Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Integrative Case Presentation and Oral Examination
General Purpose and Description:
The Integrative Case Presentation and Oral Examination, is an in‐depth assessment of multiple aspects
of the doctoral curriculum that must be successfully passed in order to advance to internship and
receive the Master of Arts Degree in Psychology.
Students are required to present their work on a current or previous clinical case in a written case
presentation that integrates at least two of the following content areas in psychology:
Affective Aspects of Behavior:
Including topics such as affect, mod, and emotion
Developmental Aspects of Behavior:
Including topics such as transitions, growth, and
development across the lifespan
Biological Aspects of Behavior:
Including topics such as neural, physiological,
anatomical, and genetic aspects of behavior
Social Aspects of Behavior:
Including topics such as group processes,
attributions, discrimination, and attitudes
Cognitive Aspects of Behavior:
Including topics such as learning, memory,
thought processes, and decision‐making
In addition, the write‐up should explore diagnosis, treatment planning, legal and ethical considerations,
and cultural considerations –referencing contemporary empirical studies that guide interventions and
support conclusions.
During the oral examination, students are asked in‐depth questions that require them to balance and
synthesize the many elements necessary to accomplish competent clinical work.
2
Integrative Case Presentation
Requirements:
Reports should not include information that could be used to identify the patient.
Minimum paper length: 15 pages double spaced, APA format.
Minimum citations: 7 (5 must be from peer‐reviewed journal articles published within the last 5 years)
Scored sections and required content:
Scored Section Required Content Description
Patient Information
Subheading: Identifying
Information
This section should provide basic
information about the patient’s age,
gender, occupation, socioeconomic
status, and any other information that is
pertinent identifying information.
Subheading: Presenting
Problem
Describe the presenting issues (using the
patient’s own words where
possible/appropriate). Note important
details and distinctions in the patient’s
description of the presenting issues (eg
panic attacks that occur only when at
work).
History
Subheading: History of
Presenting Problem
Describe the historical context of the
patient’s presenting concern: how long
has the patient been experiencing these
issues, when did they begin and in what
context, precipitating event(s),
aggravating/complicating factors, family
history of similar issues, etc.
Subheading: Background
Information
Provide a historical context for the
patient. Describe their family of origin,
note important
separations/attachments/close
relationships, socioeconomic factors,
relocations, moves, milestones, or other
important life events that may have
bearing on current presenting issues,
including trauma. Cite relevant sources to
support your analysis.
3
Subheading: Medical /
Treatment History
Describe the patient’s medical history and
history of mental health treatment
(including psychiatric medications
prescribed and patient’s report of
effectiveness/adverse responses). Were
previous attempts to address patient’s
presenting issues effective, how does
patient understand/explain past
treatment experiences.
Subheading: Substance use
History
Describe any history of substance
use/abuse/dependence, current
substances used and frequency, patient’s
attempts to address substance use issues.
Individual and Cultural Diversity
Subheading: Individual and
Cultural Considerations
Discuss your understanding of the
complex cultural considerations inherent
in this case, noting important differences
and similarities between you and the
patient, areas of intersectionality, cultural
consultation needed/done in the course
of the work, and any other factors relating
to culture and diversity that impact the
treatment. Cite relevant sources to
support your analysis.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Subheading: Legal and Ethical
Considerations
Provide a thoughtful, well‐reasoned
narrative of analysis of pertinent legal and
ethical considerations impacting your
work with this patient and how you
have/plan to address them. Cite relevant
sources to support your analysis.
Assessment
Subheading: Strengths
Describe the patient’s strengths, noting
intersections between areas of strength
and presenting complaints/concerns.
Subheading: DSM 5 Diagnosis
Provide a DSM 5 diagnosis for the patient
and support your conclusions using case
information and research. Cite relevant
sources to support your analysis.
Integration
Subheading: Integrative
Assessment
Students must demonstrate that they
have gained graduate–level, scientific
knowledge that entails the integration of
two or more of the five discipline‐specific
content areas described above. Show
how at least two content areas interact
and interface with each other and use
4
journal articles to support your
conclusions. Make sure this is sufficiently
covered in your paper, then apply it to the
clinical case. How do you understand this
patient’s narrative/life history/presenting
concerns(s) in light of biological, affective,
developmental, cognitive, and/or social
factors (i.e., how have medical/biological
factors intersected with social factors in
the patient’s history, how have
developmental issues intersected with
affective or cognitive factors to impact the
patient’s life trajectory and presenting
problem, how have affective factors
intersected with social factors to inform
the patient’s current relationship or
employment issues, etc.) Cite relevant
empirical research to support your claims.
Subheading: Clinical
Formulation
Draw from the patient’s history, social and
economic factors, and the integrative
assessment performed above to present a
narrative that explains the patient’s
presenting issues and informs
intervention. Cite relevant sources to
support your analysis.
Intervention
Subheading: Theoretical
Framework and Treatment
Approach
Identify the theoretical framework you
are using to guide your work with this
patient. Describe the strengths and
limitations of this approach, integrating it
with the current case material and with
research in a well‐developed and well‐
reasoned narrative that demonstrates
your understanding of both the theory
you are using and the case you are
presenting.
Subheading: Treatment Plan
and Goals
Outline your initial treatment plan and
goals for this patient. Be sure to connect
the plan and goals with the case
formulation presented above.
Subheading: Course of
Treatment and Outcomes
Describe the course of treatment and
outcomes (if possible). For cases that are
in progress, describe the course of
treatment to date and note any
anticipated issues in the future.
5
Subheading: Therapist and
Relational Factors
Examine the therapy relationship, noting
important developments in the treatment
(e.g., ruptures,
transference/countertransference issues,
resistances encountered, treatment
compliance issues encountered, etc.).
