Student Example Anxiety and Related Disorders Assignment

Instrument: Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN)

Article: Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory

Appropriateness for Dx: This tool is meant for screening of individuals with social phobia and assignment of a severity score (Connor et al., 2000). The tool was created in congruence with DSM-4 but is consistent with the DSM-5 diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, minus some minor changes (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration [SAMHSA], 2016). Although the study is outdated, Duke University School of Medicine (2020) acknowledges that the tool is still relevant and utilized by their Anxiety and Traumatic Stress Program.

ORDER HERE A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER 

Response to Therapy/Treatment: The SPIN is appropriate for testing treatment response and through studies has proven sensitive to symptom changes over time. Changes in scores are able to determine treatment efficiency (Connor et al., 2000).

Psychometrics: The tool is self-administered and consists of 17 separate statements regarding problems a patient may exhibit if they have social phobia. The statement is then rated on how much it has bothered the individual in the last week, from ‘not at all’ (0) to ‘extremely’ (4). Any score over 21 is considered clinically significant. In the study, the assessment tool was able to effectively separate individuals with and without social phobia. Validity is strong in regard to detecting the severity of illness and is sensitive to symptom reductions during treatment. The scale shows significant correlation with the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Test, The Brief Social Phobia Scale and The Fear Questionnaire social phobia subscale (Connor et al., 2000).

Limitations: Limitations exist in the tool’s alignment with DSM-4 instead of the more recent edition, although differences are very minor (SAMHSA, 2016). With a cutoff score of 19, sensitivity and specificity were good, but some individuals consider the cutoff score to be 15, in which these measures are weaker (Connor et al., 2000).

References

Connor, K., Davidson, J., Churchill, E., Sherwood, A., Foa, E., & Wisler, R. (2000).

Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 379-386.

671:Unit 1 Clinical Preparation Tool Assignment

Instrument: The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS).

https://cssrs.columbia.edu/ (link to the tool)

Articles: Calculated Decisions: Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS); About the C-SSRS.

Appropriateness for Dx:

C-SSRS is used to identify and assess individuals at risk for suicide. It is employed in suicide risk assessment initial screening to guide and help clinicians and patients stratify the risk of suicidal rate (Salvi, 2019). The tool cannot replace a complete clinical suicidal evaluation but may be employed in initial screening of suicide rate.

Response to Therapy/Treatment:

C-SSRS tool is strictly used for assessment and diagnosis. It is effective in predicting overall suicidal risk and need for admission in patients within the emergency department. The tool has been recommended for clinical trials by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) since 2012 and adopted by the CDC to determine suicidal ideation and behavior (Salv, 2019).

Psychometrics:

C-SSRS measures four constructs: the lethality, behavior, intensity and severity of suicide ideation. It has ten categories with binary responses that measure and output a numerical score, used to evaluate the presence/absence of a suicidal behavior. The Category 1– assess the wish to be dead; category 2– active and non-specific suicidal thought; category 3- active and specific suicidal ideation without action plan; 4-active and specific ideation with action plan; 5-active and specific ideation with action plan and intent; 6-preparatory act; 7-aborted attempt; 8-interrupted attempt; 9-actual attempt; 10-completed attempt (CDP, n.d.). Once the results are captured, they are interpreted in a categorical scale with the help of a clinical assessment tool.

Importantly, C-SSRS has been used in numerous trials and extensively validated in several populations, including outpatients in psychiatry clinics (Salvi, 2019).

Limitations:

C-SSRS has ambiguous wordings, flawed navigation instructions, and can likely fail to determine a combination of diverse suicidal ideation and behavior (Salvi, 2019).

References

Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP). About the C-SSRE. https://deploymentpsych.org/system/files/member_resource/C-SSRS%20Factsheet.pdf

Salvi J. (2019). Calculated Decisions: Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Emergency medicine practice, 21(5), CD3–CD4.

Instructions
Topic: Suicidal Ideation

Suicide Assessment C-SSRS

The Columbia Lighthouse Project. (2016). Identify risk. Prevent suicide (Links to an external site.). https://cssrs.columbia.edu/

For this week utilize the tool listed above to complete the assignment.

