| Course | DNP 852A Project Manuscript |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Limitations section |
| Length | About 1,005 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 852A Module 3
Which Way Would It Tilt? Limitations of a Pediatric Asthma Program and Their Effect on Its Conclusions
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 852A: Project Manuscript
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Which Way Would It Tilt? Limitations of a Pediatric Asthma Program and Their Effect on Its Conclusions
A limitations section that only lists weaknesses tells the reader little. What matters is how each weakness could have changed the results, in which direction and by how much, and what that means for the conclusions. This paper writes that section for my DNP project, the nurse asthma visit whose results showed better control and less acute care. It presents eight limitations with the likely direction of bias, discusses the most important in detail and shows how the conclusions were worded to fit them.
Eight Limitations at a Glance
The table lists each limitation, the direction in which it would most likely move the results and its effect on the conclusions.
| Limitation | Likely direction of bias | Effect on conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| No concurrent comparison group | Toward larger apparent benefit | Cause cannot be established |
| Regression to the mean | Toward larger apparent benefit | Part of the within-child change is expected anyway |
| Attention from being in a program | Toward larger apparent benefit | Some change may not persist without the program |
| New controller prescriptions | Toward larger apparent benefit for the nurse visit alone | Effect is of a pathway, not the visit alone |
| Season: follow-up ran into autumn | Toward smaller apparent benefit | Results may understate the effect |
| Outside acute visits found partway through | Toward smaller apparent fall in acute care | Acute care result may be conservative |
| Missing paired data for 13 children | Uncertain; sensitivity analyses showed little change | Conclusion robust to plausible assumptions |
| One clinic, 12 weeks | None in direction; limits generalizability and durability | Results may not apply elsewhere or last |
The Design Limitations
The most serious limitations come from the design. With no similar children followed in parallel without the program, its effect cannot be told apart from improvement that might have come regardless. Harris et al. (2006) describe single-group before-and-after studies as the weakest of the quasi-experimental designs for this reason, and the project's two supporting comparisons only partly make up for it. Regression to the mean is a specific form of the problem. Children tend to be seen, and so enrolled, when symptoms are worse, and a group selected on high values will show lower values later even without any intervention (Barnett et al., 2005). The project could not require two poor readings at separate times, as a blood pressure project might, because asthma control questionnaires cover the previous four weeks, so some of the improvement is likely regression.
Co-Interventions and Attention
Nine children started a controller medicine during follow-up, usually after the nurse identified poor control and flagged it to the clinician. That is part of the program's intended pathway, but it means the results describe the pathway, not the nurse visit alone. Being watched can itself change behavior, and enrolled families may simply have been more careful. Neither effect can be removed from the results, so the conclusions refer to the program as a whole, delivered in a clinic where clinicians responded to nurses' findings.
Limitations That Make the Results Conservative
Two limitations push the other way. Follow-up for most children ran from late summer into autumn, when viral infections and the return to school usually make asthma worse, so seasonal change works against the program. And outside emergency visits were captured fully only after the regional exchange was added, so acute visits early in the project may be undercounted; since baseline visits were counted retrospectively with the exchange, the fall in acute care may be understated rather than overstated. Recognizing these helps balance the design limitations above.
Limitations of Delivery
Delivery also varied. The earliest enrollees, those seen in weeks one to four, got the program while its supporting steps were still being repaired, and they held correct technique less often at 12 weeks than those enrolled later. The overall results therefore blend an early, weaker version of the program with a later, stronger one. That would tend to make the results understate what the mature program achieves, although the difference in control between cohorts was small enough to be chance. The student's presence as project lead may also have raised staff effort in ways that will not continue, a limitation the sustainability plan addresses directly.
Measurement and Missing Data
The childhood and adolescent questionnaires use one threshold yet different scales, so they were reported separately and combined only through the cut point, a use supported by the childhood test's validation (Liu et al., 2007). Thirteen children lacked paired scores. Sensitivity analyses, including one that assumed every missing child was poorly controlled at follow-up, did not change the conclusion, which limits the concern that missing data produced the result.
Generalizability and Durability
The project took place in one pediatric clinic with a largely publicly insured population and two languages, and it followed children for 12 weeks. Results may differ in clinics with other populations, staffing or payer mix, and the technique findings suggest that some benefit could fade without continued reinforcement. The conclusions therefore apply to similar safety-net clinics over the short term.
A one-year follow-up would address durability.
How the Conclusions Were Worded
The limitations shaped the language of the conclusions. The chapter says the program was followed by improvement and was associated with fewer acute visits, not that it caused them. It describes the effect as likely smaller in routine use than observed. And it recommends continued measurement and a stronger design for spread. Wording the conclusions this way lets the committee accept them without overlooking the design's weaknesses.
