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?” (Boland, Verduin, & Ruiz, 2022).

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?” (Boland, Verduin, & Ruiz, 2022).

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?” (Boland, Verduin, & Ruiz, 2022).

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?” (Boland, Verduin, & Ruiz, 2022).

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?

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Boland, R. & Verduin, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 32 “Normal Development and Aging”

Chapter 33, “Contributions from the Neurosciences”

Chapter 34, “Contributions from the Behavioral and Social Sciences”

Chapter 31 “Global and Cultural Issues in Psychiatry”

Chapter 35 “A Brief History of Psychiatry”

Butcher, J. N., & Kendall, P. C. (2018). Introduction to childhood and adolescent psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Child and adolescent psychopathology

Links to an external site.., Vol. 2. (pp. 3–14). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000065-001

Cheung, F. M., & Mak, W. W. S. (2018). Sociocultural factors in psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & J. M. Hooley (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Psychopathology: Understanding, assessing, and treating adult mental disorders., Vol. 1

Links to an external site.. (pp. 127–147). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000064-006

Jackson, C. E., & Milberg, W. P. (2018). Examination of neurological and neuropsychological features in psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & J. M. Hooley (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Psychopathology: Understanding, assessing, and treating adult mental disorders., Vol. 1

Links to an external site.. (pp. 65–90). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000064-004

Masten, A. S., & Kalstabakken, A. W. (2018). Developmental perspectives on psychopathology in children and adolescents. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Child and adolescent psychopathology., Vol. 2

Links to an external site.. (pp. 15–36). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000065-002

Document: NRNP 6635 Mid-term Study Guide

Download NRNP 6635 Mid-term Study Guide

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.

Upload a copy of your discussion writing to the draft Turnitin for plagiarism check. Your faculty holds the academic freedom to not accept your work and grade at a zero if your work is not uploaded as a draft submission to Turnitin as instructed.

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!

NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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.

44 to >39.0 pts

Excellent

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.

39 to >34.0 pts

Good

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.

34 to >30.0 pts

Fair

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.

30 to >0 pts

Poor

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.

44 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting: Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

Written clearly and concisely. … Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. … Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good

Written concisely. … May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Written somewhat concisely. … May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting: Timely and full participation
10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main discussion by due date.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good

Posts main discussion by due date. … Meets requirements for full participation.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Posts main discussion by due date.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main discussion by due date.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >7.0 pts

Good

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

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >4.0 pts

Good

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 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response: Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >7.0 pts

Good

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

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Response is on topic, may have some depth.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response: Writing
6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent

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 to >4.0 pts

Good

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 to >3.0 pts

Fair

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.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.
6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response: Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good

Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date.
5 pts

Total Points: 100