NR 539 Week 2 Logic Model Draft Example

Course	NR 539 Population Health II: Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation
Week	2
Paper type	Logic model draft
Length	About 1,130 words, 3 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	MSN, Population Health
Updated	September 2026

Free sample paper for NR 539 Week 2

Logic Model Draft: Up and Steady, a County Follow-Up Program After Lift-Assist Falls, Laid Out in Four Columns With Each Arrow Written as a Separate Promise, Its Assumption and the Evidence That Will Test It

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 539: Population Health II: Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title treats the arrows, not the boxes, as the substance of the model, because each arrow is a promise that can be checked on its own. Student APA 7 title page.

Purpose of the Model

This logic model describes Up and Steady, a two-year program funded by the state office on aging to follow up older adults in our rural county after they call the ambulance service because they have fallen and cannot get up. The county's needs assessment chose this group as its priority: 212 residents aged 65 or older had lift-assist calls last year, and 41 of them called three or more times. The model lays out the program's resources, activities, outputs and outcomes in four columns. Its real value lies in the arrows between the columns. Each arrow is a promise that if one thing happens, the next will follow. Each promise rests on an assumption, and each can be tested separately. The Kellogg Foundation's guide to logic models presents the logic model as a diagram of the reasoning behind a program, which makes its assumptions visible so that they can be examined (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). This draft writes the arrows out in words so that they cannot hide.

The Four Columns

Table 1 summarizes the model.

Table 1

Up and Steady Logic Model, Summary

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Outcomes
$148,000 over two years; 0.5 of a community paramedic; two trained class instructors; ambulance record data agreement; Area Agency on Aging handyman program; three class sites	Home visit within seven days of each lift-assist call; fall risk screen; home hazard check and minor modifications; medication list sent to primary care; referral to classes; monthly repeat-caller review; twice-weekly strength and balance classes	Number of visits; percentage of calls visited inside a week; screens completed; homes modified; referrals made; class sessions held; participants attending three-quarters of sessions	Short term: fewer home hazards, more participants in classes, primary care aware of falls. Intermediate: fewer repeat lift-assist calls; improved balance scores among class participants. Long term: fewer fall-related hospitalizations and hip fractures among older adults

Arrow 1: From Inputs to Activities

Promise. With half of a community paramedic's time, the program can visit every older adult who has a lift-assist call within seven days.

Assumption. The ambulance service had 318 lift-assist calls last year for residents aged 65 or older. Visiting each person once after their first call of the year, and again after any call more than three months later, means roughly 280 visits a year, or just over five a week. A visit takes about 75 minutes including travel in a rural county, so the workload is about seven hours a week, well within half a position. The assumption fails if calls rise sharply, as they have each year since 2022.

Test. Each month the program counts calls, counts visits and works out what fraction of calls were visited inside the seven-day window. If the share falls below 80% for two months, the program will review staffing.

Arrow 2: From Activities to Outputs

Promise. A visit will produce a completed fall risk screen, a home hazard check and at least one referral for most people visited.

Assumption. People will agree to the visit. The community paramedic will contact each person by telephone first, and some will decline. The screen uses questions and simple tests from STEADI, a federal fall prevention resource developed for health care providers that includes screening questions and functional assessments (Stevens & Phelan, 2013).

Test. Record of each contact attempt, acceptance or refusal and what was completed. If more than a third of people decline, the program will ask why and adjust how visits are offered.

Arrow 3: From Outputs to Short-Term Outcomes

Promise. Completed hazard checks will lead to fewer hazards in homes, and referrals will lead to more older adults attending strength and balance classes.

Assumption. The Area Agency on Aging's handyman program can install grab bars and night lights within two weeks, and people referred to classes can reach them. Transportation is a real barrier in our county, so two of the three class sites are churches in outlying towns.

Test. Hazard checklist repeated at a second visit after one month; class attendance matched to referral lists.

Arrow 4: From Short-Term to Intermediate Outcomes

Promise. Fewer hazards and regular exercise will lead to fewer repeat falls requiring lift assistance, and to better balance among class participants.

Assumption. This is the arrow with the strongest external evidence. A Cochrane review pooled more than a hundred trials and found that exercise cut the number of falls in community-dwelling older people by roughly a quarter (Sherrington et al., 2019). A randomized trial in social housing found that a community paramedic program reduced ambulance calls compared with control buildings (Agarwal et al., 2018). The assumption is that our program delivers enough of each to produce similar effects. People who attend only a few classes will gain little.

Test. Repeat lift-assist calls among people visited, compared with the year before the program; balance test scores at the start and after 24 weeks of classes.

Arrow 5: From Intermediate to Long-Term Outcomes

Promise. Fewer repeat falls and better balance will, over time, reduce fall-related hospitalizations and hip fractures among the county's older adults.

Assumption. This is the weakest arrow. The program will reach a few hundred people out of 14,200 older adults, and fall hospitalizations number about 160 to 170 a year from all causes. Even a real effect among participants may not be visible in county totals within two years.

Test. County fall hospitalizations and hip fractures will be tracked and reported, but the evaluation plan will not treat them as the main test of success in the grant period.