Describe your feelings about this patient
and the ways in which those feelings have
impacted your work.
Communication
Subheading: Discussion
Summarize your presentation and work
with this patient. Discuss aspects of the
treatment that were surprising or difficult.
Discuss important concepts
learned/implications for future work.
APA format, Organization,
and Writing Style
Apply consistent APA formatting
throughout the paper. Communicate
complex ideas clearly, present
information concisely and coherently, and
provide sophisticated transitions between
concepts/ideas.
Citations
Use appropriate sources to support ideas
and arguments. At least 5 must be from
peer‐reviewed journal articles published
within the last ten years. Include a
complete Works cited page.
6
Scoring
Instructions: When students are preparing for the Integrative Case Presentation and Oral Examination,
they will inform the college of which discipline‐specific content areas they will be exploring in their paper
and presentation. Each paper will then have two readers with knowledge of the content areas of
psychology (i.e., affective, cognitive, developmental, biological, and social aspects of behavior) focused
on by the student. Scores will be averaged by section. Students must receive a minimum score of 80% on
EACH SECTION to pass. Any section on which students score lower than 80% will require a re‐write.
CRITERIA
FAILS TO MEET
EXPECTATIONS
0
NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT
5
MEETS
EXPECTATIONS
8
EXCEEDS
EXPECTATIONS
10
YOUR SCORE
Communication
1. Organization
and
completeness
Fails to meet this
criterion by
obvious
disregard for the
expectations
stated in the
criteria;
Required
subheadings are
missing or
incorrect,
transitions
between ideas
are incomplete
or nonexistent.
Paper is
disorganized or
incomplete and
the reader can
not follow the
paper at any
length
Disorganized,
leaves reader
wondering what
is being said;
transitions are
awkward or
abrupt, required
subheadings are
present but too
little information
is presented.
Paper has all
required
subheadings and
the information
presented is
adequate.
Transitions
between ideas
are fluid and
smooth.
Paper is easy to
read and well‐
organized into
required
subheadings,
with ideas and
information
presented in a
logical, fluid, and
sophisticated
manner. New
ideas build on
previous ones
and information
provided is more
than adequate
to convey a full
and complete
representation
of the subject.
… /10
2. APA format
APA format is
not followed.
An attempt was
made to follow
APA format, but
formatting
errors that
should have
been fixed
before
submitting a
final draft are
APA format was
followed, with
few minor
mistakes.
APA format was
followed with no
mistakes.
… /10
7
present
throughout the
paper.
3. Writing style
Paper is poorly
written; main
ideas and
arguments lack
complexity;
arguments are
unsupported by
examples;
descriptions are
vague, ideas are
communicated
without logical
flow.
Clear effort to
convey
important ideas
and concepts is
apparent, but
writing is below
the level
expected for
students at the
doctoral level.
Main ideas and
arguments have
inadequate
support,
important details
are missing,
ideas lack
complexity,
there is some
logical flow but
important
conceptual gaps
are present
throughout the
paper.
Paper is written
at the level
expected for
doctoral
students. Ideas
are well‐
organized and
clearly
presented.
Arguments are
supported by
clear examples.
Ideas are
complex and
information is
presented
concisely and
coherently.
Paper is well‐
written and
presents a clear,
concise flow of
complex ideas
throughout. All
arguments are
supported by
appropriate
examples. The
flow of ideas and
arguments is
well‐organized
and clear to the
reader.
… /10
4. Subheading:
Discussion
Paper lacks a
clear or
complete
discussion
section. Little to
no attempt was
made to
summarize main
ideas presented
in the paper, or
to convey ending
thoughts and
impressions.
A discussion
section is
present but
inappropriately
short, vague, or
off‐topic.
Discussion
demonstrates
lack of sufficient
reflection, or
conclusions
drawn are not
clearly and
logically derived
from the main
body of the
paper.
Discussion is
present and
complete, with
clearly
communicated
summary of
important ideas.
Student reflects
on the work
presented with
appropriate
levels of insight.
Discussion is
complete and
conveys
complex,
insightful ideas
and concepts
that are clearly
and logically
derived from the
main body of the
paper.
… /10
8
5. Citations
Fewer than the
required 7
citations are
present. Fewer
than five
citations from
the previous 5
years are
present.
Citations are
from
inappropriate
sources. A works
cited page is
missing or
incomplete.
Paper has the
required number
of citations, but
some are from
inappropriate
sources;
citations are
incorrectly used
or missing from
important ideas
and arguments
throughout the
paper.
Citations
requirements
are met. Works
cited page is
complete.
Citations are
used
appropriately to
support
important ideas
and arguments.
Sophisticated
use of citations
to support all
necessary ideas
and arguments.
Works cited
page is present
and complete.
Paper presents
more than the
required number
of citations, all
are from
appropriate
sources.
…/10
Section Total: …/50
Patient
Information
1. Subheading:
Identifying
Information
Basic
information
about the
patient is
missing or
incomplete; or
paper fails to
protect patient
confidentiality.
Paper provides
minimal
information
about the
patient, but
information is
presented in a
disorganized way
that does not
assist the reader
in understanding
the identifying
information
about the
patient.
Adequate
information
about the
patient is
provided and
confidentiality is
protected.
Identifying
information is
presented in a
sophisticated
manner that
both protects
confidentiality
while provided a
rich level of
detail.
… /10
2. Subheading:
Presenting
Problem
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Paper fails to
provide
information
about presenting
problem.
Basic
information
about presenting
problem is
provided, but
information is
insufficient or
below
expectations for
doctoral level
Information
about presenting
problem is
sufficient.
