Stage six of NR-662 is where the numbers arrive and the writing gets harder, because a results section is judged on restraint. You report what the outcome, process and balancing measures did, you display them in a form that shows change over time rather than two averages, and you keep every interpretation out of the section until the discussion. Overclaiming here is the most expensive habit in capstone writing. Your section may print this as NR 662 or NR662; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR-662 Week 6 asks for
Suppose the project added a postpartum depression screening prompt at two-month well-child visits in a family practice. Baseline over six weeks: eleven of thirty-eight eligible visits with a documented, scored screening. After the change, over five weeks: twenty-six of forty-one. The temptation is to write that the intervention increased screening by more than thirty percentage points and move on. The work of this stage is to resist that sentence long enough to ask what else was true. Did the process measure show the prompt actually firing. Did visit volume change. Did one provider account for most of the movement. Did anything else in the practice change in the same window.
Improvement results are usually displayed over time rather than as before-and-after pairs, because a run of weekly points shows whether a shift is a genuine change in the process or the kind of swing the process produced anyway. If your baseline weeks ran between twenty and forty percent and your post-change weeks run between fifty-five and seventy, that pattern is far more persuasive than two summary numbers, and it is also more honest, because it shows the reader the noise you are working against.
The written result also has to include the measures nobody wants to report. Process measures that show low delivery. Balancing measures that moved in the wrong direction. Missing weeks. A results section that reports only the outcome measure, and only its most flattering summary, is the pattern graders in a capstone course are specifically watching for. Where a section runs a discussion at this stage, it typically asks you to share a preliminary finding. Post it as final copy with the counts attached, since Canvas responses do not reopen and a number posted loosely is one you will be asked about.
Where the boundary sits in a results stage. The 144 clinical hours, the immersion, the data collection you personally carried out at the site and every relationship there remain yours alone. Hour logs, encounter counts, site paperwork, signatures and any evaluation completed about you are your own record, and they are never drafted, reconstructed or estimated with help from anyone. The written layer is what a manual can address: how to organize a results section, how to display change over time, how to report an inconvenient number without either hiding it or apologizing for it. All data reaching the page is de-identified and reported in aggregate.
The NR-662 Week 6 method, step by step
Six moves for writing results that a reviewer will trust.
-
Report the denominator before the proportion, every time
Twenty-six of forty-one eligible visits, then the percentage if you want it. In small ambulatory samples the count carries the meaning and the percentage carries an illusion of precision the sample cannot support.
-
Plot the measure across time before you summarize it
Weekly or biweekly points across baseline and post-change periods, with the date of the intervention marked. Look at the picture first. A shift that is obvious on a run chart rarely needs statistical rescue, and one that is invisible there will not be rescued by a summary average.
-
Report the process measure beside the outcome
Delivery and result belong in the same paragraph, because their combination is the finding. High delivery with no outcome change means the idea did not work. Low delivery with no outcome change means it was never tested.
-
Show the balancing measure whichever way it moved
If visit length grew or another task slipped, that is a result. Reporting it costs a sentence and buys the credibility of everything else in the section, because a reviewer who finds a hidden trade-off stops believing the rest.
-
Account for every missing observation
Weeks with no data, encounters excluded, charts unavailable. Say how many and why. Silent gaps read as selection, and selection is the criticism that most damages a single-site result.
-
Keep interpretation out until the discussion
The results section says what happened. Because, therefore, suggests and demonstrates all belong two sections later. Writing a clean results section is largely an act of deleting the explanatory clauses you wanted to add.
A layout and word budget for a capstone results section
Our frame for a results write-up, sized for roughly 1,100 to 1,400 words plus figures and tables. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your scoring guide outranks it wherever they disagree.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Sample and periods | Eligible encounters in each period, dates of the baseline and post-change windows, exclusions with counts. | 170 to 210 |
| Outcome measure | Counts and proportions for each period, the direction and size of change, no explanation attached. | 230 to 280 |
| Time-series display | The figure and a plain description of the pattern, including variation inside each period. | 200 to 240 |
| Process measures | Delivery counts by day or encounter, with any pattern in when the intervention did and did not run. | 180 to 220 |
| Balancing measure | What was watched, what it showed, and how confident the data source allows you to be about it. | 130 to 170 |
| Data completeness | Missing observations, unavailable records and any change in how data were captured mid-project. | 140 to 180 |
Evidence craft for reporting improvement data
Choose the display that matches the data you have. A run chart with weekly points suits most single-site ambulatory projects. Bar charts of two averages hide everything that makes improvement data interpretable. If your volume forces monthly points and you only have four, say so and let the small number of points limit the claim rather than the chart flatter it.
Label figures so they stand alone. Title, axis labels with units, denominators visible, and a marker showing when the change began. A figure a reader can understand without the surrounding paragraph is worth several paragraphs, and in the poster stage it becomes the centerpiece.
Use cautious verbs and keep them consistent. Increased, rose, was higher in the post-change period. Not improved, achieved or drove. The verb choice in a results section is graded, because it is where students most often smuggle a causal claim into a descriptive sentence.
Report subgroup patterns only if you planned to look. If one provider accounts for most of the change, that is worth reporting and worth flagging as an observation rather than an analysis. Slicing the data repeatedly until something reaches significance is a recognized error, and in a capstone it usually announces itself through a subgroup nobody mentioned in the measurement plan.
Keep aggregation tight enough to protect people. In a small practice, a cell with two patients can identify them, especially combined with a clinic day or a provider. Aggregate up until no cell could plausibly point to an individual, and say in the section that you did so.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- Percentages without counts. A jump from twenty-nine to sixty-three percent means one thing across four hundred visits and another across sixteen.
- Two-point comparisons. Before and after averages cannot distinguish a real shift from the variation your process was producing anyway.
- Causal language in results. The intervention increased screening is a discussion sentence written six pages early, and graders mark it consistently.
- Missing data left silent. Gaps a reader can see in a figure but not in the text read as concealment even when they are simply oversight.
- The balancing measure quietly dropped. A measure defined in the plan and absent from the results is one of the most conspicuous omissions a reviewer can find.
Before you submit
- Every proportion appears with its numerator and denominator
- The outcome is displayed over time with the intervention point marked
- Process measures appear beside the outcome, not in an appendix
- The balancing measure is reported whichever way it moved
- All missing or excluded observations are counted and explained
- No sentence in the section explains why the numbers moved
Writing NR-662 results this week?
Send the scoring guide and your aggregate data out of Canvas. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours with counts reported before proportions, the measure displayed across time and interpretation held back for the discussion, and revisions run until the grade lands. Your hours and your site relationships stay entirely yours.