Tag: Model Answer

  • [Solved] Lorem, lpsum

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – [\ \ 20260307_170338.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260307-170338-jpg "20260307_170338.jpg") – [\ \ 20260315_011317.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011317-jpg-10517929 "20260315_011317.jpg") – [\ \ 20260315_011358.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-0113…

    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

    – [\
    \
    20260307_170338.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260307-170338-jpg "20260307_170338.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011317.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011317-jpg-10517929 "20260315_011317.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011358.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011358-jpg-10517931 "20260315_011358.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011305.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011305-jpg-10517933 "20260315_011305.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011350.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011350-jpg-10517935 "20260315_011350.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011337.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011337-jpg-10517937 "20260315_011337.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011407.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011407-jpg-10517939 "20260315_011407.jpg")

  • [Solved] HW help

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering HW help.

    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] 545- Early Literacy

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    As a teacher of emergent readers, it is essential to understand the foundation of successful reading instruction. The science of reading tells us daily, explicit, and systematic instruction in phonological awareness is key to future reading achievement. Phonological awareness is the ability to ident…

    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

    As a teacher of emergent readers, it is essential to understand the foundation of successful reading instruction. The science of reading tells us daily, explicit, and systematic instruction in phonological awareness is key to future reading achievement. Phonological awareness is the ability to identify and manipulate various units of sounds in speech, including syllables, onsets, and rhymes (DeVries, 2021). While phonemic awareness falls under the umbrella of phonological awareness its emphasis is primarily on the manipulation of individual sounds or phonemes.

    **Part 1:** **Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Strategies Chart**

    Complete Part 1 of the “Phonological Awareness and Phonemic Template” by defining the importance of each phonological skill, identifying your state standards the skills align to, and identifying two strategies to support the teaching of each.

    **Part 2: Multisensory Integration**

    Complete Part 2 of the “Phonological Awareness and Phonemic Template” by choosing two skills from Part 1 and in 100 words describing how the instructional strategies include multisensory techniques or how they could be modified to include multisensory techniques. In addition, explain how multisensory techniques support the Science of Reading and discuss how implementing them into instruction supports students with exceptionalities, such as dyslexia.

    **Part 3:** **Technology Integration**

    Complete Part 3 of the “Phonological Awareness and Phonemic Template” by identifying and explaining in 100 words two technology tools that can be used to support and practice phonological awareness and phonemic awareness.

    Support your assignment with a minimum of two scholarly resources.

    – [\
    \
    ELM-545-RS-T2-PhonologicalAwarenessTemplate.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/elm-545-rs-t2-phonologicalawarenesstemplate-docx-10507293 "ELM-545-RS-T2-PhonologicalAwarenessTemplate.docx")

  • [Solved] Annotated

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Annotated.

    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] Course Project

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) The **Course Project: Final** **Assignment** will be in the form of a PowerPoint presentation of at least 10 informational slides, not including the title slide or the reference slide. Items to include are outlined as follows:…

    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

    [>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)

    The **Course Project: Final** **Assignment** will be in the form of a PowerPoint presentation of at least 10 informational slides, not including the title slide or the reference slide.

    Items to include are outlined as follows:

    **The following must be included in the Final via PowerPoint slides:**

    · Specific Slide Requirements

    o Title slide with student name

    o Background on the slides that is appropriate for the audience

    o Numerous examples of pictures/graphic art

    o At least 10 informational slides

    o Reference slide with at least 5 sources in current APA format (Sources must be scholarly, reliable, and relevant to the topic, and current to within the last 7 years.)

    · The Facility

    o Location

    o Type of facility (jail/prison, rehabilitative, medical, etc.)

    o Size (number of floors, number of rooms, **number of beds,**etc.)

    o Design (interior and exterior)

    o **Security Level (minimum, maximum, etc.)**

    · Staffing

    o Staffing categories

    o Necessary manpower

    o Staff hierarchy (chain of command)

    · Resources

    o Types of resources/programs to be available

    o Privileges available

    o Correctional goals met through resources

    · Budget

    o Located at the end of the presentation

    o Develop a necessary yearly budget to effectively operate the institution

    o **Develop an estimated breakdown of expenses (What percentage will be used for staffing? Programs?)**

