Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Assignment

There are significant differences in the applications of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for families and individuals. The same is true for CBT in group settings and CBT in family settings. In your role, it is essential to understand these differences to appropriately apply this therapeutic approach across multiple settings. For this Discussion, as you compare the use of CBT in individual, group, and family settings, consider challenges of using this approach with groups you may lead, as well as strategies for overcoming those challenges.

To prepare:

Review the videos in this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights provided on CBT in various settings.

Post an explanation of how the use of CBT in groups compares to its use in family or individual settings. Explain at least two challenges PMHNPs might encounter when using CBT in one of these settings. Support your response with specific examples from this week’s media and at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources. Explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly and attach the PDFs of your sources.

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Content

Name: NRNP_6645_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Assignment

	Excellent Point range: 90–100	Good Point range: 80–89	Fair Point range: 70–79	Poor Point range: 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.	Points: Points Range: 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 3 current credible sources. 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 the 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. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Assignment	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:
Main Posting: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main discussion by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date. 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 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 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%) 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 (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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. 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, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. 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 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) – 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%) 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 (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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. 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, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Feedbac