Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NRNP 6640 Week 8 Discussion: Existential-Humanistic Therapy

NRNP 6640 Week 8 Discussion: Existential-Humanistic Therapy

" It is the client who knows what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial,
and what experiences have been deeply buried. "
–Carl Rogers, from On Becoming a Person
This client-centered perspective is the cornerstone of existential-humanistic therapy, which
requires therapists to “attempt to receive clients with curiosity and openness, endeavor to
grasp their subjective world, and believe that clients are the experts on their own
experience” (Wheeler, 2014, p. 373). As the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, it
is important to understand that the effectiveness of this approach is dependent on your
relationship with clients, as well as your beliefs on holism and human nature.
This week, you will compare Existential-Humanistic therapy to a therapy you select from
the previous weeks of this course.
Photo Credit: Laureate Education

Learning Resources
Required Readings
Wheeler, K. (Ed.). (2014). Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-
to guide for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing
Company.
 Chapter 10, “Humanistic-Existential and Solution-Focused Approaches to
Psychotherapy” (Review pp. 369–406)

NRNP 6640 Week 8 Discussion Existential-Humanistic Therapy

NRNP 6640 Week 8 Discussion Existential-Humanistic Therapy

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NRNP 6640 Week 8 Discussion: Existential-Humanistic Therapy

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Nagy, T. F. (2011). Ethics in psychotherapy. In Essential ethics for psychologists: A primer
for understanding and mastering core issues (pp. 185–198). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12345-010

Required Media

Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2013). Counseling and psychotherapy
theories in context and practice [Video file]. Mill Valley, CA: Psychotherapy.net.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012b). Clinical supervision follow-up [Video file].
Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: This is a follow-up to the Thompson family media piece in Week 5. The approximate
length of this media piece is 9 minutes.

Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015d). On a hamster wheel [Video file]. Baltimore, MD:
Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 2 minutes.

Accessible player

Bugental J. (n.d.). Existential-humanistic psychotherapy [Video file]. Mill Valley, CA:
Psychotherapy.net.

Optional Resources
Whiteley, J. M. (Producer). (1975). Rollo May on existential psychology. New York, NY:
John Whiteley. [Streaming Video]. Retrieved from Alexander Street database.
Note: You will access this media from the Walden Library databases. The approximate
length of this media piece is 35 minutes.

Steinert , T. (2016, October 3). Ethics of coercive treatment and misuse of psychiatry.
Psychiatric Services. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201600066.

Name:  Discussion Rubric

  Excellent

90–100

Good

80–89

Fair

70–79

Poor

0–69

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 three 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 three 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.

Cited with fewer than two 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 one or no credible references.

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

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%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

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 and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

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 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:
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 and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and 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:  Discussion Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.