NRNP 6635 Factors That Influence Development of Psychopathology DQ
NRNP 6635 Factors That Influence Development of Psychopathology DQ
https://nursingpaperacers.com/nrnp-6635-factors-that-influence-development-of-psychopathology-dq/
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:
Review this week’s Learning Resources, considering the many interacting factors that contribute
to the development of psychopathology.
Consider how theoretical perspective on psychopathology impacts the work of the PMHNP.
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.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses
By Day 6 of Week 1
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by explaining the implications of why, as
an advanced practice nurse, it is important to adopt a multidimensional, integrative model of
psychopathology.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view
and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the "Post to Discussion Question" link, and
then select "Create Thread" to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you
cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully
before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 1 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 1 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 1
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 1 Discussion
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Exit
Grid View
List View
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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two
grammatical or spelling errors.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two
spelling or grammatical errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or
concisely.
Contains more than two
spelling or grammatical errors.
Further adheres to current
APA manual writing rules and
style.
Adheres to current APA
manual writing rules and style.
Contains some APA formatting
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: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Post to colleague's main
post that is reflective and
justified with credible
sources.
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.
Response has some depth
and may exhibit critical
thinking or application to
practice setting.
Response is on topic, may
have some depth.
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