My Blog

Tag: Homework Solution

  • [Solved] Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (2)** – ## Articles.pdf – LiteratureReview1.docx **## Articles.pdf** References 1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D., Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D., Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumb…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (2)**

    – ## Articles.pdf

    – LiteratureReview1.docx

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

  • [Solved] Respond to classmates post

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Philosophy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/social-science-philosophy) **Week 2 Interactive Responses – Part 2** **1st Interactive Response:** Compare and contrast one student’s writing and the AI output. **2nd Interactive Response:** · Read another student’s AI output and compare …

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    [>Philosophy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/social-science-philosophy)

    **Week 2 Interactive Responses – Part 2**

    **1st Interactive Response:**

    Compare and contrast one student’s writing and the AI output.

    **2nd Interactive Response:**

    · Read another student’s AI output and compare it to yours. Do you notice similarities or patterns in the way the AI program writes?

    **Discussion Etiquette:** When you reply to a classmate or professor, include their name in your reply.

    Each reply should be one paragraph (or about 75 words) and must be substantive. Do not simply say “I agree” or “That is great.” Specify why and be detailed in your explanation. You may use research in your responses, but it is not required.

    In your own words, respond to the discussion and comments of classmates. Grades will be based on effectual, concise, and interactive feedback. The excessive use of quotes will directly impact performance since this indicates a lack of comprehension and shows that you may not have mastered the concepts.

    Why two initial discussion posts and four replies? Planning and time management are invaluable skills for business professionals who juggle jobs, personal lives, and other endeavors. You should post one during the 1st week of the module and the other in the 2nd week. It also allows for richer responses from classmates. Some students opt to make both posts at the same time. Balancing priorities in an academic setting is a transferable skill to the workplace. Making optimum decisions about scheduling can help you excel along the career path.

    **See attached responses from two classmates**

    – [\
    \
    Week2Responses.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week2responses-docx-10507745 "Week2Responses.docx")

  • [Solved] Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (2)** – ## LiteratureReview1.docx – ReferencesArticle1.pdf **## LiteratureReview1.docx** _Literature Review: Part 1_ Instructions: Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment: **Writing the Literature Review** Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (2)**

    – ## LiteratureReview1.docx

    – ReferencesArticle1.pdf

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

  • [Solved] Post discussion

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Read the article [Advanced Practice Nursing Roles, Regulation, Education, and Practice: A Global Study](https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=135619&type=coursefile&fileId=Week+4%2fNSG6998+Advance+Practice+Nursing+Roles%2c+Regulation%2c+Education+and+Pra…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Read the article [Advanced Practice Nursing Roles, Regulation, Education, and Practice: A Global Study](https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=135619&type=coursefile&fileId=Week+4%2fNSG6998+Advance+Practice+Nursing+Roles%2c+Regulation%2c+Education+and+Practice.pdf).

    – How does the article connect quality and safety competencies (QSEN) which guide practice.
    – Identify a component of the article that resonates for you.
    – How do the competencies of QSEN define the advance practice role?
    – Discuss specifics of how QSEN changes as you transition from the RN to APRN role and practice.

    Post a minimum **200-word response**. Support thoughts through the use of course textbooks, peer-reviewed articles. Cite sources and provide appropriate references for the citations in APA format.

    – Please make sure to use scholarly references not older than 5 years. Posts/references must be in APA format.
    – Please follow the discussion rubric to make sure all topics/discussions are addressed.

    Plagiarism will result in a failing grade for the assignment and may result in a failing grade for the course.

  • [Solved] Education homework

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Education homework.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY: DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Diabetes is a significant public health challenge in the United States, with Table 3.2 identifying Hemoglobin A1C levels, incidence of skin infections, obesity, peripheral neuropathy, and renal insufficiency as key measurable outcomes (Curley, 2024). The population selected for this discussion is Hi…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Diabetes is a significant public health challenge in the United States, with Table 3.2 identifying Hemoglobin A1C levels, incidence of skin infections, obesity, peripheral neuropathy, and renal insufficiency as key measurable outcomes (Curley, 2024). The population selected for this discussion is Hispanic/Latino adults in the United States, a group disproportionately burdened by Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)..

    – [\
    \
    wk2epiDescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk2epidescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories-docx "wk2epiDescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories.docx")
    – [\
    \
    wk2epidiscrubrics.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk2epidiscrubrics-docx "wk2epidiscrubrics.docx")

  • [Solved] Dummy Post

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Accounting homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-accounting) Complete-Looks Good

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    [>Accounting homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-accounting)

    Complete-Looks Good

  • [Solved] question

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (1)** – ## Jurnalarticles805.docx **## Jurnalarticles805.docx** **Journal Entry 1** · What is the difference between facilitating learning and teaching information​? **Journal Entry 2** · Imagine that the parents in your class are not pleased with the authentic measures for assessment being …

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (1)**

    – ## Jurnalarticles805.docx

    **## Jurnalarticles805.docx**

    **Journal Entry 1**

    · What is the difference between facilitating learning and teaching information​?

