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

NRNP 6640 Week 9 Discussion: Psychotherapy With Children and Adolescents

NRNP 6640 Week 9 Discussion: Psychotherapy With Children and Adolescents

Approximately 1 in 5 children and adolescents have a mental health disorder, which may
lead to issues at home, school, and other areas of their lives (Prout & Fedewa, 2015). When
working with this population, it is important to recognize that children and adolescents are
not “mini adults” and should not be treated as such. Psychotherapy with these clients is
often more complex than psychotherapy with the general adult population, particularly in
terms of communication. As a result, strong therapeutic relationships are essential to
success.
This week, as you explore psychotherapy with children and adolescents, you assess clients
presenting with disruptive behaviors. You also examine therapies for treating these clients
and consider potential outcomes.
Photo Credit: [dolgachov]/[iStock / Getty Images Plus]/Getty Images

Learning Resources
Required Readings
American Nurses Association. (2014). Psychiatric-mental health nursing: Scope and
standards of practice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
 Standard 5 “Implementation” (pages 52-53)
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 17, “Psychotherapy With Children” (pp. 597–624)

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

Bass, C., van Nevel, J., & Swart, J. (2014). A comparison between dialectical behavior
therapy, mode deactivation therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acceptance and
commitment therapy in the treatment of adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral
Consultation and Therapy, 9(2), 4-8. doi:10.1037/h0100991

Koocher, G. P. (2003). Ethical issues in psychotherapy with adolescents. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 59(11), 1247–1256.

McLeod, B. D., Jensen-Doss, A., Tully, C. B., Southam-Gerow, M. A., Weisz, J. R., &
Kendall, P. C. (2016). The role of setting versus treatment type in alliance within youth
therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(5), 453-
464. doi:10.1037/ccp0000081

Zilberstein, K. (2014). The use and limitations of attachment theory in child
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 51(1), 93-103.  doi:10.1037/a0030930

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2013a). Disruptive behaviors – Part 1 [Multimedia file].
Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2013a). Disruptive behaviors – Part 2 [Multimedia file].
Baltimore, MD: Author.

Walker, R. (n.d.). Making child therapy work [Video file]. Mill Valley, CA:
Psychotherapy.net.

NRNP 6640 Week 9 Discussion Psychotherapy With Children and Adolescents

NRNP 6640 Week 9 Discussion Psychotherapy With Children and Adolescents

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NRNP 6640 Week 9 Discussion: Psychotherapy With Children and Adolescents

Optional Resources
Bruce, T., & Jongsma, A. (2011). Evidence-based treatment planning for disruptive child and
adolescent behavior [Video file]. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Note: You will access this media from the Walden Library databases. The approximate
length of this media piece is 63 minutes.

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.