Reviews
Xorian
PeerReviewForm.docx
Writing
Peer Review Form
Student’s name of paper being reviewed:
Reviewer’s name:
Select the button for the rating you would choose and provide written feedback for each criteria listed. Describe overall impressions at the end of the form.
Introduction
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Provided a thesis statement about the purpose and scope of the paper.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Select a “mental disorder” classified in the DSM-5-TR or other specific issue.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Student clearly identified one specific diagnosis classified by the DSM-5-TR. If not a DSM diagnosis, a coherent presenting problem was identified.
|
Presenting problem was not clearly identified, or was too broad or vague
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Overview, Prevalence and Diagnostic Features
Describe the prevalence and diagnostic features. Explain this disorder as if the reader is not familiar with it.
|
Meets Expectations (2 points) |
Approaching Expectations (1.2 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Provided a clear, concise and comprehensive introduction to this disorder, including a brief summary of symptoms and how common it is in the US.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Presenting Problem Identified
Note strengths or opportunities associated with this condition.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Used critical thinking to identify potential strengths, opportunities and resources for clients with this diagnosis.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Modality Overview
Summarize the history and key elements of the approach you selected. Provide a basic overview of this treatment modality.
|
Meets Expectations (2 points) |
Approaching Expectations (1.2 points) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Provided an accurate overview of history and key elements the selected approach (CBT, ACT, REBT, DBT, mindfulness-based CBT, or trauma-informed CBT).
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Strengths Perspective
Is the intervention you selected an evidence-based and effective treatment for the problem you identified?
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Summarized empirical literature to support that the selected approach is an effective treatment for the disorder you identified.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Engagement
In addition to describing general engagement strategies, please specify how your engagement approach will be trauma-informed.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Listed specific steps the therapist would take, things the therapist would say, questions to ask, or exercises to employ at this stage of the helping process.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity, or did not include information about setting a trauma-informed environment.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Evidence-Based
Please note what standardized assessment/screening tool you would use to diagnose the condition. Be sure to also consider the biopsychosocial-spiritual perspective.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Included a specific instrument or assessment tool to diagnose your selected mental health condition. Listed specific steps the therapist would take, things the therapist would say, or questions to ask at this stage of the helping process. Included person-in- environment considerations.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Assessment
Reviewer’s Comments
Intervention
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Provided a detailed |
Section was present but |
This section was not |
|
explanation of how the |
lacked sufficient depth or |
included or had |
|
therapist would conduct at |
clarity. |
significant issues with |
|
least one specific intervention, |
|
clarity, accuracy or |
|
activity or exercise. |
|
relevance. |
|
|
|
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Goal Setting/ Treatment Planning
Reviewer’s Comments
Termination
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Listed specific steps the therapist would take, things the therapist would say, questions to ask, or exercises to employ at this stage of the helping process.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Evaluation
Discuss specific modifications or considerations you would apply to promote inclusivity and equity with diverse clients. To make this section more detail and specific, please select one specific demographic to consider (gender, sexuality, race, religion, age, disability, etc.)
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Provided a thoughtful discussion of how you would plan, adapt, or modify your approach to show cultural competence, respect for diversity, etc.
|
Section was present but lacked sufficient depth or clarity.
|
This section was not included or had significant issues with clarity, accuracy or relevance.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Diversity and Inclusion
Reviewer’s Comments
Length
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Paper is between 8-10 pages not including title page and references
|
Paper is less than 8 full pages or more than 10 pages.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Conclusion
Your assertions and the information you provided should be supported by literature. Please cite, using both in-text citations and a References section, at least five empirical sources such as peer-reviewed articles or textbooks.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Paper incorporated course readings and/or any additional applicable academic (empirical) materials (e.g. journal articles). These were cited appropriately, both in-text and in references.
|
Did not incorporate at least 5 sources.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
APA
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Paper follows APA 7 guidelines, including title page, references and section headings.
|
Student made an effort to follow APA 7 guidelines with some minor errors.
|
Paper format deviated significantly from APA style.
|
Reviewer’s Comments
Citing Sources
Demonstrate graduate level writing, including strong organization of ideas and appropriate grammar.
|
Meets Expectations (1 point) |
Approaching Expectations (0.6 point) |
Below Expectations (0 points) |
|
Paper is organized, well-written and grammatically appropriate, reflecting graduate-level writing.
|
Paper contains a small number of minor grammar or spelling errors or organizational issues.
|
Paper contains numerous organizational issues, grammar or spelling errors that detract from the professionalism of the post or make the writing difficult to understand.
|
Rubric Total 0
Overall, what are the strengths of this paper?
Overall, what are the most important things for your colleague to work on?