Description uses
patient’s own
language where
appropriate. The
level of depth
meets
Presenting
problem is
described using
the patient’s
own language
where
appropriate.
Problems are
conveyed in
nuanced and rich
… /10
9
work.
Extraneous or
irrelevant
information is
presented.
expectations for
doctoral level
work. Little to no
irrelevant or
extraneous
information is
present and
section provides
evidence of
focused,
competent
assessment of
the presenting
complaints.
detail. Section
provides
evidence of
thorough
assessment of
presenting
problem. No
extraneous or
irrelevant
information is
present.
Important
details are noted
in the writing.
Section Total:
…/20
History
1. Subheading:
History of
Presenting
Problem
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Paper fails to
effectively
provide history
of presenting
problem.
Basic history of
presenting
problem is
provided, but
information is
insufficient or
below
expectations for
doctoral level
work.
Extraneous or
irrelevant
information is
presented. There
are significant
gaps in
information
provided.
History of
presenting
problem is
sufficient. The
level of depth
meets
expectations for
doctoral level
work. Little to no
irrelevant or
extraneous
information is
present and
section provides
evidence of
focused,
competent
assessment of
the history of
presenting
complaints.
History of
presenting is
conveyed in
nuanced and rich
detail. Section
provides
evidence of
thorough
assessment of
history of
presenting
problem. No
extraneous or
irrelevant
information is
present.
Important
details are noted
in the writing.
… /10
2. Subheading:
Background
Information
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Major
components of
background or
Some historical
context for the
patient is
provided, but it
is not sufficient
for doctoral level
Historical
context is
provided for
patient,
including
pertinent
Historical
context is rich,
nuanced, and in‐
depth. There is
evidence of
thorough
… /10
10
vital historical
information is
missing is
missing.
work. Some
information
presented in
extraneous
and/or
irrelevant.
information
concerning
patient’s history
that have may
have bearing on
present day
functioning.
Where
information is
lacking, there is
evidence that an
attempt was
made to assess.
Information is
connected in
clear and logical
manner.
assessment of
patient’s history.
Information is
presented in
clear and logical
manner that
flows
conceptually,
points of
information are
connected.
3. Subheading:
Medical /
Treatment
History
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Important
information that
would comprise
a basic
assessment of
medical and
treatment
history is not
present and/or
information
provided is
extraneous or
irrelevant.
Student assessed
basic medical
and treatment
history, but
write‐up lacks
sufficient detail.
Some
information
presented may
be extraneous or
irrelevant. Areas
that warrant
more
information
show no
evidence of
follow‐up.
Medical and
treatment
history were
assessed and
reported with
sufficient depth
and detail. There
is no missing
information – or
where
information is
missing there is
evidence that an
attempt was
made to assess.
There is no
extraneous or
irrelevant
information. The
patient’s
perspective is
woven into the
narrative
appropriately.
The patient’s
medical history
and history of
mental health
treatment
(including
psychiatric
medications
prescribed and
patient’s report
of
effectiveness/ad
verse responses)
were assessed
reported with
depth and detail.
Information is
connected in a
smooth and
logical narrative
that enriches
readers’
understanding
and appreciation
of the patient.
The patient’s
perspective is
woven into the
… /10
11
narrative
appropriately.
4. Subheading:
Substance use
History
Note: not all
patients will
have a substance
abuse history.
Students should
receive full
credit for this
section if they
demonstrate
that they
assessed for
substance abuse
and that patient
reported no This
section must be
present in all
papers, and
should indicate
that student
assessed for
substance abuse
and that patient
denied any
history.
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Important
information that
would comprise
a basic
assessment of
substance use
history is not
present and/or
information
provided is
extraneous or
irrelevant.
Current
substance use is
not addressed or
is incomplete.
Student assessed
substance use
history, but
write‐up lacks
sufficient detail.
Some
information
presented may
be extraneous or
irrelevant. Areas
that warrant
more
information
show no
evidence of
follow‐up.
Current
substance use is
assessed but
insufficiently
reported.
Substance use
history was
assessed and
reported with
sufficient depth
and detail. There
is no missing
information – or
where
information is
missing there is
evidence that an
attempt was
made to assess.
There is no
extraneous or
irrelevant
information. The
patient’s
perspective is
woven into the
narrative
appropriately.
Current use is
examined and
reported in
sufficient detail,
including
patient’s
attempts to stop
current
substance use
and readiness
for change.
Substance use
history was
assessed
reported with
depth and detail.
There is no
missing
information – or
where
information is
missing there is
evidence that an
attempt was
made to assess.
There is no
extraneous or
irrelevant
information.
Information is
connected in a
smooth and
logical narrative
that enriches
readers’
understanding
and appreciation
of the patient.
The patient’s
perspective is
woven into the
narrative
appropriately.
Current
substance use is
reported in
similar depth
and detail,
including
patient’s
attempts to
address
substance use
and readiness
for change.
… /10
12
Section Total: …/40
Individual and
Cultural
Diversity
1. Subheading:
Individual and
Cultural
Considerations
Section is
missing or
incomplete, or
demonstrates a
significant lack of
self‐awareness
and/or
appreciation of
individual/cultur
al differences
expected at the
doctoral level.
Paper
insufficiently
addresses
individual and
cultural
diversity. The
following may be
present but
either require
more
depth/detail,
support, or
reflection: an
examination of
differences and
similarities
between the
student and the
patient, areas of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultation
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and any
other factors
relating to
culture and
diversity that
impact the
treatment.
Needed citations
may be missing.
Paper
sufficiently
addresses
individual and
cultural
diversity. All of
the following are
reported and
examined in
appropriate
depth and detail
and with
adequate
support and
reflection: an
examination of
differences and
similarities
between the
student and the
patient, areas of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultation
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and any
other factors
relating to
culture and
diversity that
impact the
treatment. Ideas
and arguments
are supported by
appropriate
citations.