    **See attached instructions and grading rubric for more information. Please pay close attention to professor notes from previous course project.**

    – [\
    \
    CourseProjectFinalAssignmentInstructions.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/courseprojectfinalassignmentinstructions-docx-10507757 "CourseProjectFinalAssignmentInstructions.docx")
    – [\
    \
    CourseProject-FinalGradingRubric.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/courseproject-finalgradingrubric-pdf "CourseProject-FinalGradingRubric.pdf")
    – [\
    \
    Prof.Feedback_CourseProjectRoughDraft.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/prof-feedback-courseprojectroughdraft-docx "Prof.Feedback_CourseProjectRoughDraft.docx")
    – [\
    \
    CourseProject_RoughDraft.pptx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/courseproject-roughdraft-pptx "CourseProject_RoughDraft.pptx")

  • [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] Make up work

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (1)** – ## makeupwork.docx **## makeupwork.docx** ### Part 1: Discussion post (250-300 words) (1 reference) All of the following are Myths about Childhood Suicide. Choose one of these myths and provide an argument that supports the inaccuracy of these false statements. Support your argument …

    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)**

    – ## makeupwork.docx

    **## makeupwork.docx**

    ### Part 1: Discussion post (250-300 words) (1 reference)

    All of the following are Myths about Childhood Suicide. Choose one of these myths and provide an argument that supports the inaccuracy of these false statements. Support your argument with empirical literature as to why these are not true? What other myths have you heard regarding child and adolescent suicide? Why do these not add up?

    Myths:

    Childhood is a relatively carefree time in a person’s life.

    ****Children do not get depressed.**

    Children do not understand the finality of death.

    Most Children’s stressors and problems are minor in comparison to adult problems and are not serious enough to place the child at risk for suicide.

    Children do not commit suicide. Most deaths that have been ruled a suicide are really just accidents.

    (Granello & Granello, 2007)

    Also, do you have any professional experience dealing with suicide, self-injury or homicide as it relates to children and adolescents? If so, please share your thoughts and experiences.  If not, what will you do to ensure that you will be a competent counselor when working with these types of children and adolescents? Please be specific.

    **Your responses should be well thought out and comprehensive and will be assessed based on your evidence of content knowledge and critical thought.

    ### Part 2: Respond to two students response (25-65 words)

    **Student 1:**

    Myth: Childhood is a relatively carefree time in a person’s life.

    Childhood for some children is very difficult. Based on ACES (Adverse Childhood Experiences), many children grow up with experiences of trauma. This trauma shapes their life and the way they view the world. Children are growing up being abused, neglected, suffering from terminal illness, being bullied, death of a parent/loved one, and even natural disasters. Let's not forget COVID-19. That health crisis changed the entire world, and some children have not recovered from it especially educationally.

    As a counselor, I have worked with children that have attempted suicide and exhibited self-injurious behaviors, It was very difficult because nothing was working because the child had experienced so much trauma in their life by the people that are supposed to love them. One child in particular was hospitalized for inpatient for a couple of weeks and placed in the home with her grandmother. She thrived because she was stabilized, had intensive therapy and was removed from the environment that was causing her the most harm.

    **Student 2:**

    The idea that childhood is a carefree time is a common myth that ignores the real challenges many children face. While children may not have adult responsibilities like paying bills, they still can experience significant emotional and social stress. They must navigate identity, peer relationships, family dynamics and academic expectations. In some cases children can experience bullying, poverty, trauma, or family instability. Research shows that suicide is one of the leading causes of death among youth in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), which directly challenges the belief that childhood is universally carefree. Another myth is that talking to children about suicide increases risk; however, research shows that asking directly about suicidal thoughts does not increase suicidal behavior and can actually promote support and safety.

    In my role as a school social worker, I have worked with students experiencing suicidal thoughts and self-harm. Many expressed feeling alone and misunderstood. Their struggles were often layered with family conflict, peer rejection, trauma, and low self-worth. Other myths, such as children being too young to understand death or that they are “just seeking attention,” do not align with research. Children are capable of emotional pain, and any talk of suicide should be taken seriously. These misunderstandings ignore how complex children’s emotions are and show why trusted adults, open talks, and early support matter.

