NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology

NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology
NURS 6635 Week 1 Discussion: Factors That Influence the Development of Psychopathology
In many realms of medicine, objective diagnoses can be made: A clavicula is broken. 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? NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology.
To Prepare:
Review this week’s Learning Resources, considering the many interacting factors that contribute to the development of psychopathology.
Consider how the 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. NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
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 the 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.
Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. 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.
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%)
The response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to the practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
The response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
The response may not be on topic, and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions is fully answered if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
The response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is most professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions is mostly answered if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
The response is written in Standard, Edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses 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 is 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 the due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by the due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by the due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet the requirements for full participation.
Does not post by the due date.
Second 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%) NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology.
Response is on topic, may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
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 is 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 is 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 is 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 the requirements for full participation.
Does not post by the due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Learning Resources
Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)
Sadock, B. J., Sadock, V. A., & Ruiz, P. (2015). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 1, Neural Sciences
Chapter 2, Contributions of the Psychosocial Sciences
Chapter 3, Contributions of the Sociocultural Sciences
Chapter 4, Theories of Personality and Psychopathology
Chapter 31.17c, Child Psychiatry: Other Conditions: Identity Problem
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., Vol. 2. (pp. 3–14). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000065-001 NURS 6635 Week 1: History and Theories of Psychopathology.
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. (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. (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. (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
Also check: NRNP 6568 Synthesis Advance Nursing Practice Care of Patients in Family Care Settings
Other posts:
NRNP 6541N-9, Week 11 Final Exam
TSL 532 Full Course Discussions GCU
FIN 504 All Weeks Assignments GCU
HLT 540 Grand Canyon Week 7 Complete Work