PSY 645 WK 6 Psychiatric Diagnosis
PSY 645 WK 6 Psychiatric Diagnosis
Description
For this assignment, students will investigate and propose a psychiatric diagnosis based on the case study from the Gorenstein and Comer (2015) textbook Case Studies in Abnormal Psychology, chosen in the Week One “Initial Call” discussion. This paper will include an in-depth overview of the disorder(s) within the diagnosis, treatment options for the diagnosis, and a sound rationale that explains why this diagnosis was made. Note that the diagnosis may include more than one psychiatric disorder.
The paper must present a thorough overview of each disorder within the diagnosis. Assume the audience has no prior knowledge of the disorder(s) within the diagnosis, and provide relevant and easy to understand explanations of each for the readers. When writing the paper, it is critical to convey all the necessary information in a straightforward manner using non-technical language. (Reference the Professional Voice and Writing (Links to an external site.) resource provided by the Ashford Writing Center for assistance.) Support the analysis with at least five peer-reviewed sources published within the last ten years in addition to the course text.
The Psychiatric Diagnosis topical paper must include the following:
- Explain psychological concepts in the patient’s presentation using professional terminology. Identify symptoms and behaviors exhibited by the patient in the chosen case study.
- Match the identified symptoms to potential disorders in a diagnostic manual.
- Propose a diagnosis based on the patient’s symptoms and the criteria listed for the disorder(s) in the diagnostic manual.
- Analyze and explain how the patient meets criteria for the disorder(s) according to the patient’s symptoms and the criteria outlined in the diagnostic manual.
- Justify the use of the chosen diagnostic manual (i.e., Why was this manual chosen over others?).
- Summarize general views of the diagnosis from multiple theoretical orientations and historical perspectives. Include a discussion on comorbidity if the diagnosis includes more than one disorder.
- Evaluate symptoms within the context of an appropriate theoretical orientation for this diagnosis.
- Use at least two peer-reviewed articles to assess the validity of this diagnosis, and describe who is most likely to have the diagnosis with regard to age, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. Provide a brief evaluation of the scientific merit of these peer-reviewed sources in the validity assessment.
- Summarize the risk factors (i.e., biological, psychological, and/or social) for the diagnosis. If one of the categories is not relevant, address this within the summary.
- Compare evidence-based and non-evidence-based treatment options for the diagnosis.
- Evaluate well-established treatments for the diagnosis, and describe the likelihood of success or possible outcomes for each treatment.
- Create an annotated bibliography of five peer-reviewed references published within the last ten years to inform the diagnosis and treatment recommendations. In the annotated bibliography, write a two- to three-sentence evaluation of the scientific merit of each of these references. For additional assistance with this portion of the assignment, access the Ashford Writing Center’s Sample Annotated Bibliography (Links to an external site.).
Attention Students: The Masters of Arts in Psychology program is utilizing the Pathbrite portfolio tool as a repository for student scholarly work in the form of signature assignments completed within the program. After receiving feedback for this Psychiatric Diagnosis topical paper, please implement any changes recommended by the instructor, go to Pathbrite and upload the revised Psychiatric Diagnosis topical paper to the portfolio. (Use the Pathbrite Quick-Start Guide to create an account if you do not already have one.) The upload of signature assignments will take place after completing each course. Be certain to upload revised signature assignments throughout the program as the portfolio and its contents will be used in other courses and may be used by individual students as a professional resource tool. See the Pathbrite (Links to an external site.) website for information and further instructions on using this portfolio tool.
The Psychiatric Diagnosis
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or 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 two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
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 one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are 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. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are 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. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