    *FOR BRILIANT ANSWERS*

    Use AMERICAN VERSION OF WORDS

    ### Assignment 2: Application 6.1 (1 PAGE, NO references) **View (6.1-6.4) in the mylab.  You will choose one of those and write a 1 page reflection based on the question provided.  Please clearly identify which section you will be reviewing as well as the question. It is recommended that you respond to the question in a word document and upload it here to canvas. You will not need to use the mylab component to input this information. These responses are expected to be specific, comprehensive, and evidence of critical thinking, as it relates to course content and clinical objectives, must be demonstrated. (expected length= 1 page)**

    ### **6.1 I CAN START** One model that can be used to guide holistic conceptualization is the I CAN START acronym created by Victoria Kress and Matt Paylo. Consider the steps of this model and explain each​ letter's role in the holistic conceptualization of young clients. **Question** 1: The​ "I" in I CAN START stands for _Individual_. Describe how your unique experiences as an individual might affect your counseling interventions with youth and their families. **​Hint:** Consider how your theoretical orientation might differ from another​ counselor's, and think about life experiences that might lead you to have bias in your daily life. **Question 2:** The​ "S" in I CAN START stands for _Strengths_. Describe how you will identify and use client strengths in your work as a counselor. **​Hint:** Clients can have individual​ strengths, family​ strengths, neighborhood​ strengths, school-based​ strengths, and community strengths. **Question 3:** The​ "A" in I CAN START stands for _Aims and Objectives._ Describe how you will help clients identify their counseling goals and translate them into measurable objectives. **​Hint:** Consider your ability to understand a​ youth's presenting problem in counseling terms and the types of interventions you will use to address such concerns. *FOR BRILIANT ANSWERS* Use AMERICAN VERSION OF WORDS NO NEED TO LIST REFRANCES

    **## makeupwork.docx**

    ### Part 1: Discussion post (250-300 words) (1 reference)

    All of the following are Myths about Childhood Suicide. Choose one of these myths and provide an argument that supports the inaccuracy of these false statements. Support your argument with empirical literature as to why these are not true? What other myths have you heard regarding child and adolescent suicide? Why do these not add up?

    Myths:

    Childhood is a relatively carefree time in a person’s life.

    ****Children do not get depressed.**

    Children do not understand the finality of death.

    Most Children’s stressors and problems are minor in comparison to adult problems and are not serious enough to place the child at risk for suicide.

    Children do not commit suicide. Most deaths that have been ruled a suicide are really just accidents.

    (Granello & Granello, 2007)

    Also, do you have any professional experience dealing with suicide, self-injury or homicide as it relates to children and adolescents? If so, please share your thoughts and experiences.  If not, what will you do to ensure that you will be a competent counselor when working with these types of children and adolescents? Please be specific.

    **Your responses should be well thought out and comprehensive and will be assessed based on your evidence of content knowledge and critical thought.

    ### Part 2: Respond to two students response (25-65 words)

    **Student 1:**

    Myth: Childhood is a relatively carefree time in a person’s life.

    Childhood for some children is very difficult. Based on ACES (Adverse Childhood Experiences), many children grow up with experiences of trauma. This trauma shapes their life and the way they view the world. Children are growing up being abused, neglected, suffering from terminal illness, being bullied, death of a parent/loved one, and even natural disasters. Let's not forget COVID-19. That health crisis changed the entire world, and some children have not recovered from it especially educationally.

    As a counselor, I have worked with children that have attempted suicide and exhibited self-injurious behaviors, It was very difficult because nothing was working because the child had experienced so much trauma in their life by the people that are supposed to love them. One child in particular was hospitalized for inpatient for a couple of weeks and placed in the home with her grandmother. She thrived because she was stabilized, had intensive therapy and was removed from the environment that was causing her the most harm.

    **Student 2:**

    The idea that childhood is a carefree time is a common myth that ignores the real challenges many children face. While children may not have adult responsibilities like paying bills, they still can experience significant emotional and social stress. They must navigate identity, peer relationships, family dynamics and academic expectations. In some cases children can experience bullying, poverty, trauma, or family instability. Research shows that suicide is one of the leading causes of death among youth in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), which directly challenges the belief that childhood is universally carefree. Another myth is that talking to children about suicide increases risk; however, research shows that asking directly about suicidal thoughts does not increase suicidal behavior and can actually promote support and safety.

