NRNP 6635 The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales
The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales
Psychiatric interviews are critical tools in mental health assessment as they allow mental health providers to collect comprehensive information on a patient’s mental health status. Psychiatric interviews systematically survey subjective and objective data on patients about their illnesses and generate differential diagnoses and plans for more evaluation and possible treatment. The three core components of a psychiatric interview include the history of current illness and chief complaint, mental status examination, and psychiatric history. History of current illness and chief complaint are the main concerns for a patient or reason for seeking help (Brown et al., 2022). They are important as they guide the interview’s focus and assist clinicians in understanding the patient’s perspective. Mental status examination (MSE) is a systematic observation of a patient’s appearance, behavior and conduct, thought processes, and current moods. This component is important since it offers objective data on the patient’s present mental state. Psychiatric history entails past diagnoses, treatment interventions, hospitalizations, and associated responses to therapeutic regimens. This is critical as it offers the context and can assist predict a patient’s response to future interventions.
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) scales are psychometric tools that assess the presence and the level or severity of ADHD symptoms. The Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder (BADDS) is one of the most effective self-assessment scales designed to screen the presence of ADHD symptoms. As a psychometric tool, the BADDS exhibits properties like reliability, validity, and specificity. Reliability shows the level that a tool can produce consistent metrics across various raters and testing milieus. Validity is the accuracy or representation of a true state of nature (Jackson & Jordan, 2020). Sensitivity refers to a scale’s ability to correctly identify persons with ADHD while specificity shows a scale’s capacity to exclude those who do not have disorders. As such, the BADDS tool has all these properties, making it one of the most used psychometric tools for effective ADHD diagnosis across the lifespan.
Rating tools are a valuable part of nurses when conducting psychiatric assessments, including interviews, as they offer a structured and quantifiable approach to evaluating symptoms and progress among patients. Clinicians obtain objective and quantifiable information about one’s symptoms. Rating scales can serve as an adjunct to the diagnostic interview and enable nurses to know the diagnosis, plan treatment, and monitor implemented interventions. Rating scales offer a host of benefits to nurse practitioners during psychiatric assessment (Rajachandrasekar et al., 2023b). They help the practitioner and patient determine the effectiveness of the current treatment. For instance, most patients do not appreciate the gradual improvement in their level of functioning and symptoms. Through these tools and assessments, nurses can determine the level of improvement for their patients and appreciate the progress. Secondly, rating scales help nurses to develop and implement a systematic approach to determining the symptoms and improving interventions. For instance, the BADDS helps nurses determine dietary requirements and quality of life for patients.
References
Brown, T. E., Chen, J., & Robertson, B. (2022). Improved executive function in adults diagnosed
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as measured by the brown attention-deficit disorder scale following treatment with SHP465 mixed amphetamine salts extended-release: post hoc analyses from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(2), 256-266. DOI: 10.1177/1087054720961819
Jackson, R., & Jordan, J. T. (2022). Reliable change in parent-rated scores on the Brown
Attention-Deficit Disorder Scales from pre-to post-participation in the Brain Balance
program. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1): 1-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01333-y
Rajachandrasekar, B., & Vaiyapuri, S. (2023b). Rating scales in psychiatric disorders — why?
International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 10(11), 4502–4511. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20233502
CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
The Psychiatric Evaluation and Evidence-Based Rating Scales
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.
Resources
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
To Prepare:
- Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide regarding psychiatric assessment and diagnosis.
- Consider the elements of the psychiatric interview, history, and examination.
- Consider the assessment tool assigned to you by the Course Instructor.
By Day 3 of Week 2
Post a brief explanation of three important components of the psychiatric interview and why you consider these elements important. Explain the psychometric properties of the rating scale you were assigned. Explain when it is appropriate to use this rating scale with clients during the psychiatric interview and how the scale is helpful to a nurse practitioner’s psychiatric assessment. Support your approach with evidence-based literature.
Upload a copy of your discussion writing to the draft Turnitin for plagiarism check. Your faculty holds the academic freedom to not accept your work and grade at a zero if your work is not uploaded as a draft submission to Turnitin as instructed.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 2
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by comparing your assessment tool to theirs.
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 on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
NRNP_6635_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|---|---|---|
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 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. | 44 to >39.0 pts Excellent 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 3 current credible sources.
39 to >34.0 pts Good 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 3 credible references. 34 to >30.0 pts Fair 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. 30 to >0 pts Poor 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. |
44 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting:Writing | 6 to >5.0 pts Excellent Written clearly and concisely. … Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. … Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5 to >4.0 pts Good Written concisely. … May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. … Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 to >3.0 pts Fair Written somewhat concisely. … May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting:Timely and full participation | 10 to >8.0 pts Excellent Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main discussion by due date.
8 to >7.0 pts Good Posts main discussion by due date. … Meets requirements for full participation. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair Posts main discussion by due date. 6 to >0 pts Poor Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main discussion by due date. |
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. | 9 to >8.0 pts Excellent 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 to >7.0 pts Good Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair Response is on topic, may have some depth. 6 to >0 pts Poor Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. |
9 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response:Writing | 6 to >5.0 pts Excellent 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 to >4.0 pts Good 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 to >3.0 pts Fair 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. 3 to >0 pts Poor Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited. |
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response:Timely and full participation | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.
4 to >3.0 pts Good Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Posts by due date. 2 to >0 pts Poor Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date. |
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. | 9 to >8.0 pts Excellent 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 to >7.0 pts Good Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 to >6.0 pts Fair Response is on topic, may have some depth. 6 to >0 pts Poor Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. |
9 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response:Writing | 6 to >5.0 pts Excellent 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 to >4.0 pts Good 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 to >3.0 pts Fair 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. 3 to >0 pts Poor Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. … Response to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited. |
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response:Timely and full participation | 5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date.
4 to >3.0 pts Good Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date. 3 to >2.0 pts Fair Posts by due date. 2 to >0 pts Poor Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date. |
5 pts |
Total Points: 100