Biological Basis And Ethical/Legal Considerations Of Psychotherapy Many studies have found that psychotherapy is as effective as psychopharmacology in term

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Biological Basis And Ethical/Legal Considerations Of Psychotherapy Many studies have found that psychotherapy is as effective as psychopharmacology in terms of influencing changes in behaviors, symptoms of anxiety, and changes in mental state. Changes influenced by psychopharmacology can be explained by the biological basis of treatments. But how does psychotherapy achieve these changes? Does psychotherapy share common neuronal pathways with psychopharmacology?

Psychotherapy is used with individuals as well as in groups or families. The idea of discussing confidential information with a patient in front of an audience is probably quite foreign to you. However, in group and family therapy, this is precisely what the psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner does. In your role, learning how to provide this type of therapy within the limits of confidentiality is essential.

For this Discussion, you will consider whether psychotherapy also has a biological basis and analyze the ways in which legal and ethical considerations differ in the individual, family, and group therapy settings.

To prepare:

Review this week’s Learning Resources, reflecting on foundational concepts of psychotherapy, biological and social impacts on psychotherapy, and legal and ethical issues across the modalities (individual, family, and group).
Search the Walden Library databases for scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that inform and support your academic perspective on these topics.

Post an explanation of whether psychotherapy has a biological basis. Explain how culture, religion, and socioeconomics might influence one’s perspective on the value of psychotherapy treatments. Describe how legal and ethical considerations for group and family therapy differ from those for individual therapy, and explain how these differences might impact your therapeutic approaches for clients in group, individual, and family therapy. Support your rationale with at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources and explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly. Attach the PDFs of your sources. Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6645_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

 
Excellent

Point range: 90–100

Good

Point range: 80–89

Fair

Point range: 70–79

Poor

Point range: 0–69

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

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
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

Point range: 70–79
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

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
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

Point range: 70–79
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main discussion by due date.

Good

Point range: 80–89
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Meets requirements for full participation.

Fair

Point range: 70–79
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main discussion by due date.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair

Point range: 70–79
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
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

Point range: 70–79
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

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Good

Point range: 80–89
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Fair

Point range: 70–79
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair

Point range: 70–79
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent

Point range: 90–100
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

Point range: 80–89
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

Point range: 70–79
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

Point range: 0–69
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

Point range: 90–100
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

Good

Point range: 80–89
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

Fair

Point range: 70–79
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

Poor

Point range: 0–69
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6645_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality