Assessment 3 – Case study Weighting percentage: 50% of the total unit grade Addresses learning outcomes: 3. Identify and use strategies to maintain the integrity of self and personal pliancy through...

1 answer below »
Assessment 3 – Case study
Weighting percentage:
50% of the total unit grade
Addresses learning outcomes:
3. Identify and use strategies to maintain the integrity of self and personal pliancy through intra and interaction with people in healthcare practice
4. Demonstrate independence in developing interpersonal communication skills
5. Demonstrate advanced critical professional reflective practice
Assessment details:
You are required to interview a person who has experienced a health challenge or who is engaging in behaviours that may negatively affect their health – this could be a consumer in the healthcare context or a person in the community. Present your assessment as a case study with a reflective component. You may use subheadings within your assessment (no bullet points, graphs or lists).
Your submission should address the following:
· Provide a brief overview of the Transtheoretical ‘stages of change’ Model
· Identify the person’s health challenge or behaviour and explore the person's motivation to address their health challenge or behaviour using the Transtheoretical Model
· Explore the techniques you have used in your motivational interview towards discussing the person’s health challenge or behaviours.
· Evaluate your progress – consider the impact of the motivational interview on the interviewee’s choices regarding their health challenge or behaviour.
· Provide an in-depth reflection of your learning and development in conducting this activity and consider how you might develop your interpersonal and communication skills in your future practice.
You should include at least eight (8) academic references to support your assessment.
Word limit: 1800 words (+ or – 10%)
Referencing style: APA 7th edition
 