Paper addresses
individual and
cultural diversity
in depth and
detail that is
above the level
expected.
Complex ideas
and concepts are
woven into
narrative and
appropriately
supported with
citations. The
student
examines
similarities and
difference, areas
of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultations
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and other
factors related
to culture and
diversity in a
manner that
demonstrates
insight and a
high level of self‐
awareness/reflec
tion and
appreciation for
the importance
of culture.
…/10
Multiply score by
3
Section Total: …/30
Legal and Ethical
Considerations
13
1. Subheading:
Legal and Ethical
Considerations
Section is
missing or
incomplete, or
demonstrates a
significant lack of
awareness
and/or
appreciation of
important legal
and/or ethical
principles
expected of
doctoral level
students.
Paper
insufficiently
addresses legal
and ethical
questions. Major
ethical and/or
legal issues have
been overlooked
or inadequately
addressed. Legal
and ethical
issues may be
raised but lack
appropriate
reflection,
insight, or
examination.
Insufficient
sources are cited
to support ideas,
arguments, and
conclusions.
Needed
consultation is
lacking or
unaddressed.
Paper provides a
thoughtful
examination of
legal and ethical
issues inherent
in the case.
Student
demonstrates
insight and
depth of
understanding of
legal and ethical
issues
appropriate to
the doctoral
level. Ideas,
concepts, and
arguments are
well‐supported
by appropriate
citations.
Evidence of
consultation is
present where
required.
Paper provides a
thoughtful, well‐
reasoned, and
nuanced
examination of
legal and ethical
issues. Well‐
supported ideas,
arguments, and
concepts are
complex and
presented in a
manner that
exceeds
expectations for
doctoral level
students.
Evidence of
consultation is
present where
required.
…/10
Multiply score by
3
Section Total: …/30
Assessment
1. Subheading:
Strengths
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Little or no
attempt is made
to thoughtfully
identify and
examine patient
strengths.
Patient strengths
are identified
but lack
sufficient
thoughtfulness,
depth, detail, or
support.
Extraneous or
irrelevant
information is
presented.
Strengths are
not sufficiently
supported by
details and/or
examples.
Citations are
Patient strengths
are thoughtfully
identified and
examined in
depth and detail.
Relevant
examples are
provided in
support of
assessment, as
are appropriate
citations where
needed.
Strengths are
meaningfully
related to other
aspects of the
Student’s
assessment rises
above the level
expected for
doctoral
students. Patient
strengths are
thoughtfully
identified and
examined in
depth and detail.
Examples are
offered in
support of
assessment, as
are appropriate
citations where
… /10
14
missing where
needed.
case
presentation.
needed.
Strengths are
meaningfully
related to other
aspects of the
case
presentation.
Assessment rises
far above a mere
list of strengths,
but informs and
deepens
readers’
understanding of
patient problem
and history
through
thematic
connections,
logical
arguments, and
insight.
2. Subheading:
DSM 5 Diagnosis
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Diagnosis is
incorrectly
labelled or
formatted.
Diagnosis
provided is
inappropriate
given the
patient’s age or
other identifying
information.
Little or no
attempt was
made to connect
the diagnosis to
case information
and/or research.
A DSM 5
diagnosis is
provided but is
incomplete or
insufficient given
case
information.
Diagnosis lacks
evidence of
sufficient
thought and/or
reflection. Major
diagnostic
considerations
have been
overlooked or
incorrectly
dismissed.
Inadequate
connections
have been made
to case material
and some
support/citation
A competent
and complete
DSM 5 diagnosis
is provided that
matches the
case information
presented. There
is evidence of
thoughtful
reflection and
examination,
details and
evidence are
provided in
support of
diagnostic
considerations.
No major
diagnostic
possibilities have
been overlooked
or
inappropriately
dismissed.
Student provides
a DSM 5
diagnosis that is
both well‐
reasoned/argue
d and well‐
supported by
case material
and empirical
research.
Appropriate
citations are
provided.
Diagnosis is
meaningfully
connected to
case
presentation,
patient history,
presenting
problem, and
other sections of
paper; and
serves to
… /10
15
s may be
missing.
Citations are
provided where
needed.
deepen,
enlighten, and
enrich readers’
understanding of
the patient.
Section Total: …/20
Integration
1. Subheading:
Integrative
Assessment
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Directions were
not followed,
little or no
meaningful
attempt was
made to
integrate basic
content
domains. Writing
is disconnected
from main body
of case
presentation and
does not present
a coherent
and/or
meaningful
connection to
previously
reported
information.
At least two
basic content
areas have been
included in their
own section of
the paper, but
content does not
demonstrate
depth, insight,
understanding,
research
support, or
detail expected
from doctoral
level students.
Citations are
missing,
conclusions and
arguments are
not well‐
supported, ideas
and concepts do
not demonstrate
meaningful
integration at
the level
expected.
The interaction
between at least
two basic
content areas
have been
meaningfully
explored and
then integrated
with important
details/informati
on/examples
from the case
presentation.
Sufficient
citations are
present and
writing
demonstrates
depth, insight,
understanding,
research
support, and
detail expected
from doctoral
level students.
Conclusions and
arguments are
well‐supported
and flow
smoothly
throughout the
section while
demonstrating
meaningful
connection to
the overall case
presentation.
The interaction
between more
than two basic
content areas
have been
meaningfully
explored and
then integrated
to provide a
well‐reasoned,
insightful
examination of
key aspects of
the case. The
integration not
only exceeds
expectations for
doctoral level
work, but
deepens
readers’
appreciation of
important
dimensions of
the case. A rich
and nuanced
narrative has
been
constructed that
examines
complex
interconnections
between content
domains.
