NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
Walden University NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
The introduction for the Walden University NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
Assessment tools have two primary purposes: 1) to measure illness and diagnose clients, and 2) to measure a client’s response to treatment. Often, you will find that multiple assessment tools are designed to measure the same condition or response. Not all tools, however, are appropriate for use in all clinical situations. You must consider the strengths and weaknesses of each tool to select the appropriate assessment tool for your client. For this Discussion, as you examine the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor, consider its use in psychotherapy.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Analyze psychometric properties of assessment tools
- Evaluate appropriate use of assessment tools in psychotherapy
- Compare assessment tools used in psychotherapy
Note: By Day 1 of this week, the Course Instructor will assign you to an assessment tool that is used in psychotherapy.
To prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide.
- Consider the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor.
- Review the Library Course Guide in your Learning Resources for assistance in locating information on the assessment tool you were assigned.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking Submit!
By Day 3
Post an explanation of the psychometric properties of the assessment tool you were assigned. Explain when it is appropriate to use this assessment tool with clients, including whether the tool can be used to evaluate the efficacy of psychopharmacologic medications. Support your approach with evidence-based literature.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues by comparing your assessment tool to theirs.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 2 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 2 Discussion
Also Read: NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Does Psychotherapy Have a Biological Basis?
Week in Review
Now that you have:
- Analyzed psychometric properties of assessment tools
- Evaluated appropriate use of assessment tools in psychotherapy
NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion Assessment Tools - Compared assessment tools used in psychotherapy
Next week, you will:
- Evaluate the application of current literature to clinical practice
Next Week
Sample Answer for NRNP 6640 Week 2 Discussion: Assessment Tools
In the present discussion, the Prostrate-specific antigen test will form the basis of the examination. According to statistics, prostate cancer afflicts more people from the age of 65 and above in the United States (Adhyam & Gupta, 2012). Genetics play a role in the prevalence of the disease as more African-Americans have been found with the condition compared to their counterparts whereas family history also predisposes men to it. Given that prostate cancer can occur slowly or rapidly, screening plays an important role in its management. The purpose of this paper therefore is to examine the prostrate-specific antigen test as well as assess children from the provided list.
Description of the Tool
Prostate cancer is primarily screened through a blood-test referred to as the prostate-specific antigen-test (PSA). PSA is thus the biomarker for prostate cancer and is actually a protein produced by both malignant and non-malignant tissues in the affected region. The PSA test works through drawing of blood from a patient’s artery or vein, which will be sent to the laboratory for examination (Adhyam & Gupta, 2012). If the level of the PSA in the blood sample is more than 4 mg/ml, then cancer could be diagnosed. However, the utilization of this PSA level is still shrouded in controversy since such results may also indicate the presence of other diseases such as inflamed or enlarged prostate. Thus, in order to truly conclude the presence of prostate cancer, additional tests such as biopsy, ultrasound, prostate exams and even the recent multiparametric-prostate-magnetic resonance imagining (MP-MRI) become necessary (Stamatakis & Pinto, 2014).
PSA Test’s Validity, Reliability, Sensitivities, and Predictive Values
The validity of the PSA Test for screening cancer patients has always been a subject of discussion. Whereas the test is valid when it comes to cancer screening, particularly in early stages, its overall validity does not inspire confidence since its effect on mortality has not been determined (Leal, Welton, & Martin, 2018). Further, the PSA test’s reliability has also been called into question. Whereas the tool can detect abnormal levels of PSA in the blood, it does not offer an accurate diagnostic information concerning the state of one’s prostate. Thus, one needs to adopt the usage of other tests in order to achieve this objective. Further, it is not useful in screening early stages of this cancer as mentioned above without proving useful for late stage prostate cancer.
Moreover, the usage of PSA test has also been characterized by diametrically different opinions from doctors and studies. For instance, while the tool has provided early detection of prostate cancer, its usefulness as regards saving lives has no clear cut answer. Also, the existence of the PSA levels of more than 4mg/ml has generated a controversy in the scientific circles as it does not necessarily appear as a biomarker for prostate cancer (Laine, 2012). Recommendations have also been made to use the upper range of values of normal when it comes to PSA for older adults. However, this only serves to reduce the sensitivity of the PSA tool for older adults’ prostate screening. Therefore, whereas the PSA cut off 4 ng/mL has expressed low sensitivities in studies, its specificity has increased as incidences of false positive tests are almost negligible.
References
Adhyam, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2012). A Review on the Clinical Utility of PSA in Cancer Prostate. Indian journal of surgical oncology, 3(2), 120-9.
Laine, C. (2012). High-value testing begins with a few simple questions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(2), 162–163. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Leal, J., Welton, N., & Martin, R. (2018). Estimating the sensitivity of a prostate cancer screening programme for different PSA cut-off levels: A uk case study. Cancer Epidemiology, 52, 99-105.
Stamatakis, L., … Pinto, P. A. (2014). Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU International, 115(3), 381-388. doi:10.1111/bju.12639
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