Health inquiry and research process: WACE Year 12 Health Studies Unit 4
“Apply the stages of the health inquiry process to investigate a health issue, analyse data and plan evidence-based health promotion action”
The health inquiry process is a structured way to investigate a health issue: plan and frame a question, collect data from primary and secondary sources, analyse and interpret it, draw evidence-based conclusions, and use those conclusions to plan health promotion action and advocacy. WACE asks you to apply the stages, judge the quality of data and methods, and turn findings into justified action.
What this dot point is asking
WACE wants you to use the inquiry process as a tool, not recite it. A strong answer applies the relevant stage to the scenario, evaluates the reliability and validity of data, and links conclusions to a planned action. Marks reward correct application and judgement about evidence.
The stages of the health inquiry process
The process begins with planning: identifying a health issue, framing a focused inquiry question, and deciding what data are needed and how to collect them ethically. Data collection follows, drawing on primary sources (data the investigator gathers, such as surveys, interviews or observations) and secondary sources (existing data, such as government statistics, reports and research). Analysis and interpretation involve organising the data, identifying patterns and trends, and making sense of what they show. Drawing conclusions means answering the inquiry question from the evidence and acknowledging limitations. Finally, the findings inform action: planning health promotion strategies and advocacy that respond to what the inquiry revealed.
Reliability is the consistency of a measure or method, whether it would give similar results if repeated. Validity is whether a method actually measures what it claims to measure. Strong inquiry needs both: data that are reliable but not valid measure the wrong thing consistently, while valid but unreliable data measure the right thing inconsistently. Evaluating both is central to judging the quality of an investigation.
Primary and secondary data
Choosing data sources is a key skill. Primary data are tailored to the exact question and current, but can be time-consuming, costly and limited in scale. Secondary data are often large, authoritative and quick to access, but may not fit the specific question or population and can be out of date. Good inquiries combine both, using secondary data to establish the broad picture and primary data to capture local or specific detail. Evaluating the source, sample, method and purpose of each dataset determines how much weight to give it.
Analysing data and drawing conclusions
Analysis turns raw data into meaning. This involves summarising results, comparing groups, identifying trends over time, and interpreting graphs and tables. Conclusions must follow from the evidence and stay within its limits, noting sample size, bias, currency and whether the findings can be generalised. Recognising the limitations of a study is a marker of strong analysis, because it shows you understand how confident the conclusion can be.
From evidence to action
The purpose of inquiry in this course is action. Once conclusions are drawn, they should shape health promotion and advocacy: choosing Ottawa Charter action areas that fit the identified problem, targeting the determinants the data revealed, and prioritising the groups most affected. Evidence-based action is more likely to be effective and more defensible than action based on assumption, which is why the inquiry process and health promotion are taught together.
How this maps to the exam
Expect a stimulus presenting data, a study design or a proposed investigation. You may be asked to identify a stage of the process, evaluate the reliability or validity of a method, interpret data, or use findings to plan action. Apply the specific stage to the stimulus and justify your judgements about the evidence.
When a stimulus describes a study, the marks come from judging reliability and validity separately, then improving the design.
Separate validity from reliability
For a survey, ask validity first: does the method measure what it claims (does a self-report capture actual behaviour)? Then ask reliability: would repeating it give consistent results? Treating them as one term loses marks.
Check the sample and for bias
State the sample size and how it was selected. A small, convenience sample (for example friends) is biased and cannot be generalised to the wider population, which weakens any conclusion drawn from it.
Judge how far the conclusion can go
Tie the verdict to the evidence: a biased, small sample supports only a tentative, local claim, not a general truth about all teenagers in a town. Acknowledging the limits is itself a mark of strong analysis.
Recommend specific improvements
Close with concrete fixes: a larger random sample, a validated measurement tool, triangulation with secondary data, and a clear statement of limitations. Improving validity, reliability and generalisability in turn is the full-mark response.
Students often overstate what data show, claiming a small or biased sample proves a general truth, or recommending action with no link to the findings. The marks come from conclusions that match the evidence and acknowledge its limits, and from action that is justified by what the inquiry actually revealed.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of SCSA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
WACE 2022-style6 marksA student surveys 25 friends about their diet and concludes that teenagers in their town eat poorly. Evaluate the reliability and validity of this inquiry and explain how it could be improved.Show worked answer →
A 6 mark response needs reliability and validity judged, plus improvements.
- Validity
- The self-report survey may not measure actual diet (people misreport), and asking only friends does not represent teenagers in the town, so the conclusion is not valid for that population.
- Reliability
- A small, non-random sample of 25 friends is unlikely to give consistent results if repeated, so reliability is weak.
- Generalisation problem
- The sample is biased (friends, not random) and too small to generalise to all teenagers in the town.
- Improvements
- Use a larger random sample across the town, combine the survey with secondary data (government nutrition statistics), use a validated dietary tool, and report limitations.
Markers reward separate reliability and validity judgements, the sampling/generalisation flaw, and concrete improvements.
WACE 2023-style4 marksDistinguish between primary and secondary data and explain one advantage of each in a health inquiry.Show worked answer →
A 4 mark response needs both definitions and an advantage each.
Primary data. Data the investigator gathers (surveys, interviews, observations). Advantage: tailored to the exact question and current.
Secondary data. Existing data (government statistics, reports, research). Advantage: often large, authoritative and quick to access.
Markers reward a correct distinction and a genuine advantage for each type.