mental health screening 3

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Mental health screenings for Women

  • Review this week’s media presentation, as well as Chapters 6 and 8 of the Tharpe et al. text and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services article in the Learning Resources.
  • Use guidelines on screening for the following topics and reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
  • Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.
  • Research guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you by the course Instructor (e.g., guidelines on screening for domestic violence, safety, nutrition, osteoporosis, heart disease, mental health, eating disorders, thyroid disease, pap smear, mammogram, cancer, and sexually transmitted infections). Note: The course Instructor will assign a topic to you by Day 1 of this week.
  • Reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
  • Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.

Post an explanation of the guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you. Include an explanation of strengths and limitations of the guidelines. Then, explain how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.

http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/N…https://class.content.laureate.net/cbeb13986072869…

3-4 pages. APA. at least 3 references.

https://www.hhs.gov/programs/prevention-and-wellne…

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6551_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

  • Grid View
  • List View
Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement
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.

Points:

Points Range: 44 (44%) – 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.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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 post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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 1 or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

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.

Levels of Achievement:


44
(44%) – 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.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

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 post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 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.

post is cited with fewer than 2 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 1 or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Writing

Levels of Achievement:


6
(6%) – 6
(6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Timely and full participation

Levels of Achievement:


10
(10%) – 10
(10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Levels of Achievement:


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

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing

Levels of Achievement:


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%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted 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%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation

Levels of Achievement:


5
(5%) – 5
(5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Levels of Achievement:


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

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing

Levels of Achievement:


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%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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 “CUSTOM PAPER”

Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: ORIGINAL PAPER NO PLAGIARISM - CUSTOM PAPER

Why Choose Us?

  • non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee
SATISFACTION
SATISFACTION

How It Works

  • Click on the “Place Your Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT ; SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

About AcademicWritersBay.com

AcademicWritersBay.comnbsp;is an easy-to-use and reliable service that is ready to assist you with your papers 24/7/ 365days a year. 99% of our customers are happy with their papers. Our team is efficient and will always tackle your essay needs comprehensively assuring you of excellent results. Feel free to ask them anything concerning your essay demands or Order.

AcademicWritersBay.com is a private company that offers academic support and assistance to students at all levels. Our mission is to provide proficient andnbsp;high quality academic servicesnbsp;to our highly esteemed clients. AcademicWritersBay.com is equipped with competent andnbsp;proficient writersnbsp;to tackle all types of your academic needs, and provide you with excellent results. Most of our writers are holders ofnbsp;master's degreesnbsp;ornbsp;PhDs, which is an surety of excellent results to our clients. We provide assistance to students all over the world.
We provide high quality term papers, research papers, essays, proposals, theses and many others. Atnbsp;AcademicWritersBay.com, you can be sure ofnbsp;excellent gradesnbsp;in your assignments and final exams.

NO PLAGIARISM
NO PLAGIARISM
error: Content is protected !!