April 10, 2021

Elderly: Depression

· Choose a population of interest to you.

o Elderly/Aging

· Choose a presenting problem (depression,) related to the population of interest.

· Conduct a literature review focused on the presenting problem within the population of interest.

By Day 7

Submit an 8- to 10-page scholarly paper supported with a minimum of six peer-reviewed articles as references. In the paper, you should:

· Briefly describe the population and presenting problem you are focusing on for this assignment.

· Provide a review of the articles you reviewed from this project and explain what you learned from conducting this research.

· Briefly describe at least 2 evidence-based interventions currently used for your chosen population when addressing this particular problem. Provide supporting references when explaining the evidence behind the interventions.

· Explain which of these interventions you might choose to use and why.

o Consider client values and your clinical expertise and how those might affect your decision of which intervention to use.

· Describe how you might apply the specific skills and techniques of the chosen intervention.

· Briefly explain how you could measure the outcomes of this intervention.

· Explain any cultural considerations that you need to take into account when working with this population or the particular presenting problem.

· Discuss how the Code of Ethics applies when working with this particular presenting problem and population.

· Explain how you would apply a trauma-informed lens when working with this population.

Course readings

Åhsberg, E., Fahlström, G., Rönnbäck, E., Granberg, A., & Almborg, A. (2017). Development of an instrument for assessing elder care needs. Research On Social Work Practice, 27(3), 291-306.

Austin, A., Craig, S. L., & D’Souza, S. A. (2018). An AFFIRMative cognitive behavioral intervention for transgender youth: Preliminary effectiveness. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 49(1), 1-8.

Berg, H., Antonsen, P., & Binder, P. (2016). Sediments and vistas in the relational matrix of the unfolding ‘I’: A qualitative study of therapists’ experiences with self-disclosure in psychotherapy. Journal Of Psychotherapy Integration, 26(3), 248-258.

Chiesa, C. (2012). Scripts in the sand: Sandplay in transactional analysis psychotherapy with children. Transactional Analysis Journal, 42(4), 285–293.

Christogiorgos, S., & Giannakopoulos, G. (2015). Parental presence and countertransference phenomena in psychoanalytic psychotherapy of children and adolescents. Psychoanalytic Social Work, 22(1), 1-11.

Congress, E. (2013). Assessment of adults. In M. Holosko, C. Dulmus, & K. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 125–145). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. Social Work, 39(3), 262– 268.

Drinane, J. M., Owen, J., & Tao, K. W. (2018). Cultural concealment and therapy outcomes. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 65(2), 239-246.

Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma‐informed or trauma‐denied: Principles and implementation of trauma‐informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(4), 461-477.

Geller, S. M., & Greenberg, L. S. (2012). Challenges to therapeutic presence. In Therapeutic presence: A mindful approach to effective therapy (pp. 143–159). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gonyea, J. L., Wright, D. W., & Earl‐Kulkosky, T. (2014). Navigating dual relationships in rural communities. Journal of marital and family therapy, 40(1), 125-136.

Gordon, J., & Mackay, G. (2016). The Practice Pyramid: A model for integrating social work values, theory and practice. Journal of Practice Teaching & Learning, 14(3), 64-80.

Gross, J. T., Stern, J. A., Brett, B. E., & Cassidy, J. (2017). The multifaceted nature of prosocial behavior in children: Links with attachment theory and research. Social Development, 26(4), 661–678.

Halabuza, D. (2014). Guidelines for social workers’ use of social networking websites. Journal Of Social Work Values & Ethics, 11(1), 23-32.

Harrington, A. (2016). The importance of spiritual assessment when caring for older adults. Ageing And Society, 36(1), 1-16.

Hawkins, R. L., & Kim, E. J. (2012). The socio-economic empowerment assessment: Addressing poverty and economic distress in clients. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(2), 194– 202.