…/10
Multiply score by
3
16
2. Subheading:
Clinical
Formulation
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Clinical
formulation
provided is
significantly
lacking in insight
and/or
demonstrates
fundamental
lack of
understanding of
key clinical
concepts.
Information
provided is
sparse,
disconnected, or
irrelevant.
A clinical
formulation is
provided but
does not
demonstrate
depth, insight,
understanding,
research
support, or
detail expected
from doctoral
level students.
Citations are
missing,
conclusions and
arguments are
not well‐
supported, ideas
and concepts do
not demonstrate
meaningful
integration of
case material at
the level
expected.
A clinical
formulation is
provided that
meaningfully
integrates
important
details/informati
on/examples
from the case
presentation.
Sufficient
citations are
present and
writing
demonstrates
depth, insight,
understanding,
research
support, and
detail expected
from doctoral
level students.
Conclusions and
arguments are
well‐supported
and flow
smoothly
throughout the
section while
demonstrating
meaningful
connection to
the overall case
presentation.
The formulation
fits the diagnosis
and is consistent
with patient
history,
presenting
problem, and
identifying
information; and
provides
guidance for
interventions
A well‐reasoned,
insightful clinical
formulation is
provided that
meaningfully
integrates key
aspects of the
case. The
integration not
only exceeds
expectations for
doctoral level
work, but
deepens
readers’
appreciation of
important
dimensions of
the case. A rich
and nuanced
narrative has
been
constructed that
examines
complex
interconnections
between history,
presenting
problem,
identifying
information, and
other aspects of
the case. The
formulation
increases
readers’
understanding of
the patient’s
presenting
problem, history,
diagnosis, and
other important
information, and
provides
guidance for
interventions
… /10
Multiply score by
3
17
and treatment
goals.
and treatment
goals.
Section Total: …/60
Intervention
1. Subheading:
Theoretical
Framework and
Treatment
Approach
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Theoretical
framework is
misidentified or
inappropriate to
the practice of
evidence‐based
psychology.
Little or no
attempt has
been made to
integrate
theoretical
framework with
case material –
framework
chosen is
inconsistent with
facts of the case.
A theoretical
framework is
identified that is
appropriate and
empirically‐
supported,
however, it is
incorrectly
described, or
description does
not demonstrate
depth of
understanding
expected at
doctoral student
level.
Framework’s
strengths and
weaknesses are
insufficiently
examined,
supported, or
integrated with
facts of the case.
Needed citations
are missing,
ideas, concepts,
and arguments
are not
presented in a
clear, logical
manner.
An empirically‐
supported
theoretical
framework is
presented that is
meaningfully
examined in
terms of
strengths and
weaknesses as
applied to the
case.
Appropriate
citations are
used to support
ideas, concepts,
and arguments.
Student
demonstrates
understanding of
the case and the
theory that is at
the level
expected from
doctoral
students.
An empirically‐
supported
theoretical
framework is
presented and is
meaningfully
examined in
terms of
strengths and
weaknesses as
applied to the
case – at a level
that
demonstrates
insight and
understanding
beyond that
expected from
doctoral
students.
Appropriate
citations are
used to support
ideas, concepts,
and arguments.
… /10
Multiply score by
3
2. Subheading:
Treatment Plan
and Goals
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Treatment plan
is inappropriate
and/or
demonstrates
significant lack of
A treatment plan
with
reasonable/appr
opriate goals is
presented that
does not meet
the level
expected from
A treatment plan
with
reasonable/appr
opriate goals is
presented that
meets the level
expected from
doctoral
A treatment plan
with
reasonable/appr
opriate goals is
presented that
exceeds the level
expected from
doctoral
… /10
18
understanding of
key clinical
concepts. Plan is
significantly
disconnected
from case
formulation,
diagnosis,
and/or
presenting
problem.
doctoral
students. Plan
and/or goals
require more
meaningful
connection to
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
students and
demonstrates
understanding of
the theoretical
framework being
used. The plan
and/or goals are
meaningfully
connected to
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
students and
demonstrates a
high level of
competency in
the theoretical
framework being
used. The plan
and/or goals are
meaningfully
connected to
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
3. Subheading:
Course of
Treatment and
Outcomes
Section is
missing or
incomplete.
Little to no
information is
presented
regarding course
of treatment and
outcomes/antici
pated issues, or
writing
demonstrates
significant lack of
understanding of
key clinical
concepts.
Treatment
course/outcome
s are significantly
disconnected
from treatment
plan, case
formulation,
diagnosis,
and/or
presenting
problem.
Course of
treatment and
outcomes/antici
pated issues are
presented at a
level that does
not meet
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Treatment
course,
outcomes,
anticipated
issues require
more meaningful
connection to
treatment plan,
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
Course of
treatment and
outcomes/antici
pated issues are
presented at a
level that meets
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Treatment
course,
outcomes,
anticipated
issues show
meaningful
connection to
treatment plan,
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
Course of
treatment and
outcomes/antici
pated issues are
presented at a
level that
exceeds
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Treatment
course,
outcomes,
anticipated
issues show
meaningful,
insightful, and
in‐depth
connection to
treatment plan,
case
formulation,
diagnosis, or
presenting
problem.
… / 10
Section Total: …/50
19
Total Points Available: 320
A minimum score of 80% is required for EACH SECTION to pass.
