DISCUSSION: NRNP 6635 WEEK 1 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
In many realms of medicine, objective diagnoses can be made: A clavicula is broken. An infection is present. TSH levels meet the diagnostic criteria for hypothyroidism. Psychiatry, on the other hand, deals with psychological phenomena and behaviors. Can these, too, be “defined objectively and by scientific criteria (Gergen, 1985), or are they social constructions?” (Boland, Verduin, & Ruiz, 2022).
Thanks to myriad advances during recent decades, we know that psychopathology is caused by many interacting factors. Theoretical and clinical contributions to the field have come from the neural sciences, genetics, psychology, and social-cultural sciences. How do these factors impact the expression, classification, diagnosis, and prevalence of psychopathology, and why might it be important for a nurse practitioner to take a multidimensional, integrative approach?

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can help you in Completing this assignment and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside, AI report alongside the assignment. Feel free to chat Us

LEARNING RESOURCES
Required Readings
Boland, R. & Verduin, M. L. & Ruiz, P. (2022). Kaplan & Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry (12th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 32 “Normal Development and Aging”
Chapter 33, “Contributions from the Neurosciences”
Chapter 34, “Contributions from the Behavioral and Social Sciences”
Chapter 31 “Global and Cultural Issues in Psychiatry”
Chapter 35 “A Brief History of Psychiatry”
Butcher, J. N., & Kendall, P. C. (2018). Introduction to childhood and adolescent psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Child and adolescent psychopathologyLinks to an external site.., Vol. 2. (pp. 3–14). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000065-001
Cheung, F. M., & Mak, W. W. S. (2018). Sociocultural factors in psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & J. M. Hooley (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Psychopathology: Understanding, assessing, and treating adult mental disorders., Vol. 1Links to an external site.. (pp. 127–147). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000064-006
Jackson, C. E., & Milberg, W. P. (2018). Examination of neurological and neuropsychological features in psychopathology. In J. N. Butcher & J. M. Hooley (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Psychopathology: Understanding, assessing, and treating adult mental disorders., Vol. 1Links to an external site.. (pp. 65–90). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000064-004
Masten, A. S., & Kalstabakken, A. W. (2018). Developmental perspectives on psychopathology in children and adolescents. In J. N. Butcher & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), APA handbook of psychopathology: Child and adolescent psychopathology., Vol. 2Links to an external site.. (pp. 15–36). American Psychological Association. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1037/0000065-002
Document: NRNP 6635 Mid-term Study Guide
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 1
Explain the biological (genetic and neuroscientific); psychological (behavioral and cognitive processes, emotional, developmental); and social, cultural, and interpersonal factors that influence the development of psychopathology.
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.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

PLEASE INCLUDE 3 CREDIBLE SOURCES

NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
NRNP_6635_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain 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 OutcomeMain 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 OutcomeMain 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 OutcomeFirst 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 OutcomeFirst 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 OutcomeFirst 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 OutcomeSecond 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 OutcomeSecond 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 OutcomeSecond 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