HCA 699 Topic 6 Section F Evaluation
Section F is written before a single outcome exists. That tense is the whole assignment: everything here is a commitment made in advance, and the fourth criterion is the one that catches people.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 25, 2026
An evaluation plan is written before there is anything to evaluate
Every sentence of Section F is written in advance of the data, and that tense is what the section is testing. You are not reporting whether the project worked; you are committing, before you can be embarrassed by the answer, to how you would know. That commitment is what makes the plan falsifiable, and a marker reads it for exactly that. The giveaway of a weak Section F is that it describes the intervention again in the language of measurement, so the outcome is defined as whether the intervention happened rather than whether anything changed for patients. Name the outcome first, in units, with a source and a collection interval, and the rest of the section acquires something concrete to attach to. If your project is a handoff bundle, the outcome is not that nurses used the bundle; it is the readmission rate, the fall rate, or the omission rate the bundle exists to move, measured the same way before and after.
The three technical words in criterion three attach to the instrument, not to your project, and separating them is straightforward once you see it that way. Validity asks whether the measure captures the construct you named, so a satisfaction survey is not a measure of safety. Reliability asks whether it returns the same value under the same conditions, which is where chart abstraction by several people needs a defined protocol and an inter-rater check. Applicability asks whether an instrument validated in one setting behaves in yours, which matters when a tool developed on medical-surgical inpatients is dropped into an outpatient clinic. Then the fourth criterion, the one most drafts hurry through: a plan for null results has to distinguish an intervention that does not work from an intervention that was never actually delivered, because those two failures lead to opposite decisions and only process measures can tell them apart.
Likely learning objectives
- State outcome measures in units, with a data source and a collection interval.
- Attach validity, reliability and applicability to the measurement instrument.
- Distinguish outcome measures from process measures and use both.
- Pre-commit to a response to null results that separates two kinds of failure.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Details: In 500-750 words (not including the title page and reference page) develop an evaluation plan to be included in your final evidence-based practice project. Provide the following criteria in the evaluation, making sure it is comprehensive and concise: Describe the rationale for the methods used in collecting the outcome data. Describe the ways in which the outcome measures evaluate the extent to which the project objectives are achieved. Describe how the outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the evidence. Address validity, reliability, and applicability. Describe strategies to take if outcomes do not provide positive results. Describe implications for practice and future research. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Upon receiving feedback from the instructor, refine Section F for your final submission.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. HCA 699 Topic 6 Section F Evaluation One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
What Section F must contain
- 01A 500-750 word evaluation plan, excluding title and reference pages.
- 02The rationale for the methods used in collecting the outcome data.
- 03How the outcome measures evaluate the extent to which project objectives are achieved.
- 04How outcomes will be measured and evaluated based on the evidence, addressing validity, reliability and applicability.
- 05Strategies to take if outcomes do not provide positive results.
- 06Implications for practice and future research.
- 07Submission to Turnitin, with Section F refined after instructor feedback.
Five criteria, in the order they depend on each other
The objectives being evaluated
Restate the project objectives in measurable terms so the plan has targets.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Objectives expressed as changes in a patient or system metric.
Outcome measures and their rationale
Name each measure, its units, its source and why it was chosen over alternatives.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A defended choice rather than a list of available data.
Data collection methods
Say who collects what, how often, and over what baseline and follow-up window.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A protocol specific enough for someone else to run.
Validity, reliability and applicability
Assess the instrument on all three, with evidence for each.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Three distinct answers, not one restated.
If the outcomes are not positive
Set out the process measures and decisions that separate the two failure modes.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A pre-committed decision rule rather than a promise to reflect.
Implications for practice and future research
State what a positive and a null result would each mean for the unit and for the literature.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Implications that follow from the measures actually chosen.
Where the measurement and implementation evidence sits
Recommended databases
- AHRQ
- PubMed Central
- COSMIN
- Implementation Science
Search sequence
- 1.Find the AHRQ quality improvement guidance for the measurement and evaluation vocabulary.
- 2.Look up your specific outcome measure to see whether a validated instrument already exists.
- 3.Read an implementation framework for the language that separates delivery from effect.
- 4.Check the reporting expectations for improvement work so the plan matches how it will be written up.
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.
Section 4: Ways To Approach the Quality Improvement Process
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
AHRQ's approach to the improvement process, for the measurement vocabulary the plan should use.
COSMIN — Improving the selection of outcome measurement instruments
COSMIN Initiative, Amsterdam UMC · 2026
COSMIN, for how outcome measurement instruments are appraised on validity and reliability.
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Implementation Science (BMC), Per Nilsen · 2015
Implementation theories and frameworks, for separating delivery from effect in a null result.
Quantitative Research Designs, Hierarchy of Evidence and Validity
Nursing Open · 2025
Quantitative designs and validity, for the hierarchy your evaluation sits within.
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 improvement work, for the boundary between evaluation and research.
Before you submit Section F
Common mistakes
- Defining the outcome as whether the intervention was implemented.
- Applying validity and reliability to the project rather than to the instrument.
- Reporting results in a section that is supposed to be a plan.
- Treating null results as a writing problem rather than a decision point.
- Naming an instrument without saying who collects it, how often, and from where.
Submission checklist
- Is every outcome stated in units with a data source and an interval?
- Are validity, reliability and applicability each answered about the instrument?
- Does the plan include process measures as well as outcome measures?
- Does the null-results strategy separate intervention failure from delivery failure?
- Are implications split into practice and future research?
- Is the section inside 500-750 words excluding title and reference pages?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.