Scored Section Reader 1 Reader 2 Average Percent Pass/Rewrite
Communication /50 /50 /50 /100
Patient Information
/20 /20 /20 /100
History /40 /40 /40 /100
Individual and Cultural Considerations
/30 /30 /30 /100
Legal and Ethical Considerations
/30 /30 /30 /100
Assessment /20 /20 /20 /100
Integration /60 /60 /60 /100
Intervention /50 /50 /50 /100
Overall /300 /300 /300 /100
Oral Examination
Requirements:
Provide an oral defense of the written Integrative Case Presentation, demonstrating your ability to
balance and synthesize complex treatment considerations that include analysis of the therapy
relationships/dynamics, cultural considerations, technical and theoretical issues, legal and ethical
considerations, critical thinking, and ability to integrate feedback.
Format:
Two faculty interviewers who have read and scored your previously submitted written Integrative Case
Presentation will ask in‐depth questions regarding your case, inviting you into a collaborative discussion
regarding your work with the patient. You will be evaluated on the following criteria:
Scoring
Instructions: Each oral examination will have two interviewers. Scores will be averaged by section.
Students must receive a minimum score of 80% on EACH SECTION to pass. If a student receives below
80% on ANY section, they will be required to repeat the oral examination at a later date.
Evaluators: please use your best judgement to rate the students on the following criteria. Due to the semi‐
structured format of the examination, not all items in each criteria will be discussed. The descriptions are
meant to guide ratings considerations and are not meant to be a literal checklist of items that must be
discussed/demonstrated in their entirety.
20
CRITERIA
FAILS TO MEET
EXPECTATIONS
0
NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT
5
MEETS
EXPECTATIONS
8
EXCEEDS
EXPECTATIONS
10
YOUR SCORE
Professionalism
Minimally
engages in self‐
reflection
regarding
personal and
professional
functioning, is
not receptive to
feedback and
does not
integrate it into
case
conceptualizatio
n, attitude and
demeanor are
inappropriate;
demonstrates
little awareness
and
maintenance of
professional
boundaries,
discusses patient
issues in an
inappropriate
manner, fails to
uphold patient
confidentiality
and privacy,
behaves
disrespectfully
toward panel
members, does
not listen and
respond
appropriately.
Self‐reflection
regarding
personal and
professional
functioning is
below expected
levels, reception
to feedback and
ability to
integrate it into
case
conceptualizatio
n is below
expected levels,
attitude and
demeanor are
inconsistently
professional;
awareness and
maintenance of
professional
boundaries is
inconsistent or in
need of
improvement,
discusses patient
issues in a
mostly
respectful
manner but
improvement is
needed, minor
lapses in patient
confidentiality
and privacy,
behaves
respectfully
toward panel
members with
minor lapses,
listens and
Engages in self‐
reflection
regarding
personal and
professional
functioning,
receives
feedback and
integrates it into
case
conceptualizatio
n, adopts a
professional
attitude and
demeanor;
demonstrates
awareness and
maintenance of
professional
boundaries,
discusses patient
issues in a
respectful
manner, upholds
patient
confidentiality
and privacy,
behaves
respectfully
toward panel
members, listens
and responds
appropriately.
Engages in self‐
reflection
regarding
personal and
professional
functioning that
exceeds
expectations for
doctoral
students,
receives
feedback and
integrates it into
case
conceptualizatio
n in a manner
that excels
beyond expected
levels, adopts a
professional
attitude and
demeanor;
demonstrates
awareness and
maintenance of
professional
boundaries,
discusses patient
issues in a
respectful
manner, upholds
patient
confidentiality
and privacy,
behaves
respectfully
toward panel
members, listens
and responds
appropriately.
/10
Multiply by 3
21
responds
appropriately
with minor
lapses.
Communication
Does not
communicates
important details
effectively, does
not grasp
professional
language and
concepts, does
not demonstrate
ability to
understand and
respond to panel
questions
appropriately,
participation in
discussion is
inappropriate,
ineffective, or
not
collaborative.
Ability to
communicate
important details
is below
expected levels,
ability to grasp
professional
language and
concepts is
below expected
levels, ability to
understand and
respond to panel
questions
appropriately
show need for
improvement to
meet expected
levels,
participation in
discussion is
mostly
collaborative
and appropriate,
but there is need
for improvement
to rise to
expected levels.
Communicates
important details
effectively,
grasps
professional
language and
concepts,
understands and
responds to
panel questions
appropriately,
participates
appropriately
and effectively in
a collaborative
discussion with
other clinicians
Ability to
communicate
important details
effectively is
beyond expected
levels, grasps
advanced
professional
language and
concepts,
understands and
responds to
panel questions
appropriately
while providing
thoughtful
contributions
that spur
conversation
forward,
participates
appropriately
and effectively in
a collaborative
discussion with
other clinicians
at a level that
exceeds
expectations.
/10
Multiply by 3
Thoughtfulness
Depth of
thought and
understanding of
the material is
significantly
below expected
levels.
Arguments are
illogical or
nonsensical.
Ideas,
conclusions, and
thoughts are not
Demonstrates
depth of thought
and
understanding of
the material at a
level below
expectations.
Ability to
meaningfully
connect ideas,
conclusions, and
thoughts is
below the
Demonstrates
depth of thought
and thorough
understanding of
the material
through well‐
reasoned
arguments.
Proposes novel
ideas,
conclusion, and
thoughts,
synthesizes and
Demonstrates
depth of thought
and
understanding of
the material that
exceeds
expected levels.
Arguments are
well‐reasoned
and compelling.
Proposes novel
ideas,
conclusion, and
/10
Multiple by 3
22
logically based
and are
disconnected
from the present
discussion or the
case material.
expected level.
Responses do
not consistently
integrate or
synthesize
information in a
logical and
coherent
manner through
well‐reasoned
arguments.
integrates
information in a
logical and
coherent
manner.
thoughts,
synthesizes and
integrates
information in a
logical and
coherent
manner that
exceeds
expected levels.
