| Course | MSW 515 Advanced Social Work Research |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Research question write-up |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 515 Week 2
Logic Model and Research Question for the Family Education Course: A Chain From Peer Teachers to Problem Solving at Home, the One Arrow the Question Tests, an Outcome Design Declared and the Assumptions Written Down
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 515: Advanced Social Work Research
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Logic Model and Research Question for the Family Education Course: A Chain From Peer Teachers to Problem Solving at Home, the One Arrow the Question Tests, an Outcome Design Declared and the Assumptions Written Down
The Model
The model follows published logic model guidance (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004): what the course uses, what happens in it, what can be counted and what should change.
Table 1
Logic Model for the Family Education Course
| What the course uses | What happens | What is counted | Change within eight weeks | Change later |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two trained peer teachers; course manual; evening room; childcare stipend | Eight weekly sessions on illness, medication, crisis, communication and self-care | Sessions held; relatives attending six or more; handouts given | More illness knowledge; more problem-focused coping; less distress | Fewer family crises; relatives stay involved in care |
Note. Note. Outputs are counts of what was delivered; only the two right-hand columns describe change in relatives.
The Arrow the Question Sits On
The question tests the arrow from activities to one short-term outcome, problem-focused coping, because that is where the strongest prior evidence sits. In the Maryland trial, the peer-taught course improved empowerment and illness knowledge, which the authors treated as problem-focused coping, but did not reduce subjective burden (Dixon et al., 2011).
Research question: Among relatives who enroll in the January through June 2027 cohorts, do those who attend the course show a larger gain in family empowerment from enrollment to the eighth week than relatives waiting for the next cohort over the same weeks?
Process or Outcome
This is an outcome evaluation. A process question, such as whether teachers deliver all eight sessions as written, matters and will be tracked with a fidelity checklist, but it is not the question.
Declaring the type matters for later weeks. An outcome question needs a comparison and a measure of change; a process question needs records of delivery. Mixing the two would leave the spring data unable to answer either. The fidelity record still earns its place, because if the course group shows no gain, the first thing the director will ask is whether the course was taught as written, and the checklist will answer that before anyone blames the model.
Assumptions Written Down
The model assumes relatives can attend evenings, that the peer teachers deliver the manual as written, that empowerment can be measured with an instrument written for parents of children and adapted for relatives of adults, and that eight weeks is long enough for coping to shift. Each assumption is a place the chain could break.
Feasible at Agency Scale
Four cohorts a year at about 12 relatives each gives roughly 24 course participants and a similar number waiting across two cohorts. That is enough to describe change and compare groups, but not to detect small differences with confidence. The question is sized to what the center can collect without a research grant.
The data the question needs already pass through the center's hands at enrollment and at the last session, so collecting them adds forms, not visits. That is the practical test of feasibility here: no relative has to come in on an extra night.
References
Dixon, L. B., Lucksted, A., Medoff, D. R., Burland, J., Stewart, B., Lehman, A. F., Fang, L. J., Sturm, V., Brown, C., & Murray-Swank, A. (2011). Outcomes of a randomized study of a peer-taught Family-to-Family Education Program for mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 62(6), 591-597. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0591
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Reading the MSW 515 Week 2 instructions
The second assignment pairs a logic model with an evaluation question. The model should show what the program uses, what practitioners do, what can be counted as delivered and what is supposed to change in participants. It can be a diagram or a table, as long as a reader could challenge each link. The question then sits on one specific arrow of that model. Name the population, the period and the outcome, and say whether you are asking about process, meaning delivery, or outcome, meaning change. Write the assumptions that hold the chain together, since each is a point where it could break. Finally, show that the question is feasible at the size of an ordinary agency without special funding. Keep the question and the model consistent.
How the MSW 515 Week 2 example is put together
Table 1 sets out the model: two peer teachers, a manual and a room as inputs; eight sessions as activities; sessions held and relatives attending six or more as outputs; knowledge, coping and lower distress as short-term outcomes; fewer crises and lasting involvement as longer-term ones. The next section explains why the question tests the arrow to problem-focused coping, citing Dixon et al. (2011), and states a comparison between course participants and relatives on the waiting list from January through June 2027. The paper declares an outcome evaluation and explains why a fidelity checklist is still kept. A section lists four assumptions, including an empowerment instrument written for parents of children. The final section estimates about 24 relatives per group and admits that small differences may go undetected.
MSW 515 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like
Most of the marks in this write-up depend on agreement between the model and the question. A model that promises a change in behavior paired with a question about satisfaction loses heavily, because every later week inherits the mismatch. Faculty then check the outcome column for disguised activities: counts of sessions belong with outputs. The question should name its population, period and outcome, and the paper should declare process or outcome. Written assumptions earn credit because they show where the chain might fail. Feasibility at agency scale is assessed realistically, and a question requiring a grant is marked down. Sources supporting the chosen arrow strengthen the paper, and APA style applies to the model's source as well as to studies.
MSW 515 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The write-up that loses the most asks a question its own model never set up, such as satisfaction when the model promises changed behavior. Next is an outcome column filled with outputs, so that twelve sessions attended is presented as a result. Another common problem is a question about the whole program rather than one link in it, which no single measure can answer. Some papers also leave assumptions unstated, so there is nowhere to look when results disappoint. If your program is different, perhaps a youth mentoring match or a housing case management team, the same structure works: model, one arrow, a precise question, a declared type, assumptions and feasibility. A version built for your program would keep the outcome named in the question identical to the outcome in the model.
Get a MSW-515 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions with any diagram template your section issues, and a custom example is built on a program of your choosing and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Name the service you have in mind and the model and question are written around it.
More MSW 515 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 515 Week 1: Program to Evaluate Post
- MSW 515 Week 3: Literature Matrix
- MSW 515 Week 4: Evaluation Design Plan
- MSW 515 Week 5: Single-system Design Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 6: Data Analysis Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 7: Program Evaluation Plan
- MSW 515 Week 8: Findings Presentation
- MSW 516 Week 2: Theory Scope Brief
- MSW 514 Week 2: Adulthood Transition Stage Analysis
- MSW 517 Week 2: Practice Frame Inventory
- MSW 513 Week 2: Kin Licensing Policy Analysis
MSW 515 Week 2 questions, answered
Does the logic model have to be a diagram?
Many sections accept a table, and some require the drawn version. Either way the narrative matters more than the graphics, since the marks attach to whether the columns connect. A model that reads cleanly across as a table will read cleanly as a diagram; one that only looks tidy because boxes hide the gaps will not survive a reader following the arrows.
How specific should the evaluation question be?
Specific enough that two people reading it would collect the same data. Name who is being asked about, what the service does to them, what is expected to change, and over what period. If a sentence would still make sense with a different program dropped into it, it is not yet a question, it is a topic.
What counts as an outcome rather than an output?
An output is something the program produced and can count, such as sessions run or families enrolled. An outcome is a change in the people served: fewer missed school days, a housing tenancy sustained, a measured drop in conflict at home. Outputs prove the service happened. Only outcomes speak to whether it did anything, which is what the question has to reach.
Where can I find a free MSW 515 Week 2 sample paper?
This page holds a full MSW 515 Week 2 logic model and research question for judging a relatives' course run by peer teachers, including the model table and margin notes.
Which arrow of the model does the MSW 515 Week 2 sample test?
The link from course sessions to problem-focused coping, measured as family empowerment, because that is where the trial of the same model found its clearest effect.