| Course | DNP 705 Health Care Outcomes Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Instrument appraisal and intervention description |
| Length | About 461 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 705 Module 3
Measuring What Patients Learn: The Revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test and a Nurse-Coordinated Intervention
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
DNP 705: Health Care Outcomes Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Measuring What Patients Learn: The Revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test and a Nurse-Coordinated Intervention
Outcome Variables
The primary outcome, osteoporosis treatment initiation within six months, is a clinical event best measured by chart audit and pharmacy records rather than an instrument. A secondary outcome, patient osteoporosis knowledge, requires a validated questionnaire, because education is one of the features associated with effective fracture liaison programs (Wu et al., 2018).
Instrument Selected: Revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test
The Osteoporosis Knowledge Test was developed in the early 1990s and revised to reflect current research. The 32-item revised version was tested with a convenience sample of 105 adults recruited from diverse sites in Michigan over a year (Gendler et al., 2015). It covers knowledge of risk factors, nutrition and exercise for bone health.
Reliability
Internal consistency for the total scale was strong, with a Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient of .85, and subscale values of .83 for nutrition and .81 for exercise. Test-retest reliability over two weeks in a subsample of 27 participants produced a correlation of .87 (Gendler et al., 2015). These values exceed the commonly used threshold of .70 for group comparisons.
Validity
Content validity was evaluated during revision, and item analysis examined difficulty, distracter effectiveness and discrimination (Gendler et al., 2015). Construct and criterion validity were not the focus of the revision study, which is a limitation. The sample was regional and a convenience sample, so performance in a diverse Phoenix population, including Spanish speakers, should be checked. A validated Spanish version would need to be identified or the project would need to note this gap.
Feasibility
The test takes about 15 minutes, is written at a level suitable for most adults, and works either in the waiting room or over the phone. Scores can be compared before education and at the three-month call.
Intervention Description
1. At the first visit, the clinic nurse identifies adults aged 50 and older with a fragility fracture using a checklist in the electronic record.
2. Using a surgeon-approved standing order, the nurse requests a bone density scan.
3. The patient completes the Osteoporosis Knowledge Test, receives 15 minutes of education and a written handout.
4. The nurse sends a letter to the primary care clinician with test results and a treatment recommendation.
5. At three months, the nurse calls the patient, confirms testing and treatment status, and repeats the knowledge test.
Data Collection Plan
Chart audits at baseline and six months will record testing and treatment. Knowledge scores will be collected at enrollment and three months. Data will be stored without identifiers in a secure spreadsheet. Subsequent fractures are not a project outcome, because a six-month window is too short to see them, although meta-analytic evidence links these services to fewer refractures and lower mortality (Li et al., 2021).
References
Gendler, P. E., Coviak, C. P., Martin, J. T., Kim, K. K., Dankers, J. K., Barclay, J. M., & Sanchez, T. A. (2015). Revision of the Osteoporosis Knowledge Test. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(12), 1623-1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914537565
Li, N., Hiligsmann, M., Boonen, A., van Oostwaard, M. M., de Bot, R. T. A. L., Wyers, C. E., Bours, S. P. G., & van den Bergh, J. P. (2021). The impact of fracture liaison services on subsequent fractures and mortality: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Osteoporosis International, 32(8), 1517-1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-021-05911-9
Wu, C.-H., Chen, C.-H., Chen, P.-H., Yang, J.-J., Chang, P.-C., Huang, T.-C., Bagga, S., Sharma, Y., Lin, R.-M., & Chan, D.-C. (2018). Identifying characteristics of an effective fracture liaison service: Systematic literature review. Osteoporosis International, 29(5), 1023-1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4370-z
What the DNP 705 Module 3 instructions ask for
The posted syllabus places Instrumentation and Intervention in Week 3, with the lesson on instrumentation and outcome variables and the project topics of intervention description and data collection plan. It is worth 50 points. Students choose an instrument identified in their earlier literature review that could measure the outcome variable or variables, then research the psychometric article explaining how the instrument was developed and tested for validity and reliability. Expect to report specific reliability coefficients and types of validity. Find the original development or revision study rather than relying on summaries in other articles. Look for the most recent revision of any instrument you choose. Ask a librarian to help locate psychometric studies. Note how long the instrument takes.
How the DNP 705 Module 3 example is put together
The paper first separates outcomes that need an instrument from those measured by records, which shows careful thinking about measurement. The instrument section describes development and sample, then reports reliability with exact coefficients and interprets them against a common threshold. Validity is discussed honestly, including what the psychometric study did not test. Feasibility and language issues are addressed for the actual setting. The intervention is described as numbered steps, and the data collection plan states timing and data security. Reliability statistics are reported with their exact values and interpreted, rather than simply described as good. Feasibility covers time, literacy and setting. The data collection plan names timing, sources and storage, which keeps measurement practical.
DNP 705 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Instrumentation assignments are typically graded on appropriate instrument choice, accurate reporting of reliability and validity from the psychometric source, discussion of limitations and fit with the population, feasibility, and a clear intervention and data collection plan. Faculty look for students who interpret psychometric statistics rather than only copying them. Recognizing gaps, such as the lack of a validated translation, shows judgment. Alignment between the instrument and the project's outcome variables is essential. Matching the instrument to a specific outcome in the logic model shows that measurement follows from the project's purpose. Citing the original psychometric article is expected. Report the instrument's scoring range as well.
DNP 705 Module 3 help from the desk
Instruments are often picked for familiarity rather than fit with the outcome. Start from your outcome variable. Another is citing reliability without saying what kind or what the numbers mean. Find the psychometric article itself. Consider language, literacy and time burden in your population. Write the intervention so clearly that a colleague could deliver it unchanged. If you would like help appraising an instrument for your project, send the article to the desk. Check whether a validated translation exists for the languages your patients speak, and note any gap honestly. Report coefficients exactly as published. Describe the intervention in numbered steps that another nurse could follow.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DNP 705 and Doctor of Nursing Practice sample papers
- DNP 705 Module 1: DNP Project Proposal Worksheet
- DNP 705 Module 2: DNP Project Logic Model
- DNP 705 Module 4: DNP Project Ethics Assignment
- DNP 705 Module 5: Methods Paper Part 1
- DNP 705 Module 6: DNP Project Budget Plan
- DNP 705 Module 7: DNP Project Sustainability Plan
- DNP 679 Module 6: Practice Paper Critique: Statistics in a Randomized Trial of Transitional Care
- DNP 716 Module 7: Leading Teams Executive Summary
- DNP 715 Module 5: SBAR Technology Recommendations
- DNP 673 Module 6: Sleep Wellness Reflection
DNP 705 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DNP 705 Module 3 sample paper?
The instrumentation and intervention assignment is above in full: the revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test appraised for reliability, validity and feasibility, with the intervention and data collection plan.
What is the DNP 705 instrumentation assignment?
Choosing an instrument from your literature review to measure an outcome and appraising its psychometric development, reliability and validity.
What is Kuder-Richardson 20?
A measure of internal consistency for tests with right-or-wrong items; values above about .70 are usually acceptable for group comparisons.
What is test-retest reliability?
The stability of scores when the same people complete an instrument twice over a short interval.
Do all DNP project outcomes need an instrument?
No. Clinical events such as treatment initiation are often measured from records; knowledge or attitudes usually need a validated instrument.