SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1
Assessment Instruments
Anxiety and Related Disorders
Week X
DSM:
Instrument:
Article:
Appropriateness for Dx:
Response to Therapy/Treatment:
Psychometrics:
Limitations:
References
1
Assessment Instruments
Student Example Anxiety and Related Disorders
Week 7
Instrument: Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN)
Article: Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory
Appropriateness for Dx: This tool is meant for screening of
individuals with social phobia and assignment of a severi ty
score (Connor et al., 2000). The tool was created in congruence
with DSM-4 but is consistent with the DSM-5 diagnosis of
social anxiety disorder, minus some minor changes (Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration [SAMHSA],
2016). Although the study is outdated, Duke University School
of Medicine (2020) acknowledges that the tool is still relevant
and utilized by their Anxiety and Traumatic Stress Program.
Response to Therapy/Treatment: The SPIN is appropriate for
testing treatment response and through studies has proven
sensitive to symptom changes over time. Changes in scores are
able to determine treatment efficiency (Connor et al., 2000).
Psychometrics: The tool is self-administered and consists of 17
separate statements regarding problems a patient may exhibit if
they have social phobia. The statement is then rated on how
much it has bothered the individual in the last week, from ‘not
at all’ (0) to ‘extremely’ (4). Any score over 21 is considered
clinically significant. In the study, the assessment tool was able
to effectively separate individuals with and without social
phobia. Validity is strong in regard to detecting the severity of
illness and is sensitive to symptom reductions during treatment.
The scale shows significant correlation with the Liebowitz
Social Anxiety Scale Test, The Brief Social Phobia Scale and
The Fear Questionnaire social phobia subscale (Connor et al.,
2000).
Limitations: Limitations exist in the tool’s alignment with
DSM-4 instead of the more recent edition, although differences
are very minor (SAMHSA, 2016). With a cutoff score of 19,
sensitivity and specificity were good, but some individuals
consider the cutoff score to be 15, in which these measures are
weaker (Connor et al., 2000).
References
Connor, K., Davidson, J., Churchill, E., Sherwood, A., Foa, E.,
& Wisler, R. (2000).
Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 379-386.
Choose one diagnosis from the Bipolar and
Related Disorders group
· American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American
Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.
· Scan pages 123 through 188
Overview
As you will learn throughout the program, the diagnosis of a
variety of psychiatric illnesses is not always an easy or
straightforward process. Multiple observations and assessment
methods are often employed to reach a diagnosis. This approach
can include the use of standardized assessment instruments. 
This then aids you in defining a treatment plan and choosing
specific treatment plans to use in the care of your clients. 
You are tasked with identifying a standardized assessment
instrument/tool to measure the disorders listed for each week.
You will keep these instruments in the form of a “portfolio” that
you can use in your clinical practice to assess clients who
present with a variety of symptoms. 
Instructions:
Instrument/ Tool criteria: 
For each assessment, you are tasked with selecting, you will
identify an instrument and: 
1. List what DSM diagnosis the tool/instrument is used for.
2. Identify an assessment/diagnosis instrument.
3. Appraise a scholarly, peer-reviewed article that addresses the
use of the instrument to support your choice as an evidence-
based instrument for practice. 
4. Evaluate the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the
condition it is designed to assess or if the developers of the
instrument reported that the instrument is only part of a
comprehensive assessment for the disorder. 
5. Describe whether or not the instrument can be used to
measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if it is strictly
for assessment and diagnosis. 
6. Discuss the psychometrics/scoring of the instrument,
including reliability and validity. 
7. Discuss any limitations associated with the use of the
instrument.
8. Include a link to view the assessment if possible.
Use the following template in completing your portfolio
assignments. Your information can be in bulleted format or just
a couple of sentences for each criterion listed
above. However, you must use APA citations.  You are NOT
required to write this in a paper format.  Turn in one document
for each week’s topics.  (However, create a file on your desktop
to compile your portfolio as you move through the term.)  This
will ensure you can have easy access to show the full portfolio
and once you begin clinicals and practice. Throughout the
program, you will continue to add to the portfolio in each
course.
Assignment File(s)
· SampleDownload Sample
· TemplateDownload Template
Rubric
NU671 Unit 3 Assignment - Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric
NU671 Unit 3 Assignment - Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe DSM
diagnosis for the assignment . . .
3 pts
Proficient
Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignment.
0 pts
Not Proficient
Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn
assessment/diagnosis instrument . . .
3 pts
Proficient
Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignmen t.
0 pts
Not Proficient
Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn appraisal of a
scholarly, peer-reviewed article, that addresses the use of an
appropriately selected instrument . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary appraisal of the article
where the selected instrument was utilized.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory appraisal of the article
where the selected instrument was utilized.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain an appraisal of the article
where the selected instrument was utilized.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of
either - 1) an evaluation of the instrument’s appropriateness for
diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess, OR 2) the
developer's report that the instrument is only part of a
comprehensive assessment for the disorder . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary discussion of either an
evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR
an exemplary discussion of the developer's report that the
selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment
of the disorder.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory discussion of either an
evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR
an exemplary discussion of the developer's report that the
selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment
of the disorder.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain a satisfactory discussion of
either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected
instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer's
report that the selected instrument is only part of a
comprehensive assessment of the disorder.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion as
to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure
patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected
instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary discussion as to whether
the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response
to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used
for assessment and diagnosis.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory discussion as to whether
the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response
to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used
for assessment and diagnosis.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain a discussion as to whether the
selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to
therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for
assessment and diagnosis.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of
the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including
reliability and validity . . .
4 pts
Proficient
An exemplary discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the
selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted
in the submission.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
A satisfactory discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the
selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted
in the submission.
1 pts
Not Proficient
A discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected
instrument, including reliability and validity, is not noted in the
submission.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss any
limitations associated with the use of the selected instrument . .
.
4 pts
Proficient
An exemplary discussion of any limitations of the use of the
selected instrument is noted.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
A satisfactory discussion of any limitations of the use of the
selected instrument is noted.
1 pts
Not Proficient
A discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected
instrument is not noted.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA link to view the
selected instrument is provided, or an explanation as to why a
link is not available is provided.
2 pts
Proficient
The submission includes a link to view the selected instrument,
OR an explanation as to why a link is not available is provided.
0 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not include a link to view the selected
instrument, OR an explanation as to why a link is not available
is not provided.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe submission
demonstrates the appropriate application of APA 7th edition
guidelines for the construction of in-text and reference
citations.
2 pts
Proficient
The submission is free from citation construction errors.
1 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains 1-3 citation construction errors.
0 pts
Not Proficient
The submission contains greater than 3 citation construction
errors.
2 pts
Total Points: 30
PreviousNext

