Compare the use of cognitive behavioral therapy for groups to cognitive behavioral therapy for families

Discussion: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Group Settings Versus Family Settings As you might recall from Week 5, 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 group settings and family settings, consider challenges of using this approach with your own groups. Learning Objectives Students will: • Compare the use of cognitive behavioral therapy for groups to cognitive behavioral therapy for families • Analyze challenges of using cognitive behavioral therapy for groups • Recommend effective strategies in cognitive behavioral therapy for groups To prepare: • Reflect on your practicum experiences with CBT in group and family settings. Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the Post to Discussion Question link and then select Create Thread to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking Submit! By Day 3 Post an explanation of how the use of CBT in groups compares to its use in family settings. Provide specific examples from your own practicum experiences. Then, explain at least two challenges counselors might encounter when using CBT in the group setting. Support your response with specific examples from this week’s media. Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses. Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NURS_6650_Week8_Discussion_Rubric • Grid View • List View Show Descriptions Main Posting: Response to the discusion question is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.– Outstanding Performance 44 (44%) – 44 (44%) • Thoroughly responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. • Supported by at least 3 current, credible sources Excellent Performance 40 (40%) – 43 (43%) • Responds to the discusion question(s) • Is reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references Competent Performance 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) • Responds to most of the discusion question(s) • Is somewhat reflecive with critical analysis and synthesis representive of knowledg gained from the course readings for the module. • 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth • Supported by at least 3 credible references Proficient Performance 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) • Responds to some of the discusion question(s) • One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addresed • 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 Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) • Does not respond to the discusion 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 Main Posting: Writing– Outstanding Performance 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) • Written clearly and concisely • Contains no grammatical or spelling errors • Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Written clearly and concisely • May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Competent Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Written concisely • May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error • Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) •Writtten somewhat concisely • May contain more than two2 spelling or grammatical errors • Contains some APA formatting erros Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Not written clearly or concisely • Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors • Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Main Posting: Timely and full participation– Outstanding Performance 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts main discussion by due date Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation First Reponse Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.– Outstanding Performance 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 Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Reponse may not be on topic, lacks depth First Reponse: Writing– Outstanding Performance 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 Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are 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 Competent Performance 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 Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited First Reponse: Timely and full participation– Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Second Reponse: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.– Outstanding Performance 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 Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) • Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) • Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) • Response is on topic, may have some depth Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) • Response may not be on topic, lacks depth Second Reponse: Writing– Outstanding Performance 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 Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) • Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues • Response to faculty questions are 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 Competent Performance 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 Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) • Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication • Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed • Few or no credible sources are cited Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 4 (4%) >• Responses posted in the discussion lack effective • Response to faculty questions are missing • No credible sources are cited Second Reponse: Timely and full participation– Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) • Meets requirements for timely and full participation • Posts by due date Excellent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Competent Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Proficient Performance 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Room for Improvement 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) • Does not meet requirement for full participation Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6650_Week8_Discussion_Rubric Week 8: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Groups CBT is the most widely researched psychotherapeutic model with demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of a wide range of emotional and behavioral problems. CBT is the first order of business and treatment of choice for most patients who need internal resources and coping skills enhanced. —Dr. Sharon M. Freeman Clevenger, Psychotherapy for the Advanced Practice Psychiatric Nurse Although designed for therapy with individuals, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has also proven effective in group settings. With its many benefits, including cost-effectiveness and efficiency, this therapeutic approach allows the psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner to effectively treat a greater number of clients in a relatively short length of time. With the widespread use of CBT with groups, it is important for you to understand how to use this therapeutic approach in clinical settings. This week, as you explore CBT for groups, you compare CBT in group and family settings. You also develop diagnoses for clients receiving group psychotherapy and consider legal and ethical implications of counseling these clients. Learning Resources Required Readings Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. • Chapter 11, “In the Beginning” (pp. 309–344) Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. • Chapter 12, “The Advanced Group” (pp. 345–390) American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Bjornsson, A. S., Bidwell, L. C., Brosse, A. L., Carey, G., Hauser, M., Mackiewicz Seghete, K. L., & … Craighead, W. E. (2011). Cognitive-behavioral group therapy versus group psychotherapy for social anxiety disorder among college students: A randomized controlled trial. Depression and Anxiety, 28(11), 1034-1042. doi:10.1002/da.20877 Safak, Y., Karadere, M. E., Ozdel, K., Ozcan, T., Türkçapar, M. H., Kuru, E., & Yücens, B. (2014). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group psychotherapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 25(4), 225-233. Document: Group Therapy Progress Note

The post Compare the use of cognitive behavioral therapy for groups to cognitive behavioral therapy for families appeared first on nursing assignment tutor.