Secondly, there was exclusive use of filtered water as respondents were cautioned against drinking unfiltered water in the day or the day before the interview (Peletz et al., 2012). The following step ensured that only the data from the analysis of the filtered water was tested making results more reliable. On the other hand, the following outcome measure had its own weaknesses. Firstly, the filter was observed in the household at the time of visit. The research team could not establish whether the filter had been in use, or it was fitted for the purpose of the study. Secondly, the result outcomes were liable to distortion, especially when the respondents were told not to take any unfiltered water. In case the respondent walked away from home, there was no clarification on the type of water used, especially in hotels and social areas. Water qualityThe research team collected water samples during monthly visits while taking samples from the vessels that the respondent used to store drinking water in. The research team also used control households that only used water that was collected. The use of control households increased the strength of the study because the research team had a base to make comparisons. In addition, the research used both filtered and unfiltered water for sample analysis. The filtered water was tested immediately after filtration that minimized chances of contamination. Secondly, water samples were collected in a clean sterile whirl-Pak bag with tablets. of sodium thiosulfate to neutralize any disinfectant. The process ensured only clean and uncontaminated water was used throughout the research. The following outcome still had some weaknesses. Firstly, the research team did not investigate the storage vessels for the presence of any contaminants. Secondly, the microbiological membrane filtration method used had the possibility of failing because the DelAgua field incubator could get damaged by high temperatures bearing in mind Zambia is near a desert. The destruction of the incubator could lead to invalid results. For instance, it could be the main reason why the intervened households recorded better water quality than the control groups (Peletz et al., 2012). Diarrhea longitudinal prevalence The diarrhea longitudinal prevalence acted as a way of determining the mother’s infections in the past. The following outcome measure was significance in the study because it strengthened the reliability of research methodology by ensuring the respondents provide correct information. In addition, the diarrhea experience for the last seven days was measured. This was also strength because it acted as a measure of possibility of the mother having the diarrhea case at the time of study. The main weakness of the outcome measure was the lack of truth from the information acquired from the mothers. Only 13.6% of the respondents were reported to have diarrhea cases in the control arm while 6.6% reported in the intervention arm (Peletz et al 2012). The following results had some biases because it was expected that more mothers could report positive to diarrhea prevalence.