More Related Content

More from EttaBenton28

1Child Development Observation and Reflection
1Child Development Observation and Reflection1Child Development Observation and Reflection
1Child Development Observation and Reflection
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
EttaBenton28
 
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L R E P O R T O N2G
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L  R E P O R T  O N2G1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L  R E P O R T  O N2G
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L R E P O R T O N2G
EttaBenton28
 
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
EttaBenton28
 
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
EttaBenton28
 
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond21Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
EttaBenton28
 
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
EttaBenton28
 
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
EttaBenton28
 
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets 1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem 1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
EttaBenton28
 
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction 1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
EttaBenton28
 
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
EttaBenton28
 
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
EttaBenton28
 
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
EttaBenton28
 
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah 1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
EttaBenton28
 

More from EttaBenton28 (20)

1Child Development Observation and Reflection
1Child Development Observation and Reflection1Child Development Observation and Reflection
1Child Development Observation and Reflection
 
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
1CHAPTER4BUSINESS-LEVEL STRATEGYChapter 2The Exter
 
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
1CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBR
 
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L R E P O R T O N2G
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L  R E P O R T  O N2G1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L  R E P O R T  O N2G
1CHAPTER 01G L O B A L R E P O R T O N2G
 
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
1Child Growth and DevelopmentYohana MangiaficoHous
 
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
1CHAPTER2THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTOPPORTUNITIES, THREATS
 
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
1Chapter Two Literature ReviewStudents NameName of the
 
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
1CHAPTER 6 CHINAChinaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J. (
 
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond21Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
1Chapter 9TelevisionBroadcast and Beyond2
 
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
1CHAPTER 5 RUSSIARussiaBook ReferenceTerrill, R. J.
 
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
1Chapter 6Newspapers and the NewsReflections of a
 
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
1CHAPTER 4 SOUTH AFRICA South AfricaConcepts to Know·
 
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
1Chapter 3 JAPANIntroductionJAPAN is an island countr
 
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets 1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
1Chapter 10The InternetMass Communication Gets
 
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem 1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
1CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Problem
 
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction 1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
1CHAPTER 22PEER REVIEWED SUMMARYi. Introduction
 
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
1CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS9CHANGES OF ORGANIZATIONS
 
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
1Change Proposal Summary ReportJessica RamosCapell
 
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
1Case Study Cystic FibrosisCystic Fibrosis Case Study
 
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah 1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
1Causes and Effects of Literature Review ChallengesJamiah
 