Overview 

As you will learn throughout the program, the diagnosis of a variety of psychiatric illnesses is not always an easy or straightforward process. Multiple observations and assessment methods are often employed to reach a diagnosis. This approach can include the use of standardized assessment instruments.  This then aids you in defining a treatment plan and choosing specific treatment plans to use in the care of your clients. 

You are tasked with identifying a standardized assessment instrument/tool to measure the disorders listed for each week. You will keep these instruments in the form of a “portfolio” that you can use in your clinical practice to assess clients who present with a variety of symptoms. 

Instructions: 

Instrument/ Tool criteria: 

For each assessment, you are tasked with selecting, you will identify an instrument and: 

List what DSM diagnosis the tool/instrument is used for.
Identify an assessment/diagnosis instrument.
Appraise a scholarly, peer-reviewed article that addresses the use of the instrument to support your choice as an evidence-based instrument for practice. 
Evaluate the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess or if the developers of the instrument reported that the instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment for the disorder. 
Describe whether or not the instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if it is strictly for assessment and diagnosis. 
Discuss the psychometrics/scoring of the instrument, including reliability and validity. 
Discuss any limitations associated with the use of the instrument.
Include a link to view the assessment if possible.
 Use the following template in completing your portfolio assignments. Your information can be in a bulleted format or just a couple of sentences for each criterion listed above. However, you must use APA citations.  You are NOT required to write this in a paper format.  Turn in one document for each week’s topics.  (However, create a file on your desktop to compile your portfolio as you move through the term.)  This will ensure you can have easy access to show the full portfolio and once you begin clinicals and practice. Throughout the program, you will continue to add to the portfolio in each course.

Assignment File(s)
Sample Download Sample
Template Download Template
Rubric
NU671 Unit 1 Assignment – Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric
NU671 Unit 1 Assignment – Clinical Preparation Tool Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe DSM diagnosis for the assignment . . .
3 pts
Proficient
Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignment.
0 pts
Not Proficient
Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn assessment/diagnosis instrument . . .
3 pts
Proficient
Is clearly identified and appropriate for the assignment.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
Is clearly identified but not appropriate for the assignment.
0 pts
Not Proficient
Is not clearly identified and not appropriate for the assignment.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAn appraisal of a scholarly, peer-reviewed article, that addresses the use of an appropriately selected instrument . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain an appraisal of the article where the selected instrument was utilized.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of either – 1) an evaluation of the instrument’s appropriateness for diagnosing the condition it is designed to assess, OR 2) the developer’s report that the instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment for the disorder . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer’s report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer’s report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain a satisfactory discussion of either an evaluation of the appropriateness of the selected instrument OR an exemplary discussion of the developer’s report that the selected instrument is only part of a comprehensive assessment of the disorder.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis . . .
4 pts
Proficient
The submission contains an exemplary discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains a satisfactory discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis.
1 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not contain a discussion as to whether the selected instrument can be used to measure patient response to therapy/treatment or if the selected instrument is only used for assessment and diagnosis.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity . . .
4 pts
Proficient
An exemplary discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted in the submission.
2 pts

ORDER HERE A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER 

Approaching Proficiency
A satisfactory discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is noted in the submission.
1 pts
Not Proficient
A discussion of the psychometrics/scoring of the selected instrument, including reliability and validity, is not noted in the submission.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscuss any limitations associated with the use of the selected instrument . . .
4 pts
Proficient
An exemplary discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is noted.
2 pts
Approaching Proficiency
A satisfactory discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is noted.
1 pts
Not Proficient
A discussion of any limitations of the use of the selected instrument is not noted.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA link to view the selected instrument is provided, or an explanation as to why a link is not available is provided.
2 pts
Proficient
The submission includes a link to view the selected instrument, OR an explanation as to why a link is not available is provided.
0 pts
Not Proficient
The submission does not include a link to view the selected instrument, OR an explanation as to why a link is not available is not provided.
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe submission demonstrates the appropriate application of APA 7th edition guidelines for the construction of in-text and reference citations.
2 pts
Proficient
The submission is free from citation construction errors.
1 pts
Approaching Proficiency
The submission contains 1-3 citation construction errors.
0 pts
Not Proficient
The submission contains greater than 3 citation construction errors.
2 pts
Total Points: 30