Individual and
Cultural
Considerations
Does not
demonstrate
ability to discuss
individual and
cultural diversity
and/or the
impact that
these
considerations
have on the
case.
Demonstrates a
significant lack of
self‐awareness
and/or
appreciation of
individual/cultur
al differences
expected at the
doctoral level.
Insufficiently
addresses
individual and
cultural
diversity.
Inconsistently
engages in
examination of
differences and
similarities
between the
student and the
patient, areas of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultation
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and any
other factors
relating to
culture and
diversity that
impact the
treatment.
Responds,
understands,
and articulates
concepts and
ideas related to
individual and
cultural diversity
at a level that
falls below
expectations for
Sufficiently
addresses
individual and
cultural
diversity.
Demonstrates
openness and
curiosity
concerning
individual and
group
differences,
actively and
appropriately
engages in an
examination of
differences and
similarities
between the
student and the
patient, areas of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultation
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and any
other factors
relating to
culture and
diversity that
impact the
treatment.
Responds,
understands,
Addresses
individual and
cultural diversity
at an advanced
level.
Demonstrates
openness and
curiosity
concerning
individual and
group
differences,
actively and
appropriately
engages in an
examination of
differences and
similarities
between the
student and the
patient, areas of
intersectionality,
cultural
consultation
needed/done in
the course of the
work, and any
other factors
relating to
culture and
diversity that
impact the
treatment.
Responds,
understands,
/10
Multiple by 3
23
doctoral
students.
and articulates
concepts and
ideas related to
individual and
cultural diversity
at a level that
meets
expectations for
doctoral
students.
and articulates
concepts and
ideas related to
individual and
cultural diversity
at a level that
exceeds
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Legal and Ethical
Considerations
Does not
demonstrate
knowledge of
current APA
Ethical Principles
and code of
Conduct,
knowledge of
relevant laws,
regulations,
rules, and
policies
governing health
service
psychology,
awareness of
relevant
professional
standards and
guidelines.
Demonstrates
knowledge of
current APA
Ethical Principles
and code of
Conduct,
knowledge of
relevant laws,
regulations,
rules, and
policies
governing health
service
psychology,
awareness of
relevant
professional
standards and
guidelines that
falls below
expected levels.
Demonstrates
knowledge of
current APA
Ethical Principles
and code of
Conduct,
knowledge of
relevant laws,
regulations,
rules, and
policies
governing health
service
psychology,
awareness of
relevant
professional
standards and
guidelines that
meets expected
levels.
Demonstrates
knowledge of
current APA
Ethical Principles
and code of
Conduct,
knowledge of
relevant laws,
regulations,
rules, and
policies
governing health
service
psychology,
awareness of
relevant
professional
standards and
guidelines that
exceeds
expected levels.
/10
Multiple by 3
Assessment
Does not
demonstrate
current
knowledge of
diagnostic
classification
systems,
functional and
dysfunctional
behaviors, and
patient strengths
and
psychopathology
. Does not
demonstrate
Demonstrates
current
knowledge of
diagnostic
classification
systems,
functional and
dysfunctional
behaviors, and
patient strengths
and
psychopathology
that is below
expected levels.
Understanding
Demonstrates
current
knowledge of
diagnostic
classification
systems,
functional and
dysfunctional
behaviors, and
patient strengths
and
psychopathology
. Demonstrates
understanding of
human behavior
Demonstrates
current
knowledge of
diagnostic
classification
systems,
functional and
dysfunctional
behaviors, and
patient strengths
and
psychopathology
that exceeds
expected levels.
Demonstrates a
/10
Multiple by 4
24
understanding of
human behavior
within the
contexts of
family, social
relationships,
society, and
culture. Does
not demonstrate
ability to apply
knowledge in
these domains.
Assessments are
disconnected
from empirical
literature and
scientific
understanding of
human behavior.
No data or
irrelevant data
are provided.
Assessments are
disconnected
from case
conceptualizatio
n, classification,
and
recommendatio
ns, and
demonstrate
significant lack of
understanding of
key clinical
concepts.
Cannot
meaningfully
distinguish
subjective from
objective
assessments
of human
behavior within
the contexts of
family, social
relationships,
society, and
culture requires
remediation or
improvement.
Ability to apply
knowledge in
these domains is
below expected
levels.
Assessments
inconsistently
draw from
empirical
literature and
reflect an
inconsistently
scientific
understanding of
human behavior.
Data presented
is not
consistently
connected to the
identified goals
and questions.
Assessments do
not consistently
inform case
conceptualizatio
n, classification,
and
recommendatio
ns. Ability to
distinguish
subjective from
objective
assessments is
inconsistent.
within the
contexts of
family, social
relationships,
society, and
culture.
Demonstrates
ability to apply
knowledge in
these domains.
Assessments
draw from
empirical
literature and
reflect scientific
understanding of
human behavior,
collects relevant
data using
multiple sources
and methods
appropriate to
the identified
goals and
questions.
Assessments
inform case
conceptualizatio
n, classification,
and
recommendatio
ns, distinguishes
subjective from
objective
assessments.
high level of
understanding of
human behavior
within the
contexts of
family, social
relationships,
society, and
culture.
Demonstrates
advanced ability
to apply
knowledge in
these domains.
Assessments
draw from
empirical
literature and
reflect scientific
understanding of
human behavior,
collects relevant
data using
multiple sources
and methods
appropriate to
the identified
goals and
questions.
Assessments
inform case
conceptualizatio
n, classification,
and
recommendatio
ns at an
advanced level,
distinguishes
subjective from
objective
assessments.