Conclusion
The project's main limitations, the lack of a concurrent comparison, regression to the mean, attention and co-interventions, would all tend to enlarge the apparent benefit, while season and late capture of outside visits would shrink it. Missing data had little effect. The conclusions are worded to match: the program was followed by meaningful improvement in one clinic over 12 weeks, and a stronger test is warranted.
The chair has reviewed the table and agreed with the direction assigned to each limitation.
It is ready for the committee.
References
Barnett, A. G., van der Pols, J. C., & Dobson, A. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299
Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1749
Liu, A. H., Zeiger, R., Sorkness, C., Mahr, T., Ostrom, N., Burgess, S., Rosenzweig, J. C., & Manjunath, R. (2007). Development and cross-sectional validation of the Childhood Asthma Control Test. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 119(4), 817-825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2006.12.662
DNP 852A Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
Limitations are the focus here. Aspen's catalog places the drafting of chapter five in DNP 852A, and with the prompt reserved for enrolled students, the sample works from that catalog statement. A limitations assignment usually asks you to identify the weaknesses of your design, measurement, sample and implementation, and to explain how each affects your conclusions. Your chair may ask for a table, for the threats to validity by name, or for a statement on generalizability. Some programs combine limitations with recommendations for future work. Check the page limit and the sources expected, and plan to cite at least one methods source that explains the threats your design faces.
Inside the DNP 852A Module 3 example
Ten sections and about 1,010 words make up the example. The introduction argues that limitations matter for their effect, not their number. A table sets out eight limitations with the likely direction of bias. The design section explains why a single-group design cannot establish cause and why regression to the mean is likely here. Co-interventions and attention are discussed together. A section identifies the limitations that make the results conservative. Limitations of delivery describe the difference between early and later enrollees. Measurement and missing data cover the two questionnaires and the sensitivity analyses. Generalizability and durability are addressed, a section shows how the wording of conclusions was shaped, and the conclusion balances the biases.
DNP 852A Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Committees grade a limitations section on honesty, analysis and consequence. Honesty comes from naming the design's most serious weakness first. Analysis is the table's contribution: each limitation carries a direction of bias, and the margin notes explain how that separates threats from limitations that make results conservative. Consequence is shown in the final sections, where the wording of the conclusions changes to fit the limits, which is the step most papers skip. Citing a methods source for design threats and one for regression to the mean supports the scholarship criterion. The final points cover organization and the APA table, with the instrument validation study cited correctly.
DNP 852A Module 3 help from the desk
The most common error is a limitations section that is a list of apologies, such as small sample and single site, with no analysis. Say how each affects the results. Students also leave out limitations that work against their findings, which makes the section look one-sided. Include them. Another mistake is naming a threat without explaining why it applies, such as mentioning regression to the mean without linking it to how participants were enrolled. Explain the mechanism. Papers often fail to connect limitations to the conclusions, so the chapter still claims cause. Reword the conclusions. Finally, avoid limitations that belong to any study, such as saying more research is needed, without saying what research and why.
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 Aspen 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 852A and DNP sample papers
- DNP 852A Module 1: Planning the Final Chapter
- DNP 852A Module 2: Interpreting the Findings Against the Literature
- DNP 852A Module 4: Implications for Practice, Policy and Education
- DNP 852A Module 5: A Sustainability Plan for After the Student Leaves
- DNP 852A Module 6: Checking Alignment Across the Manuscript
- DNP 852A Module 7: The Structured Abstract
- DNP 852A Module 8: The Completed Final Chapter
- DNP 850B Module 7: Ethics, Human Subjects Training and Review
- DNP 820 Module 4: Full Practice Authority Debate
- DNP 810 Module 4: PDSA Design and Family of Measures
- DNP845 Module 2: Philosophy of Science Paper
DNP 852A Module 3 questions, answered
What does DNP 852A Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 852A description covers completing chapter five, so a limitations section explaining how weaknesses affect the conclusions is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
How should I write limitations for a DNP project?
For each limitation, say which way it would likely move the results and how that affects your conclusions. Include limitations that make results conservative as well as those that inflate them.
What is regression to the mean in a DNP project?
When participants are enrolled because a measure is unusually poor, their next measurement tends to be better even without any intervention. It makes single-group before-and-after changes look larger than the true effect.
Where can I find a free DNP 852A Module 3 sample paper?
This page reproduces the full limitations section, table and margin notes included, for anyone to read at no cost. It is the third DNP 852A sample on the pediatric asthma project and sits between the interpretation and implications samples.
How many limitations should DNP 852A Module 3 discuss?
Discuss every limitation that could change your conclusions, often six to ten, and say which way each would likely move the results. A table helps the committee see them at once.