Note: All assessments must be attempted to pass this unit
Rubric
Assessment 3 case study
Assessment 3 case study
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOutline the stages of change
Explanation of the transtheoretical ‘stages of change’ model
5 to >4.2 Pts
High distinction
Excellent overview of the transtheoretical model that identifies the recognised stages.
4.2 to >3.7 Pts
Distinction
Very good overview of the transtheoretical model that identifies the recognised stages.
3.7 to >3.2 Pts
Credit
Good overview of the transtheoretical model that identifies the recognised stages with some inaccuracies or omission of information
3.2 to >2.4 Pts
Pass
Adequate overview of the transtheoretical model that attempts to identify the recognised stages. There are some inaccuracies or omission of information
2.4 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal or absent overview of the transtheoretical model that does not identify the recognised stages. There are a number of inaccuracies or omission of information.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOverview of health challenge
Description of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour and analyses where the interviewee fits in the transtheoretical model in relation to addressing their health challengealthcare challenge behaviour
10 to >8.4 Pts
High distinction
Excellent articulation of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour that is presented in a scholarly manner. Clear articulation of the interviewee’s appropriate stage in the transtheoretical model.
8.4 to >7.4 Pts
Distinction
Very good articulation of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour that is presented in a scholarly manner. Identifies the interviewee’s appropriate stage in the transtheoretical model
7.4 to >6.4 Pts
Credit
Good articulation of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour that has some aspects of a scholarly approach. Identifies the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model with some inaccuracies or lack of justification.
6.4 to >4.5 Pts
Pass
Adequate articulation of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour that is has minimal aspects of a scholarly manner. Attempts to identify the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model with some inaccuracies.
4.5 to >0 Pts
Fail
The articulation of the interviewee’s health challenge or behaviour is not addressed or very minimal information provided. Minimal or absent reference to the interviewee’s placement in the transtheoretical model
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeTechniques used
Discussion of the techniques used to help the person address their health challenge or behaviour, and critical analysis on the efficacy of the techniques utilised
10 to >8.4 Pts
High distinction
Excellent discussion of the motivational techniques and communication skills used in exploring the interviewee’s motivation to change. This discussion is approached in a scholarly manner. With excellent evidence of critical analysis of the efficacy of the techniques utilised.
8.4 to >7.4 Pts
Distinction
Very good discussion of the motivational techniques and communication skills used in exploring the interviewee’s motivation to change. This discussion is approached in a scholarly manner. With very good evidence of critical analysis of the efficacy of the techniques utilised.
7.4 to >6.4 Pts
Credit
Good discussion of the motivational techniques and communication skills used in exploring the interviewee’s motivation to change. This discussion is approached in a scholarly manner. With good evidence of critical analysis of the efficacy of the techniques utilised.
6.4 to >4.5 Pts
Pass
Adequate discussion of the motivational techniques and communication skills used in exploring the interviewee’s motivation to change. This discussion has some aspects of a scholarly approach. With some evidence of critical analysis of the efficacy of the techniques utilised.
4.5 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal or absent discussion of the motivational techniques and communication skills used in exploring the interviewee’s motivation to change. Minimal or limited aspects of a scholarly approach. Minimal or limited analysis of the techniques used.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvaluation
Evaluates the likely outcome related to the impact of the motivational interview on the interviewee’s choices regarding addressing their healthcare challenge behaviour
5 to >4.2 Pts
High distinction
Excellent discussion of the likely outcomes of the conversation, including recognising and outlining any changes in the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model. This is presented in a thoughtful and scholarly manner.
4.2 to >3.7 Pts
Distinction
Very good discussion of the likely outcomes of the conversation, including recognising and outlining any changes in the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model. This is presented in a thoughtful and scholarly manner.
3.7 to >3.2 Pts
Credit
Good discussion of the likely outcomes of the conversation, including recognising and outlining any changes in the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model. There are some inaccuracies in identifying the appropriate stage and some aspects of a scholarly approach.
3.2 to >2.4 Pts
Pass
Adequate discussion of the likely outcomes of the conversation, including recognising and outlining any changes in the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model. There are inaccuracies in identifying the appropriate stage and limited aspects of a scholarly approach.
2.4 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal or absent discussion of the likely outcomes of the conversation, including recognising and outlining any changes in the interviewee’s stage in the transtheoretical model. Limited evidence of a scholarly approach
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReflection
Provides an in-depth reflection
10 to >8.4 Pts
High distinction
Excellent evidence of deep and purposeful reflection within the submission, the student shares insights into their learning and development as a result of the Motivational Interview and provides recommendations to develop their interpersonal / communication capabilities for the future
8.4 to >7.4 Pts
Distinction
Very good evidence of deep and purposeful reflection within the submission, the student shares insights into their learning and development as a result of the Motivational Interview and provides recommendations to develop their interpersonal/communication capabilities for the future
7.4 to >6.4 Pts
Credit
Good evidence of the use of reflection within the submission, the student shares some insights into their learning and development as a result of the Motivational Interview, with some recommendations outlined to develop their interpersonal / communication capabilities for the future
6.4 to >4.5 Pts
Pass
Adequate evidence of reflection within the submission, the student shares some insights into their learning and development as a result of the Motivational Interview and provides limited recommendations to develop their interpersonal / communication capabilities for the future
4.5 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal or absent evidence of reflection within the submission. Limited insights provided into the students learning and development as a result of the Motivational Interview and provides minimal or absent recommendations to develop their interpersonal / communication capabilities for the future
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeScholarly approach
Follows conventional academic writing style including grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax. Appropriate formatting adhered to with the structure including introduction, body and conclusion and word limit is adhered to.
5 to >4.2 Pts
High distinction
Excellent standard of academic writing with correct grammar, writing, spelling and syntax. Excellent structure and articulation of ideas within the assessment that reflects assessment instructions. Final word count is within + or- 10 % of required word count.
4.2 to >3.7 Pts
Distinction
Very good standard of academic writing with correct grammar, writing, spelling and syntax. Excellent structure and articulation of ideas within the assessment that reflects assessment instructions. Final word count is within + or- 10 % of required word count.
3.7 to >3.2 Pts
Credit
Good standard of academic writing with mostly correct grammar, writing, spelling and syntax. Good structure and articulation of ideas within the assessment that mostly reflects assessment instructions. Final word count is not within + or- 10 % of required word count.
3.2 to >2.4 Pts
Pass
Adequate standard of academic writing with a number of errors in grammar, writing, spelling and syntax. Adequate structure and articulation of ideas within the assessment that somewhat reflects assessment instructions. Final word count is not within + or- 10 % of required word count.
2.4 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal standard of academic writing with a number of errors in grammar, writing, spelling and syntax. Poor structure or articulation of ideas within the assessment that does not reflect assessment instructions. Final word count is not within + or- 10 % of required word count.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeReferences
Utilised and appropriately referenced at least eight (8) sources using the APA 7th edition referencing style
5 to >4.2 Pts
High distinction
Excellent use of literature to support this assessment. This includes high-quality peer-reviewed sources. References and reference list adheres to APA 7th edition referencing with no errors or unsupported claims in the assessment
4.2 to >3.7 Pts
Distinction
Very good use of literature to support this assessment. This includes good-quality peer-reviewed sources. References and reference list adheres to APA 7th edition referencing with minimal errors or some unsupported claims in the assessment
3.7 to >3.2 Pts
Credit
Good use of literature to support this assessment. This includes good-quality peer-reviewed sources. References and reference list mostly adheres to APA 7th edition referencing with some errors or unsupported claims in the assessment
3.2 to >2.4 Pts
Pass
Adequate use of literature to support this assessment. This includes some use of quality peer-reviewed sources. References and reference list somewhat adheres to APA 7th edition referencing with errors or unsupported claims evident in the assessment
2.4 to >0 Pts
Fail
Minimal or absent use of literature to support this assessment. There are minimal or absent sources used to support the assessment. References and reference list minimally adheres to APA 7th edition referencing with a number of errors or unsupported claims in the assessment
5 pts
Total points: 50
Answered 2 days AfterMay 02, 2021University of Canberra

Solution

Vidya answered on May 04 2021
22 Votes

CASE STUDY
OVERVIEW OF TRANSTHEORETICAL ‘STAGES OF CHANGES’ MODEL:
The Transtheoretical Model places that people travel through six phases of progress: precontemplation, contemplation,...

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here