Integration Does not provide
an integrative
assessment of
Provides an
explanation of
the interaction
Provides an
explanation of
the interaction
Exceeds
expected levels
in ability to
/10
Multiple by 4
25
the patient, or
assessment
demonstrates
significant lack of
understanding in
key areas of
psychology.
Little attempt is
made to
integrate
concepts;
concepts are not
meaningfully
connected or
applied to the
case. Theoretical
framework is
inappropriate,
incoherent, or
demonstrates
fundamental
misunderstandin
g of clinical
approach.
Thoughts, ideas,
and concepts are
not meaningfully
connected to
intervention and
treatment goals.
between at least
two basic
content areas
and then
integrates that
knowledge into
an integrative
assessment of
the patient that
inconsistently or
insufficiently
synthesizes
multiple
perspectives and
content areas.
Ability to further
integrate these
content areas
with a
sophisticated
case formulation
within a
coherent
theoretical
framework falls
below expected
levels. Thoughts,
ideas, and
concepts are
inconsistently
articulated and
do not
consistently
demonstrate
well‐reasoned
and well‐
constructed
perspectives.
Ability to apply
these
assessments to
intervention and
treatment goals
is below
expected levels.
between at least
two basic
content areas
and then
integrates that
knowledge into
an integrative
assessment of
the patient that
combines and
synthesizes
multiple
perspectives and
content areas of
psychology.
Demonstrates
ability to further
integrate these
content areas
with a
sophisticated
case formulation
within a
coherent
theoretical
framework.
Thoughts, ideas,
and concepts are
well‐articulated
and demonstrate
well‐reasoned
and well‐
constructed
perspectives that
meaningfully
guide
intervention,
and treatment
goals.
provide an
explanation of
the interaction
between at least
two basic
content areas
and then
provides an
integrative
assessment of
the patient that
combines and
synthesizes
multiple
perspectives and
content areas of
psychology:
biological,
affective,
cognitive,
developmental,
and social.
Demonstrates
advanced ability
to further
integrate these
content areas
with a
sophisticated
case formulation
within a
coherent
theoretical
framework.
Thoughts, ideas,
and concepts are
well‐articulated
and demonstrate
well‐reasoned
and well‐
constructed
perspectives that
meaningfully
guide
intervention,
26
and treatment
goals.
Intervention
Does not
demonstrate an
ability to
integrate and
synthesize
important
information
when discussing
intervention.
Demonstrates
significant lack of
understanding in
key areas of
psychology as
applied to
intervention,
treatment
planning, goals,
therapy course,
and outcomes.
Demonstrated
ability to
integrate and
synthesize
important
information
when discussing
intervention falls
below expected
levels.
Demonstrates
inconsistent
understanding in
key areas of
psychology as
applied to
intervention,
treatment
planning, goals,
therapy course,
and outcomes.
Demonstrates
ability to
integrate and
synthesize
important
information
when discussing
intervention that
meets expected
levels.
Demonstrates
expected level of
understanding in
key areas of
psychology as
applied to
intervention,
treatment
planning, goals,
therapy course,
and outcomes.
Demonstrates
ability to
integrate and
synthesize
important
information
when discussing
intervention that
exceeds
expected levels.
Demonstrates
advanced
understanding in
key areas of
psychology as
applied to
intervention,
treatment
planning, goals,
therapy course,
and outcomes.
/10
Multiple by 4
Therapist and
Relational
Factors
Student is
unable to
examine the
therapy
relationship and
therapist
feelings/impressi
ons/experiences
vis‐à‐vis the
patient, or
analysis
demonstrates
significant lack of
understanding of
key clinical
concepts,
significant lack of
insight, or
significant lack of
self‐awareness
expected from
The therapy
relationship and
therapist
experiences vis‐
à‐vis the patient
are analyzed at a
level that does
not meet
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Significant
aspects of the
therapy
relationship are
overlooked or
dismissed.
Expected levels
of self‐
awareness and
insight are not
demonstrated.
The therapy
relationship and
therapist
experiences vis‐
a‐vis the patient
are analyzed at a
level that meets
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Significant
aspects of the
therapy
relationship are
thoughtfully
examined and
integrated
meaningfully
with relevant
case
information.
Expected levels
of self‐
The therapy
relationship and
therapist
experiences vis‐
a‐vis the patient
are analyzed at a
level that
exceeds
expectations for
doctoral
students.
Significant
aspects of the
therapy
relationship are
thoughtfully
examined and
integrated
meaningfully
with relevant
case
information.
Levels of self‐
/10
Multiple by 3
27
doctoral level
students.
awareness and
insight are
demonstrated.
awareness and
insight that
exceed
expectations are
demonstrated.
Total Points Available: 300
A minimum score of 80% is required for EACH SECTION to pass.
Scored Section Interviewer 1 Interviewer 2 Average Percent Pass/Repeat
Exam
Professionalism /30 /30 /30 /100
Communication /30 /30 /30 /100
Thoughtfulness /30 /30 /30 /100
Individual and Cultural Considerations
/30 /30 /30 /100
Legal and Ethical Considerations
/30 /30 /30 /100
Assessment /40 /40 /40 /100
Integration /40 /40 /40 /100
Intervention /40 /40 /40 /100
Therapist and Relational Factors
Overall /300 /300 /300 /100
Total Score for Integrative Case Presentation and Oral Exam:
Score: /600 Percent: /100
Student Signature Date
Reader/Interviewer 1 Signature Date
Reader/Interviewer 2 Signature Date
![Feedback and the Oral Case Presentation: Are we doing · PDF fileFeedback and the Oral Case Presentation: Are we doing ... [The oral case presentation] ... important part of your learning](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5aafbb027f8b9a07498db04a/feedback-and-the-oral-case-presentation-are-we-doing-and-the-oral-case-presentation.jpg)
