Discussion: Factors That Influence the Development of Psychopathology
Photo Credit: Getty Images/Blend Images
In many realms of medicine, objective diagnoses can be made A clavicula is broken. An infection is present. TSH levels meet the diagnostic criteria for hypothyroidism. Psychiatry, on the other hand, deals with psychological phenomena and behaviors. Can these, too, be “defined objectively and by scientific criteria (Gergen, 1985), or are they social constructions?” (Sadock et al., 2015).
Thanks to myriad advances during recent decades, we know that psychopathology is caused by many interacting factors. Theoretical and clinical contributions to the field have come from the neural sciences, genetics, psychology, and social-cultural sciences. How do these factors impact the expression, classification, diagnosis, and prevalence of psychopathology, and why might it be important for a nurse practitioner to take a multidimensional, integrative approach?
To Prepare:
By Day 3 of Week 1
Explain the biological (genetic and neuroscientific); psychological (behavioral and cognitive processes, emotional, developmental); and social, cultural, and interpersonal factors that influence the development of psychopathology.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: Discussion_Rubric
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Main Posting: Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.
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.
Main Posting: Timely and full participation
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date.
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
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.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
First Response: Writing
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.
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.
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.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
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.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing
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.
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.
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.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Write From Scratch