What the Model Does Not Show

The model shows a straight line from resources to outcomes. In practice, some older adults will decline visits, some modifications will be delayed, and some referrals will not lead to attendance. The model also leaves out influences the program cannot control, such as winter weather, which increases outdoor falls, and changes in primary care. These will be named in the evaluation plan as possible explanations for results. The draft will be reviewed with the ambulance crew leadership and the aging agency, since each of those two partners owns arrows the health department does not control, and they may see weaknesses in the assumptions that I cannot.

What this page is doingEach arrow is written as a promise with its assumption and a specific test, and the model admits that its last arrow is the weakest rather than implying that every step is equally certain.

References

Agarwal, G., Angeles, R., Pirrie, M., McLeod, B., Marzanek, F., Parascandalo, J., & Thabane, L. (2018). Evaluation of a community paramedicine health promotion and lifestyle risk assessment program for older adults who live in social housing: A cluster randomized trial. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(21), E638-E647. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170740

Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N. J., Wallbank, G. K., Tiedemann, A., Michaleff, Z. A., Howard, K., Clemson, L., Hopewell, S., & Lamb, S. E. (2019). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(1), Article CD012424. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2

Stevens, J. A., & Phelan, E. A. (2013). Development of STEADI: A fall prevention resource for health care providers. Health Promotion Practice, 14(5), 706-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912463576

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

The Chamberlain NR 539 Week 2 instructions

Building a logic model is this week's task. Prompts typically ask for a model showing inputs, activities, outputs and short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes for your program, with a narrative explaining the links. Treat each arrow between columns as a promise that can be checked separately. For each, state the assumption it rests on, with numbers where possible, and name the evidence that will test it. Draw external evidence into the arrows where it exists, and say where it does not. Be honest about which arrow is weakest. Mention influences the program cannot control. Present the columns in a table and the arrows in prose. Cite logic model guidance and program evidence in APA 7.

Inside the NR 539 Week 2 example

The draft opens by describing the program and the needs assessment behind it, then explains why the arrows matter more than the boxes, drawing on a foundation's logic model guide. Table 1 lays out the four columns. Five sections follow, one per arrow. The first calculates the paramedic's workload from last year's call volume. The second rests on people accepting visits and uses a federal fall screening resource. The third depends on the handyman program and transportation. The fourth draws on a Cochrane review of exercise and a trial of community paramedicine. The fifth admits that county hospitalizations may not move. A closing section names what the model leaves out.

NR 539 Week 2 rubric: what full points look like

Logic model rubrics usually reward complete and logically connected components, specific and measurable outputs and outcomes, a narrative that explains the links, attention to assumptions and alignment with evidence. Graders favor models in which the links are explained and testable, not simply drawn. Stating assumptions with numbers, such as workload calculations, shows planning depth. Identifying the weakest link demonstrates honesty and analytic maturity. Evidence applied to specific arrows supports the model's credibility. Naming external influences shows awareness of context. A clear table with an explanatory narrative usually meets the presentation criterion, and correct citations complete the evaluation. Where partners own parts of the model, noting that they reviewed it adds credibility.

Common NR 539 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common weakness is a model that lists items in four columns without explaining how one leads to the next. Write out the arrows. Another is outcomes so broad, such as improved health, that nothing could test them. Make them specific. Students also skip assumptions, which is where most programs actually fail. State them. Avoid long-term outcomes the program cannot plausibly reach in its timeframe unless you say so. Do not treat every link as equally certain; rank them. Check that each output can be counted from records you will have. Finally, share the draft with partners who own parts of it, since they will see weak assumptions you miss.

Get a NR 539 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Send the assignment instructions, the rubric and any template your section publishes, and a custom NR 539 example is written against them and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. If your classroom supplies a particular logic model layout, include it, since the columns and the labels differ between templates and the marking follows the template.

More NR 539 papers and MSN samples

NR 539 Week 2 questions, answered

Diagram, narrative, or both?

Both, in most sections, and the split of points between them is worth checking in the rubric before drafting. A common arrangement gives the diagram a smaller share and the narrative the rest, which surprises people who spent their evening on box alignment. If the classroom supplies a template, the diagram half is largely decided for you.

Is a logic model the same as a theory of change?

They overlap and many rubrics treat them loosely, but the useful distinction is that a logic model shows the columns and a theory of change explains why one column produces the next. A finished draft that includes both reads as complete; one that includes only boxes reads as an inventory of the program.

How many outcomes should the model carry?

Fewer than most drafts attempt. Two short term outcomes and one longer term outcome make a workable model; six of each make a list. Every outcome added is another arrow to justify and another measure the evaluation plan will have to pay for, and the later weeks of this course make that cost visible.

Where can I find a free NR 539 Week 2 sample paper?

The five-arrow Up and Steady logic model above is the full NR 539 Week 2 sample, which anyone can read. If you need a model for a different program, send us its resources and activities and a draft with written arrows can be prepared.

Why write out the arrows in an NR 539 logic model?

Because each arrow is a promise that can fail on its own. The sample states the promise, assumption and test for each of five arrows, and names the last one as the weakest.