settings or times. They trade against each other, and saying so concretely is what separates a strong paper: a tightly controlled trial buys internal validity by recruiting a sample unlike any real caseload. For the qualitative article, do not force the terms — the parallel constructs are credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, and using them correctly shows you know the frameworks are not interchangeable. Choose all three articles on one topic, ideally your own, or the comparison collapses into three unrelated critiques with nothing to compare. Take care classifying the mixed-method article: a quantitative study with two open-response survey items is not mixed-method, and choosing one leaves you with two designs your table cannot support.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Classify a published study's methodology and design from its methods section.
- 02Apply internal and external validity to quantitative work and trustworthiness criteria to qualitative work.
- 03Argue a counterfactual design change and what it would have bought.
- 04Present a structured comparison in correct APA table format.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Three articles on one topic: quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method.
- 02An APA-formatted comparison table, appended.
- 03A 1,000-1,250 word paper covering methodology and design for each.
- 04Internal and external validity treated separately for each study.
- 05A stated alternative design for each, with what it would have changed.
- 06A summary that draws the three together.
Compare, then critique, then propose
The three studies and why these three
Introduce the topic and the three articles chosen to represent each approach.
Methodology and design, study by study
Classify each study's approach and its specific design.
Internal and external validity
Assess the threats each quantitative study faces and how it handled them.
Trustworthiness in the qualitative study
Apply credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability appropriately.
What another design would have bought
Propose an alternative for each study and state the gain and the cost.
Summary
Draw out what the comparison shows about matching design to question.
Finding one of each design that is actually comparable
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- Cochrane Library
- GCU Library
Search sequence
- 1.Search your DPI topic and filter by study type to secure one of each of the three kinds.
- 2.Read each methods section rather than the abstract to classify the design correctly.
- 3.Look up the standard threat lists for internal validity before writing that section.
- 4.Find the trustworthiness criteria in a citable source so the qualitative section is grounded.
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
Epidemiology Of Study Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The design catalogue against which each of the three articles can be classified accurately.
- 02
Qualitative Study
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Supplies the qualitative trustworthiness framework, which is what the qualitative study should be judged by rather than validity.
- 03
Human Subjects Research Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Covers how design choices create and control threats, which is the internal validity discussion in source form.
- 04
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
BMJ · 2021
A reporting standard showing what a methods section must disclose, useful for judging whether a study reported enough to assess its validity at all.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing one shared validity paragraph instead of one per study.
- Omitting the alternative-design counterfactual because it is the hardest element.
- Applying internal and external validity to the qualitative study instead of trustworthiness criteria.
- Choosing three unrelated articles, leaving nothing genuinely comparable.
- Embedding the table in the body when the brief says to append it.
Submission checklist
- Is each of the three designs genuinely the type you claim it is?
- Does every study get its own validity discussion?
- Have you proposed and justified an alternative design for each?
- Is the table appended and APA-formatted?
- Is the word count between 1,000 and 1,250?
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.