Case Study: White Australian Male
| Purpose: | Analyze and apply critical thinking skills in the psychopathology of mental health patients and provide treatment and health promotion while applying evidence-based research. |
| Scenario: | A 44-year-old white Australian man who was not religious was referred to outpatient psychiatric treatment. He had been playing with an Ouija board for two months when he started to believe that a spirit had entered his body through his rectum and was controlling him. He thought the spirit made him move and speak in a certain way.
He sought help from a local church, where he was told it was a psychiatric problem and that he was not really possessed. Two exorcisms at a local church failed to achieve any improvement. |
| Questions: | Remember to answer these questions from your textbooks and NP guidelines. At all times, explain your answers.
1. Discuss the relationship between mental illness and religion. 2. Is this classified as psychopathology? Support your response using DSM5 criteria. |
Submission Instructions:
- Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources. Your initial post is worth 8 points.
- You should respond to at least two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts. Your reply posts are worth 2 points (1 point per response.)
- All replies must be constructive and use literature where possible.
- Please post your initial response by 11:59 PM ET Thursday, and comment on the posts of two classmates by 11:59 PM ET Sunday.
- Late work policies, expectations regarding proper citations, acceptable means of responding to peer feedback, and other expectations are at the discretion of the instructor.
- You can expect feedback from the instructor within 48 to 72 hours from the Sunday due date.
Grading Rubric
Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.
| Discussion Rubric | |||||
| Criteria | Ratings | Points | |||
| Identification of Main Issues, Problems, and Concepts | Distinguished – 4 points Post is substantively accurate. Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Provides exceptional and thought-provoking analysis that directly addresses details and/or examples of the main topic. |
Excellent – 3 points Post is mostly related to the topic. Demonstrates understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. It provides some supporting details and/or examples. Analyses not as clear as they could be. |
Fair – 1-2 points Demonstrates limited understanding of most of the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. No details and/or examples are given. |
Poor – 0 points Post is off-topic, incorrect and/or irrelevant to the issues, problems, and concepts surrounding the assignment. Analyses are not well organized or clear. |
4 points |
| APA Formatting Guidelines | Distinguished – 2 points The reference page contains at least the required current scholarly academic reference and text reference. Follows APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Excellent – 1 point The reference page contains one current scholarly academic resource and text reference. Follows most APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Fair – 0.5 points The reference page contains one current or outdated scholarly academic resource. Many errors of APA guidelines: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent, and in-text citations. |
Poor – 0 points The reference page contains no current scholarly academic resources, only internet web pages, or no reference page. Lack of APA guidelines for references provided or in-text citations. |
2 points |
| Writing Mechanics | Distinguished – 2 points Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed; spelling is correct. |
Excellent – 1 point Few grammatical errors, but sentences could be clearer and more precise. |
Fair – 0.5 points The paper contains a few grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. |
Poor – 0 points The paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors. |
2 points |
| Response to Posts of Peers | Distinguished – 2 points Constructively responded to two other posts and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal to each. |
Fair – 1 point Constructively responded to one other post and either extended, expanded, or provided a rebuttal. |
Poor – 0 points Provided no response to a peer’s post.
|
||
