NRNP 6635 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES

NRNP 6635 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES

NRNP 6635 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES

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.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NRNP 6635 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES HERE

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

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.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 2

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.

***This week we will be looking at the assessment and diagnosis of psychiatric patients.  Your assignment for this week is to complete the discussion board.  You should have your initial post done by DAY 3 (Wednesday).  After, you must respond to two peers on two different days before DAY 6(Saturday).  The discussion board asks you to discuss your assigned scale.  I have decided that you may choose your own, rather than assigning them.  Please see the chart below, and choose one you are interested in learning more about.

Dr H

Quality of Life Scales
Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Q-LES-Q Endicott et al. (1993)
Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) Kaplan and Anderson (1988)
Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS) Hunt and McKenna (1992)
Medical Outcome Survey (MOS) Ware and Sherbourne (1992)
Mental Health Status and Functioning Scales
Clinical Global Impression (CGI) NIMH (1970)
Endicott Work Productivity Scale Endicott and Nee (1997)
Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) APA, 2000: DSM-IV-TR
Sheehan Disability Scale Leon et al. (1992)
Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) APA, 2000: DSM-IV-TR
Work and Social Adjustment Scale Mundt et al. (2002)
Adverse Effects Scales
Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) Guy (1976)
Simpson–Angus Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale Simpson and Angus (1970)
Cognitive Disorders Scales
Delirium Rating Scale Revised—98 (DRS—R98) Trzepacz et al. (2001)
Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) Folstein et al. (1975)
St Louis University Mental Status Exam (SLUMS) Tariq, Tumosa, Chibnall, Perry III, Morley (2006)
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) Nasreddine (1996)
Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) Inouye, van Dyck, Alessi, Balkin, Siegal, Horwitz (1990)
Alcohol Use Disorders Scales
CAGE Questionnaire Ewing (1984)
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) Selzer (1971)
Mood Disorders Scales
Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Revision (BDI-II) Beck et al. (1961)
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) Hamilton (1960)
Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) Rush et al. (1996)
Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) Rush et al. (2003)
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) www.pfizer.com
Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Yesavage et al. (1983)
Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Montgomery and Asberg (1979)
Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSRDS) Zung (1965)
Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) Young et al. (1978)
Anxiety Disorders Scales
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) Hamilton (1959)
Yale-Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) Goodman et al. (1989)
PTSD Checklist (PCL) Weathers, Litz, Keane, Palmieri, Marx, Schnurr (2013)
Social Interaction Anxiety Scale Mattick, Clarke (1998)
Psychotic Disorders Scales
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) Overall and Gorham (1962)
Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) Kay et al. (1987)
Aggression and Agitation Scale
Overt Aggression Scale—Modified (OAS-M) Kay et al. (1988)
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Scales
NICH Vanderbilt Assessment Scale American Academy of Pediatrics and National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (2002)
Conners 3rd Edition Conners (2008)
ADHD Rating Scale V (ADHD-RS-V) for children DuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos, Reid (2016)
Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale for adults
Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder Scales Brown (2001)

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NRNP 6635 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED RATING SCALES HERE

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Required Media

NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain 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.
44 to >39.0 pts

Excellent

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.

39 to >34.0 pts

Good

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.

34 to >30.0 pts

Fair

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.

30 to >0 pts

Poor

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.

44 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Writing
6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

Written clearly and concisely. … Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. … Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good

Written concisely. … May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Written somewhat concisely. … May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting:Timely and full participation
10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main discussion by due date.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

Posts main discussion by due date. … Meets requirements for full participation.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Posts main discussion by due date.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main discussion by due date.

10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

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

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Writing
6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good

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.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response:Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.

5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

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

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

9 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Writing
6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good

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.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

6 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response:Timely and full participation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.

5 pts
Total Points: 100