Case Study

Case Study Paper will comprise a total of 100 points, which represents twenty-percent (20%) of the final

numerical grade for the course. Case studies will be assigned the first day of class. Content will be evaluated and graded on the basis of depth and breadth of identification of the following factors:

1. Client Description

A. Identifying Information

B. Presenting Complaints

C. Behavioral Observations

2. Diagnosis (Appropriate use of 3 diagnostic tools (e.g., DSM, ICD; Validated Inventories, Questionnaires,

etc.)

A. Diagnosis and Justification

B. Rule outs, differential diagnoses, etc.

C. Prevalence and course

D. Risk and Prognostic factors

3. Treatment/Intervention Plan and Recommendations

A. 3 Evidence-Based Treatment Objectives

B. 3 Recommended assessments (including DSM-5-tr online assessments)

C. 3 Referrals/Adjunct Services including common medication indications and contraindications

D. Spiritual, Ethical, and Cultural Consideration

CED6143 Psychopathology Case Study Rubric 4-28-25

CED6143 Psychopathology Case Study Rubric 4-28-25

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Client Description (20 pts)

Student demonstrates an understanding of systemic and environmental factors that affect human development, functioning, and behavior

(II.F.3.f)

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Comprehensive, richly detailed identifying information, systemic, environmental, and developmental factors, presenting complaints, and behavioral observations; thorough risk assessment included.

18 to >13.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Adequate identifying information and complaints; mental status data present but may lack depth; OR risk assessment minimally addressed.

13 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Missing key identifying details; vague or insufficient behavioral observations; risk assessment unclear or omitted.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Diagnosis & Justification (25 pts)

Student demonstrates understanding of the diagnostic process, including differential diagnosis and the use of current diagnostic classification systems, including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)

(CMHC.2.d)

25 to >22.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Diagnostic criteria clearly matched to client symptoms with use of 3 assessment tools (e.g., DSM-5-TR, ICD, assessments); thorough differentials, prevalence, course, and risk factors with strong support and citations from at least 3 scholarly sources.

22 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Diagnosis mostly aligns with symptoms; OR fewer than 3 assessment tools used; OR differentials considered but not fully supported; OR prevalence and course described with minor gaps.

16 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Incorrect or unsupported diagnosis; few or no tools used; weak or missing discussion of differential diagnosis, prevalence, or risk factors.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Treatment Plan (20 pts)

Student demonstrates understanding of etiology, nomenclature, treatment, referral, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders

(CMHC.2.b)

20 to >18.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Clear, evidence-based goals/interventions aligned to diagnosis; thorough explanation of expected generalized treatment gains. Strong integration of client strengths/resources and internal/external motivators.

18 to >13.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Treatment goals and interventions lack evidence-base or link to diagnosis; OR lacking depth of discussion of generalization of treatment gains and/or client strengths.

13 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Treatment plan lacks evidence-base or relevance; vague or incomplete objectives; little/no mention of strengths or generalization.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Assessments & Referrals (10 pts)

Student demonstrates understanding of the classifications, indications, and contraindications of commonly prescribed psychopharmacological medications for appropriate medical referral and consultation

(CMHC.2.h)

10 to >8.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Three assessments/tools and three referrals are clearly relevant to diagnosis/treatment; medication classes, side effects, and contraindications well-explained and supported with sources.

8 to >6.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Some assessments and referrals are appropriate, while some are inappropriate or missing; OR medications referenced but explanation lacks depth or citation.

6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Tools/referrals poorly matched to client or missing; medication discussion minimal or absent.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Spiritual, Ethical, and Cultural Considerations (15 pts)

Student demonstrates understanding of cultural factors relevant to clinical mental health counseling

(CMHC.2.j)

15 to >13.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Insightful, well-integrated analysis of cultural/spiritual variables, client-therapist dynamics, therapist biases, and ethical issues. Decision-making model clearly applied.

13 to >9.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Cultural and spiritual elements discussed with lacking depth; OR little therapist bias identified; OR ethical issues partially addressed.

9 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Lacks cultural/spiritual awareness; fails to identify bias or address ethical concerns adequately.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Writing Quality, Organization, APA (10 pts)

10 to >8.0 pts

Exceeds Expectations

Writing is scholarly, well-organized, with excellent grammar and proper APA formatting.

8 to >6.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Minor grammar or APA errors; OR some organization concerns.

6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Disorganized, with significant grammar/APA issues.

10 pts

One of required text:

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text

rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787