Running head: PEER CRITIQUE: WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM

Peer Critique: Weight Loss Program Using the Health Promotion Model
Salena Barnes
Georgia College and State University

PEER CRITIQUE: WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM

Peer Critique: Weight Loss Program Using the Health Promotion Model
Today there are various theories utilized to guide practices, as well as guide development
of programs. Recently individuals were required to select a target audience for a program and
support the development with the utilization of a theory. The purpose of this paper is to analyze
an individuals program development paper based on criteria noted in the rubric used to grade the
paper.
An Overall Evaluation of the Goodness of Fit of Selected Theory
The author did a great job in providing information on the theory and its major concepts
(Alligood, 2014). However, in the introduction, the author could have provided more detail on
the target population. The paper utilized supporting references throughout. The author did a
good job on the origin of theory; however, they failed to identify the type of theory utilized
(Alligood, 2014). Therefore, according to the grading rubric they would receive a 13.5.
Quality of the Proposed Program
The purpose of the program was to utilize the Health Promotion Model as a framework
for an employee-based, weight loss program (White, 2014). The goal of this 12-week employee
program is to achieve loss of body fat among overweight and obese employees by addressing
changes in dietary habits, physical activity, and behavioral modification (White, 2014). The
quality of the proposed program was excellent. According to the grading rubric, the author
would receive the maximum points allowed.
Use of Theory to Guide the Program
The author did an excellent job in providing an overview of the theory to guide the
program. The author provided detail of the 12-week employee program with greater than eight

PEER CRITIQUE: WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM

current supporting references (White, 2014). In addition, the author utilized Penders theory as a
designed to provide health care providers with a framework for assessing motivational influences
on their patients decision-making processes. Moreover, the model supports the idea that
behavioral change is internally motivated. The author supported the fact that participants must
commit to a plan of action and obtain strategies for addressing external influences in order for
the weight loss program to be successful. Penders theory states ones intention to carry out the
steps needed to achieve success and perception of the ability to complete a task, as well as
outside influences can have an effect on success of behavioral change (Alligood, 2014). The
program group fosters and encourages individuals to work towards their common goal of weight
loss (White, 2014). Therefore, according to the rubric the author would receive 50 points on this
portion of the paper.
Mechanic of Writing
The paper contained a few typing, APA errors, and was missing punctuation (commas).
The title was not vertically centered on the paper (Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association, 2010; White, 2014). The software headings where not utilized,
therefore, the subheadings did not appear in the navigation panel. In addition, capitalization was
misused when discussing the theory in the introduction. The author also used a heading for the
introduction, which is not required (Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association, 2010). A couple of sentences needed restructuring, was informal, and did not read
well. For example, the last complete sentence on page three does not read well and is informal.
The author wrote, to turn to instead of to turn the. The last sentence on page eight that
continues onto page nine is informal. Errors noted with abbreviations, for example 5K, and
then later noted 5 k. On page eight, the second sentence following the subheading contained a

PEER CRITIQUE: WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM

grammatical error and the third sentence contained a split infinitive. In addition, on page eleven,
citation missing a space (Houston, 2012) and only one space noted before the next to last
sentence. The references contained spacing errors, missing volume numbers, and page numbers.
The references that begin with Stubbs and Houston should have doi instead of http. The
reference beginning with Linnan for example is missing the volume and page number. In
addition, the reference beginning with workplace does not make not include the CDC in the
citation (Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010; White, 2014).
Therefore, the author would receive 7.5 points.
Organization of the Paper
The paper was well organized and easily read. The purpose of the paper was clear as
well as the topics that developed throughout the paper. There were no subheadings to guide the
reader, but the paper was still clear and concise. The conclusion provided a summary of key
points of the paper. Therefore, according to the rubric the author would receive 10 points on this
portion of the paper. The author would receive 96% according to the grading rubric.

PEER CRITIQUE: WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM

References

Alligood, M. R. (2014). Nursing theorists and their work (8th ed.). St. Loius, MO.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (2010). (6th ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
White, L. (2014). Health promotion model as a framework for an employee weight loss program.