The Psychiatric Evaluation And Evidence-Based Rating Scales Assessment tools have two primary purposes: 1) to measure illness and diagnose clients, and 2)

The Psychiatric Evaluation And Evidence-Based Rating Scales Assessment tools have two primary purposes: 1) to measure illness and diagnose clients, and 2) to measure a client’s response to treatment. Often, you will find that multiple assessment tools are designed to measure the same condition or response. Not all tools, however, are appropriate for use in all clinical situations. You must consider the strengths and weaknesses of each tool to select the appropriate assessment tool for your client. For this Discussion, as you examine the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor, consider its use in psychotherapy. 

 

To Prepare:
Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide regarding psychiatric assessment and diagnosis.
Consider the elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination.
Consider the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor.

  

Assessment tool: Geriatric Depression Scale

Post a brief explanation of three important components of the psychiatric interview and why you consider these elements important. Explain the psychometric properties of the rating scale you were assigned. Explain when it is appropriate to use this rating scale with clients during the psychiatric interview and how the scale is helpful to a nurse practitioner’s psychiatric assessment. Support your approach with evidence-based literature. Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

 
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Main Posting:

Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Points:

Points Range:
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least 3 current credible sources.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least 3 credible references.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s).

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only 1 or no credible references.

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main discussion by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Meets requirements for full participation.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main discussion by due date.

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range:
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing

Points:

Points Range:
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting:

Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least 3 current credible sources.

Good
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least 3 credible references.

Fair
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references.

Poor
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s).

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only 1 or no credible references.

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main discussion by due date.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Meets requirements for full participation.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main discussion by due date.

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

Good
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:

Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

Good
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:

Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Submit a Comment

Open chat