Social Science - Sociology Assignment 3

Diagnosis of Neurodevelopmental and/or Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct Disorders

This Assignment is your first diagnosis for the course, in which you use a case study to practice diagnosing mental disorders using the DSM-5-TR . You will conduct a similar diagnosis each remaining week. Remember these key requirements:

The diagnosis must have a code written in the correct format on its own line, with specifiers if appropriate.

Any Z codes come below that, each on their own line.

Following this is the diagnostic summary—a discussion of the symptoms that supports the diagnosis.

There may be more than one diagnosis for the client. All diagnoses must be listed.

Remember: This is your fist attempt, so focus especially on the how of the diagnosis. How do you use the DSM-5-TR to connect symptoms and behaviors with criteria?

Finally, recall that neurodevelopmental disorders may be co-occurring (i.e., more than one disorder at the same time). Here, as in many diagnoses, there is no single symptom that miraculously points to a disorder. The principal disorder (i.e., the one needing more immediate attention) should be listed first.

Resources

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

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

To Prepare

Review the case study for this week.

Review all the resources under the heading Diagnosis Assignment Handouts. These handouts present foundational information and can act as a quick reference to support your diagnosis practice throughout the course.

Review the sections of the DSM-5-TR listed in the Learning Resources.

Look within the noted sections for symptoms, behaviors, or other features the client presents with in the case study.

Review the correct format for how to write the diagnosis noted below. Be sure to use this format.

Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

By Day 7

Submit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Submit your diagnosis Follow the guidelines below. Case ATTACHED SEPARATELY

The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order.

Note: Do not include the plus sign in your diagnosis. Instead, write the indicated items next to each other.

Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line)

Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

Then, in 1–2 pages, respond to the following:

Explain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study.

Describe in detail how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. Note: You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the discussion.

Identify the differential diagnosis you considered.

Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses.

Explain the specific factors of culture that are or may be relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress.

Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

Remember: When using Z codes, stay focused on the psychosocial and environmental impact on the client within the last 12 months.

submission information

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK3Assgn+last name+first initial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week3_Assignment_Rubric

SOCW_6090_Week3_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSubmit your diagnosis for the client in the case. Follow the guidelines below. ... The diagnosis should appear on one line in the following order: ... Code + Name + Specifier (appears on its own first line) ... Z code (appears on its own line next with its name written next to the code)

13.5 to >12.02 pts

Exceeds Expectation 100%–90%

Response contains an accurate diagnosis. ... The diagnosis is formatted correctly (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes follow the correct format).

12.02 to >10.67 pts

Meets Expectation 89%–80%

Response contains an accurate diagnosis, but there is some error in the way the diagnosis is written in a limited way (e.g., the code, the diagnosis name, and any specifiers or Z codes may contain a formatting error, but it is still possible to see that the correct disorder was diagnosed).

10.67 to >9.32 pts

Fair 79%–70%

Response is in the right area but not exact.

9.32 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 69%–0%

Response has a completely inaccurate diagnosis and/or does not attempt to achieve formatting requirement for an accurate diagnosis.

13.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you support the diagnosis by specifically identifying the criteria from the case study. ... Describe, in detail, how the client’s symptoms match up with the specific diagnostic criteria for all the disorder that you finally selected for the client. You do not need to repeat the diagnostic code in the Discussion.

13.5 to >12.02 pts

Exceeds Expectation 100%–90%

Response meets expectations and exceeds through relevant and/or added examples drawn from the case study and/or the DSM-5-TR.

12.02 to >10.67 pts

Meets Expectation 89%–80%

Response supports the diagnosis by referring to direct evidence, in the case study, and explaining how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.

10.67 to >9.32 pts

Fair 79%–70%

Response partially supports the diagnosis with direct evidence, in the case study, and explains how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria, but the response also relies upon generalizations or assumptions in part of the explanation.

9.32 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 69%–0%

Response does not support the diagnosis at all, and/or relies solely on generalizations or assumptions over direct evidence from the case study, and/or does not attempt to explain how the symptoms match diagnostic criteria.

13.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the differential diagnosis you considered. ... Explain why you excluded this diagnosis/diagnoses. ... Explain the specific factors of culture that are—or may be—relevant to the case and the diagnosis, which may include the cultural concepts of distress. ... Explain why you chose the Z codes you have for this client.

13.5 to >12.02 pts

Exceeds Expectation 100%–90%

Response meets expectations and deepens the explanation through added connection and applicability to practice. ... Response draws out specific or deeper understanding through examples from the case study, Learning Resources, or peer-reviewed research or other relevant sources.

12.02 to >10.67 pts

Meets Expectation 89%–80%

Response accurately and thoroughly explains rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response explanations refer to direct evidence in the case study and/or other Learning Resources and demonstrates an evident understanding of the Learning Resources.

10.67 to >9.32 pts

Fair 79%–70%

Response provides a limited, incomplete, or vaguely developed explanation of rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices where relevant. ... Response may show evidence of connection to the case study or Learning Resources, but it is vague or poorly connected.

9.32 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 69%–0%

Response makes little or no attempt to provide a rationale for differential diagnosis, cultural factors, and Z code choices and does not demonstrate connection to peer-reviewed research or Learning Resources. No resources are used to support the response.

13.5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting

4.5 to >4.01 pts

Exceeds Expectation 100%–90%

Paper meets length requirements, meets expectations, is generally error free (two or fewer), and further exceeds by showcasing an exemplary scholarly voice to develop its message or communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

4.01 to >3.56 pts

Meets Expectation 89%–80%

Paper meets length requirements and is clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor, minimal (three to five), and do not interfere with the scholarly message. The paper displays effective organization and focus to communicate ideas. ... Paper appropriately synthesizes sources to effectively support the diagnosis. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

3.56 to >3.1 pts

Fair 79%–70%

Paper does not meet length requirements either somewhat too short or too long. The paper is somewhat clear and coherent. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are minor but frequent (five to 10) and occasionally interfere with the message. The paper lacks clear organization or occasionally strays from the focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas are free from bias and objective, unless otherwise directed in the prompt.

3.1 to >0 pts

Needs Improvement 69%–0%

Paper does not meet length requirements either significantly too short or too long. The paper lacks clarity and coherence. Errors in grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation are major, pervasive (11+), and interfere with the message. The paper is not organized or lacks focus. ... Tone and presentation of ideas reveal bias and subjectivity.

4.5 pts

Total Points: 45