Comprehensive Integrated Psychiatric Assessment Many assessment principles are the same for children and adults; however, unlike with adults/older adults,

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

 Many assessment principles are the same for children and adults; however, unlike with adults/older adults, where consent for participation in the assessment comes from the actual client, with children it is the parents or guardians who must make the decision for treatment. Issues of confidentiality, privacy, and consent must be addressed. When working with children, it is not only important to be able to connect with the pediatric patient, but also to be able to collaborate effectively with the caregivers, other family members, teachers, and school counselors/psychologists, all of whom will be able to provide important context and details to aid in your assessment and treatment plans. 

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6665_Week1_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.

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 three 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 three 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 supported by fewer than two 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 one 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

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 with minor errors

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 posted 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.

Responses 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.

Responses 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
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 three current credible sources

Good
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 three credible references

Fair
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 supported by fewer than two credible references

Poor
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 one or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:

Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Good
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors

Fair
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Poor
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
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

Good
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Poor
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
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
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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
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
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posted 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
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor
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
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
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

Fair
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

Poor
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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
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
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
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

Fair
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

Poor
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6665_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