Developmental Psychopathology Case Study Essay
Developmental Psychopathology Case Study Essay
Read the Case Study for “Johnny” and review/score the DSM-5 Parent/Guardian-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure—Child Age 6–17 form completed by the mother (attached). Consider the following when reviewing the form:
- What information do you gather from the data in this instrument?
- What will you do next—based on the information from the Level 1 Measure?
Utilize the DSM-5 Parent/Guardian-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure—Child Age 6–17 measure to differentiate between issues associated with typical childhood behaviors and clinically-significant psychiatric phenomena (psychopathology). Consider the following when differentiating between the issues:
- Based on your findings, would you assess that “Johnny” needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor?
Assign the appropriate DSM diagnoses for “Johnny” in descending order, from the dominant, to the least dominant. Consider the following when assigning the DSM diagnosis:
- What diagnostic impression do you reach based on the information gathered about Johnny? What is your rationale for ruling-out other diagnoses?
Write a 500-750-word paper about Johnny and your findings. Include the following in your paper:
- The appropriate DSM diagnoses for “Johnny” in descending order, from the dominant, to the least dominant and rationale.
- An explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale.
- A discussion regarding if you would assess that “Johnny” needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice.
- At least five scholarly references in addition to the textbook in your paper to substantiate your findings.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
70.0 %Content |
||||||
|
20.0 %The appropriate DSM diagnoses for ‘Johnny’ in descending order, from the dominant, to the least dominant and rationale. |
A discussion about the appropriate DSM diagnoses for Johnny as well as the rationale for the diagnoses is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
A discussion about the appropriate DSM diagnoses for Johnny as well as the rationale for the diagnoses incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
A discussion about the appropriate DSM diagnoses for Johnny as well as the rationale for the diagnoses is complete and accurate. |
A discussion about the appropriate DSM diagnoses for Johnny as well as the rationale for the diagnoses is thorough and well-reasoned. |
A discussion about the appropriate DSM diagnoses for Johnny as well as the rationale for the diagnoses is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. |
|
|
30.0 %An explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale. |
An explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
The explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
The explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale is complete and accurate. |
The explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale is thorough and well-reasoned. |
The explanation regarding why other diagnoses were excluded and rationale is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. |
|
|
20.0 %A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice |
A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice is not present or not discernible to the reader. |
A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. |
A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice is complete and accurate. |
A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice is thorough and well-reasoned. |
A discussion regarding if you would assess that ‘Johnny’ needs a formal referral to a pediatric psychiatrist/psychologist/counselor and rationale for your choice is thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported. |
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
||||||
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. |
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
||||||
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
||||||
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
|
|
10.0 %Format |
||||||
|
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
|
|
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
|
|
100 %Total Weightage |
||||||
