LASA Week 5 Assignment

Unsatisfactory

< 77% (C- to C)

Emerging

78 – 82% (C+ to B-)

Proficient

83 – 89% (B to B+)

Exemplary

90 – 100 % (A- to A)

Points

Assignment Components

Identify and articulate the similarities and differences between the therapeutic and forensic roles for both assessment and treatment.

CO 4

PO 4

ILO 1, 2, 3, 5

Discussion indicates an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the therapeutic and forensic roles. It provides vague, incomplete, or inaccurate descriptions.

Discussion did not address both assessment and treatment issues.

Discussion indicates only a basic understanding of the therapeutic and forensic roles. It provides some details but it is either more thorough on one role than the other or is incomplete.

Assessment and treatment issues in dual relationships were discussed at a basic level.

Discussion indicates understanding of the therapeutic and forensic roles through specific details within each role. However, relations are not drawn between the two, or arguments, although accurate, are common.

Discussion addressed assessment and treatment issues in dual relationships.

Discussion demonstrates an advanced understanding of the therapeutic and forensic roles through specific discussions and insightful explanations articulating the similarities and differences between the roles.

Discussion thoroughly addressed assessment and treatment issues in dual relationships.

/72 pts.

Articulate the potential ethical conflicts and discuss ways on how those conflicts might be managed.

CO 3

PO 4

ILO 1, 2, 3, 5

Discussion neglected to articulate the potential ethical conflicts or neglected to discuss ways to address those conflicts.

Some potential ethical conflicts were identified but others were ignored.

Some of the potential ethical conflicts identified were explored and options for how to address them were discussed while others were ignored.

The most pertinent potential ethical conflicts related to the dual relationship of therapeutic and forensic roles were identified and ways to address them were discussed.

The most pertinent potential ethical conflicts related to the dual relationship of therapeutic and forensic roles were identified and ways to address them were discussed that utilized current research to support the interventions.

/72 pts.

Present a cogent argument for whether forensic and therapeutic roles should coincide.

CO 1

PO 4

ILO 1, 2, 3, 5

Thesis statement is too vague or attempts to argue both sides.

Thesis statement is present, but does not clearly indicate whether therapeutic and forensic roles can ethically coincide.

Thesis statement clearly takes a stance on whether therapeutic and forensic roles can ethically coincide.

Thesis statement clearly and concisely takes a stance on whether therapeutic and forensic roles can ethically coincide.

/72 pts.

Present well-reasoned arguments supported by scholarly resources.

CO 1

PO 3

ILO 3, 6

Too few arguments for thesis are presented or arguments are unreasonable or unclear throughout. Arguments are not well-supported by the scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, or the law.

Arguments don’t appear to support thesis.

Too few examples or explanations are provided to support arguments.

Arguments are somewhat unclear or sometimes unreasonable. Although scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, and/or the law are referenced, how they support the arguments is unclear. Many arguments support the thesis, but some seem to not directly tie back.

Examples and explanations are used to support the argument, but they are vague or their support is weak.

Scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, or the law is summarized, but sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately.

Arguments are clear and reasonable. They are supported by scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, and/or the law. All arguments directly support the thesis.

Specific examples and explanations are used to support the arguments.

Scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, or the law is accurately summarized and appropriately used.

Arguments are compelling, well-reasoned, and supported by a breadth of scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, and/or the law. All arguments clearly support thesis.

Specific examples and detailed explanations are used to support arguments that the two roles can or cannot coincide.

Scholarly literature, professional ethical guidelines, or the law is accurately summarized and appropriately used.

/56 pts.

Academic Writing

ILO 2, 6

Responses indicate a basic understanding of the concepts but did not present critical thinking skills, and/or responses indicated a struggle to focus on thesis or construct arguments.

Responses are unclear, unorganized, poorly supported, or unfocused.

Arguments relied heavily on direct quotations. Citations or references not in correct APA style.

Paper is not formatted in correct APA style.

Responses were not always clear, concise, organized, or well-supported using multiple sources in adherence with APA style.

Responses cited some sources in correct APA style.

Some references were cited parenthetically and were included in the reference list.

The student also inappropriately used direct quotations.

Responses were generally clear, concise, organized, and well-supported using multiple sources in adherence with APA style.

Responses cited most sources in correct APA style.

Most references were cited parenthetically and included in the reference list.

Minimal and correct use of direct quotations.

Writing remains focused on the thesis, construct arguments, and demonstrates critical thinking skills.

Writing is

concise, organized, and professional.

Arguments make minimal use of direct quotations.

Multiple references are used to support statements and cited sources and references are in correct APA style.

Paper is formatted in correct APA style.

/28 pts.

Subtotal

Timeliness

Late Work penalty:

Total Score:

/300 pts.

PO 4

Using scores from Rows 1-3 above , calculate their ranking as follows:

Unsatisfactory 0 - 167 pts = 1 Emerging 168 – 179 pts = 2 Proficient 180 – 196 pts = 3

Exemplary 197 – 216 pts = 4

/4

PO 3

Using the score from Row 4 above , calculate their ranking as follows:

Unsatisfactory 0 - 43 pts = 1 Emerging 44 – 46 pts = 2 Proficient 47 – 50 pts = 3

Exemplary 51 – 56 pts = 4

/4