<p>I have been working with my advisor to clean up this paper but am not getting far enough. Below are his most recent comments to me. I thought they may be helpful to understand how he is trying to push me. Also, do not edit the appendices. I have left them there for your reference but don't have the budget to get those pages edited. Please stick to the first 36 pages (through the references). Thanks so much for your help!<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Comments from Advisor </span></strong><br />Please edit the rest of the document for clarity. Be precise. When you're not sure about the definition of a term, check it using a dictionary. I recommend that you work with someone at the writing center to review your work and provide feedback. Alternatively, you may hire a professional editor to assist with editing (but not the actual content).<br /><br />You go on to say, "This variation of outcomes is due to the confounding variables that distinguish successful and unsuccessful volunteers." However, the definition of a confounding variable is: "an extraneous variable in a statistical model that correlates with both the dependent variable and the independent variable."</p><p>I think what you mean to say is that "variation in outcomes may be attributed to the presence of numerous confounding factors." The presence of a confounding factor confuses the relationship between the presence of volunteers and the impact of volunteers on desired outcomes. But it is incorrect to say that "variation of outcomes is due to the confounding variables that distinguish successful and unsuccessful volunteers". Confounding variables do not "distinguish successful and unsuccessful volunteers". Instead, the presence of confounding variables confuses the relationship between the presence of volunteers and the impact of volunteers. </p><p>On page 22, you explain the MSC methodology as follows: "Through the use of continuous values inquiry, the MSC technique uses stakeholders to rank significant program outcomes and assign a value to these outcomes through a transparent and systematic process." However, the reader needs a much more detailed, thorough explanation of the procedure for implementing MSC. Provide the details that would be needed if you were instructing a research assistant to implement the procedure. What is step #1? Step #2? Step #3?</p><p>Research questions #2 and #3 are unclear:</p><p>2. Is the impact to participants varied in nutrition, health and care outcomes?</p><p>3. Has the addition of nutritional benefits impacted the early childhood development indicators of physical development, cognitive development, and social-emotional development?</p><p>Please create a section titled "Analysis". For each evaluation question identified in Table 1, describe in detail the analysis that will be performed. Explain exactly how the data will be analyzed to answer your questions. Table 1 briefly lists the analysis methods that you will use, but the reader needs a detailed explanation. For example, you state: "Impact stories are ranked by previous volunteers and international HQ staff to determine MS stories". How will the stories be selected, what is the procedure for ranking the stories, and what do you mean by "determining MS stories"? How will this procedure answer the evaluation question: "Does service provided by short-term volunteers have an impact on RCP participants?" What would be evidence that volunteers do not have an impact on RCP participants? Is your procedure designed to detect this evidence?</p>