1Assessment InstrumentsAnxiety and Related DisordersWeek

  • 1. 1 Assessment Instruments Anxiety and Related Disorders Week X DSM: Instrument: Article: Appropriateness for Dx: Response to Therapy/Treatment: Psychometrics: Limitations: References 1 Assessment Instruments Student Example Anxiety and Related Disorders Week 7 Instrument: Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) Article: Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory
  • 2. Appropriateness for Dx: This tool is meant for screening of individuals with social phobia and assignment of a severi ty score (Connor et al., 2000). The tool was created in congruence with DSM-4 but is consistent with the DSM-5 diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, minus some minor changes (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration [SAMHSA], 2016). Although the study is outdated, Duke University School of Medicine (2020) acknowledges that the tool is still relevant and utilized by their Anxiety and Traumatic Stress Program. Response to Therapy/Treatment: The SPIN is appropriate for testing treatment response and through studies has proven sensitive to symptom changes over time. Changes in scores are able to determine treatment efficiency (Connor et al., 2000). Psychometrics: The tool is self-administered and consists of 17 separate statements regarding problems a patient may exhibit if they have social phobia. The statement is then rated on how much it has bothered the individual in the last week, from ‘not at all’ (0) to ‘extremely’ (4). Any score over 21 is considered clinically significant. In the study, the assessment tool was able to effectively separate individuals with and without social phobia. Validity is strong in regard to detecting the severity of illness and is sensitive to symptom reductions during treatment. The scale shows significant correlation with the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Test, The Brief Social Phobia Scale and The Fear Questionnaire social phobia subscale (Connor et al., 2000). Limitations: Limitations exist in the tool’s alignment with DSM-4 instead of the more recent edition, although differences are very minor (SAMHSA, 2016). With a cutoff score of 19, sensitivity and specificity were good, but some individuals consider the cutoff score to be 15, in which these measures are weaker (Connor et al., 2000).
  • 3. References Connor, K., Davidson, J., Churchill, E., Sherwood, A., Foa, E., & Wisler, R. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 379-386. Choose one diagnosis from the Bipolar and Related Disorders group · American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. · Scan pages 123 through 188 Overview As you will learn throughout the program, the diagnosis of a variety of psychiatric illnesses is not always an easy or straightforward process. Multiple observations and assessment methods are often employed to reach a diagnosis. This approach can include the use of standardized assessment instruments.  This then aids you in defining a treatment plan and choosing specific treatment plans to use in the care of your clients.  You are tasked with identifying a standardized assessment instrument/tool to measure the disorders listed for each week. You will keep these instruments in the form of a “portfolio” that you can use in your clinical practice to assess clients who present with a variety of symptoms.  Instructions: Instrument/ Tool criteria:  For each assessment, you are tasked with selecting, you will identify an instrument and:  1. List what DSM diagnosis the tool/instrument is used for. 2. Identify an assessment/diagnosis instrument. 3. Appraise a scholarly, peer-reviewed article that addresses the
  • 4. use of the instrument to support your choice as an evidence- based instrument for practice.  4. Evaluate the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess or if the developers of the instrument reported that the instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment for the disorder.  5. Describe whether or not the instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if it is strictly for assessment and diagnosis.  6. Discuss the psychometrics/scoring of the instrument, including reliability and validity.  7. Discuss any limitations associated with the use of the instrument. 8. Include a link to view the assessment if possible. Use the following template in completing your portfolio assignments. Your information can be in bulleted format or just a couple of sentences for each criterion listed above. However, you must use APA citations.  You are NOT required to write this in a paper format.  Turn in one document for each week’s topics.  (However, create a file on your desktop to compile your portfolio as you move through the term.)  This will ensure you can have easy access to show the full portfolio and once you begin clinicals and practice. Throughout the program, you will continue to add to the portfolio in each course. Assignment File(s) · SampleDownload Sample · TemplateDownload Template Rubric NU671 Unit 3 Assignment - Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric NU671 Unit 3 Assignment - Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe DSM diagnosis for the assignment . . .
  • 5. 3 pts Proficient Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignment. 0 pts Not Proficient Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment. 3 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn assessment/diagnosis instrument . . . 3 pts Proficient Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignmen t. 0 pts Not Proficient Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment. 3 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn appraisal of a scholarly, peer-reviewed article, that addresses the use of an appropriately selected instrument . . . 4 pts Proficient The submission contains an exemplary appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency The submission contains a satisfactory appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized. 1 pts
  • 6. Not Proficient The submission does not contain an appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of either - 1) an evaluation of the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess, OR 2) the developer's report that the instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment for the disorder . . . 4 pts Proficient The submission contains an exemplary discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer's report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency The submission contains a satisfactory discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer's report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder. 1 pts Not Proficient The submission does not contain a satisfactory discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer's report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected
  • 7. instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis . . . 4 pts Proficient The submission contains an exemplary discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency The submission contains a satisfactory discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis. 1 pts Not Proficient The submission does not contain a discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity . . . 4 pts Proficient An exemplary discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted in the submission. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency A satisfactory discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted in the submission. 1 pts Not Proficient
  • 8. A discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is not noted in the submission. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss any limitations associated with the use of the selected instrument . . . 4 pts Proficient An exemplary discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is noted. 2 pts Approaching Proficiency A satisfactory discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is noted. 1 pts Not Proficient A discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is not noted. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA link to view the selected instrument is provided, or an explanation as to why a link is not available is provided. 2 pts Proficient The submission includes a link to view the selected instrument, OR an explanation as to why a link is not available is provided. 0 pts Not Proficient The submission does not include a link to view the selected instrument, OR an explanation as to why a link is not available is not provided. 2 pts
  • 9. This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe submission demonstrates the appropriate application of APA 7th edition guidelines for the construction of in-text and reference citations. 2 pts Proficient The submission is free from citation construction errors. 1 pts Approaching Proficiency The submission contains 1-3 citation construction errors. 0 pts Not Proficient The submission contains greater than 3 citation construction errors. 2 pts Total Points: 30 PreviousNext