| Course | DNP 899 DNP Project Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Scholarship analysis |
| Length | About 1,007 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 899 Module 4
More Than a Good Deed: A Maternal Depression Screening Project as Nursing Scholarship
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 899: DNP Project Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
More Than a Good Deed: A Maternal Depression Screening Project as Nursing Scholarship
Improving care at one practice is valuable, but it is not automatically scholarship. A practice doctorate is expected to produce work that is systematic, grounded in evidence, public and open to critique, so that others can learn from it and judge it. This paper makes the case that my DNP project meets that standard. In brief, the project made screening mothers for depression a routine part of their babies' checkups and gave those who screened positive a same-day conversation with the practice's social worker. The paper examines the project through a well-known framework of scholarship, applies common tests of scholarly work, lists the products that make it public and maps it to the scholarship domain of the competency framework nursing schools now use. It draws on the manuscript and the project log.
Four Kinds of Scholarship
Boyer (1990) argued that academic scholarship includes not only the discovery of new knowledge but also its integration across fields, its application to real problems and the teaching that passes it on. Nursing has used this framework to recognize practice-based work, and it fits a DNP project well. The project's main contribution is to the scholarship of application: it took established evidence on screening and referral and applied it in a setting that had not used it, measuring what happened. It also involved integration, bringing together pediatric, obstetric and behavioral health perspectives on a problem none of them owned alone. It involved teaching, in the training of medical assistants, clinicians and the social worker to a shared protocol. It made only a small contribution to discovery, mainly in its descriptive findings about who declined screening and how quickly mothers were connected to care.
Tests of Scholarly Work
Several tests distinguish scholarship from good practice. A widely used set holds that the work should have clear goals, rest on adequate preparation in the literature, use appropriate methods, report significant results, be presented effectively and be reflected on critically (Glassick et al., 1997). The project had a stated aim and question. Its preparation included a review of screening accuracy, in which a meta-analysis of individual participant data guided the choice of a cut-off of 10 on the scale (Levis et al., 2020). Its methods were chosen for a single-site improvement project and reported under a recognized guideline for improvement reports (Ogrinc et al., 2016). Its results were significant clinically, particularly the connection of three in four positive-screening mothers to care. Its presentation includes a manuscript, a poster and an organizational report. And critical reflection appears in the manuscript's limitations and in separate reflective writing.
Making the Work Public
Scholarship must be public so that it can be used and critiqued. The project's products are the final manuscript, deposited in the university's repository; a poster planned for a regional pediatric nursing conference; an article in preparation for a peer-reviewed journal; and a practice report, with the protocol and training materials, given to the practice and to two other practices in the same health system. Each product exposes the work to a different audience, from reviewers who will test its methods to clinicians who will test whether it can be copied.
The practice report is written in plain language so that staff who took part can read how their work was described.
Critique Along the Way
Scholarship invites critique, and the project received it at several points before the final defense. The proposal was reviewed by the committee and the university's review board. The protocol was reviewed by the practice's medical director and social worker, who changed the threshold for calling the social worker urgently. The poster abstract went through a conference's peer review. And the practice's own clinicians questioned the approach during the weekly huddles, which led to the revised explanation of the pediatric role. Each of these critiques improved the work, and each is recorded in the project's log, which is itself part of the scholarly record.
Mapping to the Scholarship Domain
The national competency framework includes scholarship for the nursing discipline as one of its ten domains, covering the generation, synthesis, translation, application and dissemination of knowledge (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2021). The table maps the project's elements to those activities.
| Scholarly activity | Project element |
|---|---|
| Synthesis | Review of screening accuracy, prevalence and referral models in chapter two |
| Translation | A professional recommendation turned into a protocol, a script and a chart field |
| Application | Screening at 1,042 visits with a warm handoff pathway |
| Evaluation | Screening rate, positive rate, connection to care and rescreening measured and reported |
| Dissemination | Manuscript, poster, article in preparation and practice report |
| Ethics in scholarship | Review board determination, confidentiality of mothers' results and honest reporting of limits |
What Makes It Nursing Scholarship
The project is nursing scholarship not only because a nurse led it but because of the questions it asked. It focused on the family rather than the patient alone, on the space between visits where nurses often work, and on the routines that let a team act on evidence. The follow-up calls, the attention to mothers' fears about how results would be used and the design of the handoff reflect nursing's concern with how care is experienced, not only with whether it is delivered.