Holosko, M. J., Skinner, J. F., Patterson, C. A., & Brisebois, K. (2013). Intervention with the elderly. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 197–235). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hothersall, S. J. (2016). Epistemology and social work: Integrating theory, research and practice through philosophical pragmatism. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 18(3), 33-67.

Knight, C. (2015). Trauma-informed social work practice: Practice considerations and challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1), 25-37.

LeCroy, C. W., & Williams, L. R. (2013). Intervention with adolescents. In M. Holosko, C. Dulmus, & K. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence- informed assessments and interventions (pp. 97–124). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lindsey, M. A., Brown, D. R., & Cunningham, M. (2017). Boys do(n’t) cry: Addressing the unmet mental health needs of African American boys. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 87(4), 377-383.

Malawista, K. L. (2004). Rescue fantasies in child therapy: countertransference/transference enactments. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(4), 373–386.

Mattison, M. (2018). Informed consent agreements: Standards of care for digital social work practices. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(2), 227-238.

McCormick, K. M., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T. M., & Rous, B. (2008). Using eco-mapping to understand family strengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 17–28.

McTighe, J. P. (2011). Teaching the use of self through the process of clinical supervision. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39(3), 301–307.

Paveza, G. J. (2013). Assessment of the elderly. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 177–195). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Reamer, F. G. (2017). Evolving ethical standards in the digital Age. Australian Social Work, 70(2), 148-159.

Ruffolo, M. C., & Allen-Meares, P. (2013). Intervention with children. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 41–69). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sawyer, S., & Prescott, D. (2011). Boundaries and dual relationships. Sexual Abuse: Journal Of Research And Treatment, 23(3), 365-380.

Sokolec, J. (2016). The meaning of ‘place’ to older adults. Clinical Social Work Journal, 44(2), 160-169.

Springer, D. W., & Powell, T. M. (2013). Assessment of adolescents. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 71–95). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Taylor, E. R. (2009). Sandtray and solution-focused therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 18(1), 56–68.

Thyer, B. A. (2013). Intervention with adults. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 147–176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Withers, M. C., McWey, L. M., & Lucier‐Greer, M. (2016). Parent–adolescent relationship factors and adolescent outcomes among high‐risk families. Family Relations, 65(5), 661-672.

Woolley, M. E. (2013). Assessment of children. In M. J. Holosko, C. N. Dulmus, & K. M. Sowers (Eds.), Social work practice with individuals and families: Evidence-informed assessments and interventions (pp. 1–39). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

RUBICS

e: SOCW_6111_Week10_Project_Rubric

· Grid View

· List View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Responsiveness to Directions	73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%) Paper fully addresses all instruction prompts.	65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%) Paper addresses most of the instruction prompts; however, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed.	56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%) Paper addresses some of the instructions prompts, but may have missed several prompts or did not sufficiently address the majority of prompts.	0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%) “Paper does not address the majority of instruction prompts and/or insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts. “
Content	73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%) Paper demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other sources, and discerning ideas.	65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%) Paper demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper includes moderate detail, evidence from the readings, and discerning ideas.	56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%) Paper demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper may be lacking in detail and specificity and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.	0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%) Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper is missing detail and specificity and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Competency: Intervene with Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities -Cognitive and Affective Processes	12.2 (4.5%) – 13.55 (5%) Student demonstrates excellent critical thought related to intervention. A high level of critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.	10.84 (4%) – 12.06 (4.45%) Student demonstrates good critical thought related to intervention. A sufficient level of critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.	9.48 (3.5%) – 10.7 (3.95%) Student demonstrates some critical thought related to intervention. Some areas may lack a sufficient level of critical thought demonstrated in ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.	0 (0%) – 9.35 (3.45%) Student demonstrates little or no critical thought related to intervention. Little or no critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.
Competency: Engage with Diversity and Difference in Practice –Values	12.2 (4.5%) – 13.55 (5%) Student demonstrates an excellent understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates an excellent ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student is able to apply Code of Ethics.	10.84 (4%) – 12.06 (4.45%) Student demonstrates a good understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates a good ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student is able to apply Code of Ethics.	9.48 (3.5%) – 10.7 (3.95%) Student demonstrates some understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates emerging ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student may struggle to apply Code of Ethics or applies it superficially.	0 (0%) – 9.35 (3.45%) Student demonstrates little or no understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates little or no ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student may be unable to apply Code of Ethics.
Writing	73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%) Paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, follows APA style, uses original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. Paper contains multiple, appropriate and exemplary sources expected/required for the assignment.	65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%) Paper is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Paper may have some small or infrequent organization, scholarly tone, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors, and/or somewhat less than the expected number of or type of sources.	56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%) Paper is somewhat below graduate level writing style, with multiple smaller or a few major problems. Paper may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or shows moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing. Paper may contain inferior resources (number or quality).	0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%) Paper is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or relies excessively on quoting. Paper may contain few or no quality resources.