    In my role as a school social worker, I have worked with students experiencing suicidal thoughts and self-harm. Many expressed feeling alone and misunderstood. Their struggles were often layered with family conflict, peer rejection, trauma, and low self-worth. Other myths, such as children being too young to understand death or that they are “just seeking attention,” do not align with research. Children are capable of emotional pain, and any talk of suicide should be taken seriously. These misunderstandings ignore how complex children’s emotions are and show why trusted adults, open talks, and early support matter.

    *FOR BRILIANT ANSWERS*

    Use AMERICAN VERSION OF WORDS

    ### Assignment 2: Application 6.1 (1 PAGE, NO references) **View (6.1-6.4) in the mylab.  You will choose one of those and write a 1 page reflection based on the question provided.  Please clearly identify which section you will be reviewing as well as the question. It is recommended that you respond to the question in a word document and upload it here to canvas. You will not need to use the mylab component to input this information. These responses are expected to be specific, comprehensive, and evidence of critical thinking, as it relates to course content and clinical objectives, must be demonstrated. (expected length= 1 page)**

    ### **6.1 I CAN START** One model that can be used to guide holistic conceptualization is the I CAN START acronym created by Victoria Kress and Matt Paylo. Consider the steps of this model and explain each​ letter's role in the holistic conceptualization of young clients. **Question** 1: The​ "I" in I CAN START stands for _Individual_. Describe how your unique experiences as an individual might affect your counseling interventions with youth and their families. **​Hint:** Consider how your theoretical orientation might differ from another​ counselor's, and think about life experiences that might lead you to have bias in your daily life. **Question 2:** The​ "S" in I CAN START stands for _Strengths_. Describe how you will identify and use client strengths in your work as a counselor. **​Hint:** Clients can have individual​ strengths, family​ strengths, neighborhood​ strengths, school-based​ strengths, and community strengths. **Question 3:** The​ "A" in I CAN START stands for _Aims and Objectives._ Describe how you will help clients identify their counseling goals and translate them into measurable objectives. **​Hint:** Consider your ability to understand a​ youth's presenting problem in counseling terms and the types of interventions you will use to address such concerns. *FOR BRILIANT ANSWERS* Use AMERICAN VERSION OF WORDS NO NEED TO LIST REFRANCES

  • [Solved] Intangible business cost

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Operations Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-operations-management) Using the case study, evaluate the current costs of the situation to the organization. Provide a breakdown of the costs and risks to the organization in the situation. Remember that costs…

    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

    [>Operations Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-operations-management)

    Using the case study, evaluate the current costs of the situation to the organization. Provide a breakdown of the costs and risks to the organization in the situation. Remember that costs are not only hard costs or dollar-related; consider the intangible costs of reputation, perception, and lost productivity due to inefficiency, frustration, stress, mental health, workarounds, and any other kind of intangible cost. Remember that these intangible costs may not be readily quantifiable. However, you can include a narrative with examples that support these aspects. Your goal is to develop the ability to think beyond return on investment (ROI) and traditional costs as justifiers for new ideas.

    In your paper,

    – Analyze at least three intangible costs associated with the DargeanGrix business scenario.
    – Explain the aspects that comprise the intangible elements.
    – Evaluate the impact of each of the intangibles on DargeanGrix and on DargeanGrix’s business processes and assign a cost to each.
    – The cost may be a monetary one, or it may be another form of valuation.
    – Justify each assigned cost with a narrative explaining your rationale for each element.
    – Although not required, a table may be useful for visualizing the aspects.

    The Current Intangible Business Costs paper,

    – must be 5 to 6 double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages)-APA format
    –  must utilize academic voice.
    – must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper
    –  must use at least 2 credible sources

    – [\
    \
    DARGEANGRIXBUSINESSSCENARIO_casestudy.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/dargeangrixbusinessscenario-casestudy-docx "DARGEANGRIXBUSINESSSCENARIO_casestudy.docx")