Limits of the Claim
The project's scholarship is modest in scope. It does not establish new knowledge about depression or screening; its methods cannot show that the program caused mothers to improve; and it describes one practice. Its value lies in showing, carefully and publicly, how an accepted recommendation was put into practice and what happened, which is the kind of knowledge practice needs and research rarely provides.
Conclusion
The project qualifies as scholarship because it is systematic, grounded in evidence, reported under a recognized standard, public through several products and critically examined. Its main contribution is to the scholarship of application, with smaller contributions to integration and teaching, and it maps clearly to the scholarship domain of the national competency framework.
That is the standard the defense will test.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass.
Levis, B., Negeri, Z., Sun, Y., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D. (2020). Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ, 371, Article m4022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4022
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986-992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
Reading the DNP 899 Module 4 assignment instructions
Scholarship is among the capstone expectations the Aspen catalog lists for DNP 899, and since the module prompt is kept in the classroom, that expectation is the basis for this example. A scholarship assignment usually asks you to explain how your project meets the standards of scholarly work and how it maps to the competencies of a practice doctorate. Some chairs name the framework of scholarship or the competency set to be used. Some programs ask for a list of scholarly products with their status. Check the length and source requirements, and be ready to say which kind of scholarship your project represents and why. Keep a running list of your products and their status during the program so this paper is easy to assemble.
Inside the DNP 899 Module 4 example
Nine sections share about 1,000 words. The introduction distinguishes scholarship from good practice. Four kinds of scholarship applies a classic framework and weighs the project's contribution to each. Tests of scholarly work applies six standards in turn, including preparation in the literature and appropriate methods. Making the work public lists the manuscript, poster, article and practice report. Critique along the way describes reviews by the committee, the site and a conference. A table maps the project to activities in the scholarship domain of the competency framework. What makes it nursing scholarship explains the discipline's perspective, and limits of the claim close the argument.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 899 Module 4 rubric
A scholarship paper is typically graded on argument, evidence and self-awareness. The argument is structured around a named framework and explicit standards, and the margin notes explain how applying standards one by one turns a claim into something checkable. Evidence comes from concrete products and documented critique rather than assertions. Self-awareness shows in identifying application as the main contribution and in the section on limits. Mapping to the competency framework links the paper to program outcomes. What remains depends on accurate APA citations for two books, the competency framework, the reporting guideline and the accuracy meta-analysis.
DNP 899 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often claim their project is scholarship because it was hard work or improved care. Scholarship requires that the work be systematic, grounded, public and open to critique; show each. Another common mistake is overstating the contribution to discovery, when most DNP projects apply existing knowledge. Say so. Papers also list products that are only planned as if they were complete. Give each one's status. Some students map to competencies without evidence, repeating the framework's language. Tie each activity to something in the project. Finally, include critique you received. Scholarship improves through review, and showing how it did strengthens your case. Mention reviewers and colleagues who critiqued the work, since that critique is part of what makes it scholarship.
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 899 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 899 Module 1: Revising the Final Chapter After Feedback
- DNP 899 Module 2: Clinical Significance Beyond P Values
- DNP 899 Module 3: Interprofessional Collaboration: What Worked and What Did Not
- DNP 899 Module 5: Leadership Development: Decisions and Conflicts
- DNP 899 Module 6: A Toolkit for the Organization and a Brief for the Profession
- DNP 899 Module 7: The Defense Presentation
- DNP 899 Module 8: Final Reflection on Growth
- DNP845 Module 5: Theory Concept Mapping Paper
- DNP855 Module 6: Stakeholder Analysis
- DNP850 Module 3: Practice Scholarship vs Research Paper
- DNP880 Module 7: Final DNP Project Paper
DNP 899 Module 4 questions, answered
What does DNP 899 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 899 description asks students to demonstrate scholarship, so a paper presenting the project as scholarship mapped to doctoral competencies is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
Is a DNP project scholarship?
It can be when it is systematic, grounded in evidence, uses appropriate methods, is made public through products others can use and critique, and is reflected on critically. Most DNP projects are scholarship of application.
What is the scholarship of application?
Scholarship that applies existing knowledge to real problems and evaluates the result. It is the category most DNP projects fit, alongside integration and teaching.
Where can I find a free DNP 899 Module 4 sample paper?
This page holds the complete scholarship paper with its mapping table and notes, free for anyone to read. It sits in the middle of the DNP 899 series on the maternal depression screening capstone.
Is my DNP 899 Module 4 project scholarship?
It is if it has clear goals, rests on the literature, uses appropriate methods, reports meaningful results, is made public through products others can critique and is reflected on critically. Most DNP projects are scholarship of application.