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Responsiveness to
Directions

73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%)

Paper fully addresses all instruction prompts.

65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%)

Paper addresses most of the instruction prompts; however, one or more prompts may have been insufficiently addressed.

56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%)

Paper addresses some of the instructions prompts, but may have missed several prompts or did not sufficiently address the majority of prompts.

0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%)

“Paper does not address the majority of instruction prompts and/or insufficiently addresses all instruction prompts. “

Content

73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%)

Paper demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other sources, and discerning ideas.

65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%)

Paper demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper includes moderate detail, evidence from the readings, and discerning ideas.

56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%)

Paper demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper may be lacking in detail and specificity and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%)

Paper demonstrates poor understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Paper is missing detail and specificity and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.

Competency:

Intervene with
Individuals,
Families,

Groups,
Organizations,
and
Communities
-Cognitive
and Affective
Processes

12.2 (4.5%) – 13.55 (5%)

Student demonstrates excellent critical thought related to intervention. A high level of critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.

10.84 (4%) – 12.06 (4.45%)

Student demonstrates good critical thought related to intervention. A sufficient level of critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.

9.48 (3.5%) – 10.7 (3.95%)

Student demonstrates some critical thought related to intervention. Some areas may lack a sufficient level of critical thought demonstrated in ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.

0 (0%) – 9.35 (3.45%)

Student demonstrates little or no critical thought related to intervention. Little or no critical thought is demonstrated through ability to locate and interpret relevant articles related to intervention, identify an appropriate intervention for a specific population/problem, and describe application of specific skills/techniques.

Competency:

Engage with
Diversity and
Difference in Practice
–Values

12.2 (4.5%) – 13.55 (5%)

Student demonstrates an excellent understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates an excellent ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student is able to apply Code of Ethics.

10.84 (4%) – 12.06 (4.45%)

Student demonstrates a good understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates a good ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student is able to apply Code of Ethics.

9.48 (3.5%) – 10.7 (3.95%)

Student demonstrates some understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates emerging ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student may struggle to apply Code of Ethics or applies it superficially.

0 (0%) – 9.35 (3.45%)

Student demonstrates little or no understanding of cultural competence as related to choosing an intervention for a client. Student demonstrates little or no ability to integrate client’s values and clinical expertise in decision-making process. Student may be unable to apply Code of Ethics.

Writing

73.17 (27%) – 81.3 (30%)

Paper is well organized, uses scholarly tone, follows APA style, uses original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. Paper contains multiple, appropriate and exemplary sources expected/required for the assignment.

65.04 (24%) – 72.36 (26.7%)

Paper is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Paper may have some small or infrequent organization, scholarly tone, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors, and/or somewhat less than the expected number of or type of sources.

56.91 (21%) – 64.23 (23.7%)

Paper is somewhat below graduate level writing style, with multiple smaller or a few major problems. Paper may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or shows moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing. Paper may contain inferior resources (number or quality).

0 (0%) – 56.1 (20.7%)

Paper is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or relies excessively on quoting. Paper may contain few or no quality resources.