    **Journal Entry 2**

    · Imagine that the parents in your class are not pleased with the authentic measures for assessment being used. They want to know if their children are doing as well as others. Based on standardized test scores, they want to know if their child is above, below, or at grade level. You are convinced that authentic assessment is the right way to evaluate children. What can you do to help parents understand and accept the authentic assessment strategies?

    **Journal Entry 3**

    ·  How has diversity affected your teaching – either this year or in the past?

    ·  What accommodations/modifications have you made?

    **Journal Entry 4**

    · How can you encourage receptive and expressive language development opportunities in the classroom?

    **Journal Entry 5**

    · “The meaning comes from what they know about language and from their experiences,” was cited in the text.

    · How does this statement and what we have learned about the 3 cueing systems impact how our students understand the English language?

    or

    · If this statement is in fact true, how does it impact our ENLs, students from poverty or our special needs population?

    **Journal Entry 6**

    ·  Looking at “Characteristics of Able Readers and Writers”, which 2 do you think your students need the most help with, and what can you do to help them?

    **Journal Entry 7**

    · In your experience, what content subject areas pose the most difficulty for your students (either in reading or writing)?

    · Why do you think this is the case?

    · How can you help overcome this area of difficulty?

    **Journal Entry 8**

    · How does family literacy affect your teaching?

    **## Jurnalarticles805.docx**

    **Journal Entry 1**

    · What is the difference between facilitating learning and teaching information​?

    **Journal Entry 2**

    · Imagine that the parents in your class are not pleased with the authentic measures for assessment being used. They want to know if their children are doing as well as others. Based on standardized test scores, they want to know if their child is above, below, or at grade level. You are convinced that authentic assessment is the right way to evaluate children. What can you do to help parents understand and accept the authentic assessment strategies?

    **Journal Entry 3**

    ·  How has diversity affected your teaching – either this year or in the past?

    ·  What accommodations/modifications have you made?

    **Journal Entry 4**

    · How can you encourage receptive and expressive language development opportunities in the classroom?

    **Journal Entry 5**

    · “The meaning comes from what they know about language and from their experiences,” was cited in the text.

    · How does this statement and what we have learned about the 3 cueing systems impact how our students understand the English language?

    or

    · If this statement is in fact true, how does it impact our ENLs, students from poverty or our special needs population?

    **Journal Entry 6**

    ·  Looking at “Characteristics of Able Readers and Writers”, which 2 do you think your students need the most help with, and what can you do to help them?

    **Journal Entry 7**

    · In your experience, what content subject areas pose the most difficulty for your students (either in reading or writing)?

    · Why do you think this is the case?

    · How can you help overcome this area of difficulty?

    **Journal Entry 8**

    · How does family literacy affect your teaching?

  • [Solved] Grammar Project

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    This grammar project will help you deepen your understanding of key writing rules and strategies that are essential for success on the SAT. By researching and applying these rules, you'll sharpen your ability to revise for clarity, audience, purpose, grammar, and mechanics. The best way to master th…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    This grammar project will help you deepen your understanding of key writing rules and strategies that are essential for success on the SAT. By researching and applying these rules, you'll sharpen your ability to revise for clarity, audience, purpose, grammar, and mechanics.  The best way to master these concepts is to work with them in a real-world context, where you can see their impact on clear and effective writing.

    For this assignment, you will create a Grammar Guide.

    Your Grammar Guide should include the following:

    1. Research three rules or revision strategies for each of the following topics: Clarity, Audience, Purpose, Grammar, and Mechanics. You will have 15 rules.
    2. Locate at least two current event articles that have been published within two weeks. You may use more if needed.
    3. Create a presentation that features a slide or page for **each** of the following for 15 rules or revision strategies.
    4. Topic
    5. Rule or Revision Strategy
    6. Original SAT-style question, written by you, that illustrates the rule or revision using text pulled from the current event articles. Your questions should be written in multiple-choice format with at least four choices. Note: you are not looking for articles that are grammatically incorrect. You are using text from the article and creating a question such as "how could this sentence be revised for an audience of high school freshmen?"
    7. Correct answer for your SAT question with an explanation of why the answer is correct
    8. Well-written, grammatically correct reflection (1-2 sentences in length) explaining how understanding this rule or revision strategy will assist you in answering questions on the SAT
    9. Link to the article used on the slide

  • [Solved] European Imperalism Project Presentation

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    The final project for this module will be for you to select one time period from the options provided and create a presentation of your choice highlighting specific topics about the time period while highlighting the theme of Corruption and Independence. Upon completion, upload your project. _You ma…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    The final project for this module will be for you to select one time period from the options provided and create a presentation of your choice highlighting specific topics about the time period while highlighting the theme of Corruption and Independence. Upon completion, upload your project. _You may not use any information about the people and events already covered in the module._ Your research should include new people and events. For instance, Nelson Mandela should not be in your presentation. When you include the five events from the time period, be detailed in the who, what, when, where, and why. Include images. Do not skimp on the information on any of the slides. This is a major grade, and it should reflect effort, creativity, and understanding. Simply copying and pasting will earn a poor score. Be sure to include a Works Cited to show where your information was obtained.