How to do four different case scenarios Turnitin This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin.

Turnitin™

This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.

Instructions

For your Signature Assignment, you will construct a plan of action with 
four different case scenarios (relationship therapy scenarios) that you create. These four scenarios should represent the breadth of information covered in this course and should represent diverse populations and attributes. These four scenarios will be discussed, meeting the criteria below, in a paper format.

For each scenario, you will begin with a background of the case. Please feel free to use a bulleted list for these descriptors rather than a narrative form. This is an abbreviated case conceptualization and should include the following variables:

· Identify who is in the relationship. (Who will be coming to therapy?)

· Indicate each partner’s identities – this could include race, culture, background, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, age, education, socio-economic background, etc. (Note: Please be diverse in your creation of scenarios, scenarios should represent diversity in relationships.)

· Explain the primary reason the partners are seeking relationship therapy (the presenting problem).

· Identify any noticeable challenges other than the presenting problem that the couple might be facing (e.g., maybe there is violence in their past, maybe there is substance abuse, maybe the couple isn’t comfortable talking about their feelings).

After the case conceptualization, you will consider the direction of the case and how you might approach it. Be sure to include the following:

· How will you (systemically) define the presenting problem and any other challenges the partners are experiencing?

· What theory and/or approach would you use to talk with these clients?

· Discuss why this approach is fitting?

· According to this approach, what would be the goal of therapy?

· Explain what this would look like? (e.g., what techniques you might apply)

· Would you integrate any other approach or theory?

· Consider the clients’ uniqueness (e.g., areas that they are marginalized, things about them that differ from yours), and how you would approach these differences.

Self-of-the-therapist – As you think about this case and your direction, consider the following:

· Situating yourself and your own context of relationships, can you see any biases or blind spots that you might have working with this case?

· If so, what are these, and how do you feel you can overcome these?

· What strengths do you have that you feel you would bring to this case?

· What challenges do you think you would have in working with this case?

Length: 7-10 pages

References: Include a minimum of 5 scholarly resources.

The completed assignment should address all of the assignment requirements, exhibit evidence of concept knowledge, and demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the content presented in the course. The writing should integrate scholarly resources, reflect academic expectations and current APA standards, and adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

When applicable, conduct a Turnitin pre-check and then upload your completed assignment and click the 
Submit to Dropbox button.

Due on Jun 23, 2024 11:59 PM

Criteria

Exceeds All Expectations (94%-100%)

Exceeds Most Expectations (90%-93%)

Meets Expectations (83%-89%)

Below Expectations (73%-82%)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0% – 72%)

Criterion Score

Case conceptualizations are presented for four (4) fictional cases that highlight a breadth of possible presenting problems that students might see in relationship therapy. 3 Points 20%

3 points

Case scenarios and presenting problems were presented with detailed explanation, examples, reflection, and critical thought.

2.8 points

There was sufficient information provided on case scenarios and the student presented a range of presenting problems.

2.7 points

There was adequate information provided on case scenarios and/or adequate presenting problems mentioned.

2.5 points

There was some information provided on case scenarios and/or a couple presenting problems mentioned. More information and variety is needed.

2.2 points

There was insufficient information provided on case scenarios and/or they did not present a range of presenting problems.

Score of Case conceptualizations are presented for four (4) fictional cases that highlight a breadth of possible presenting problems that students might see in relationship therapy. 3 Points 20%,

/ 3

Models, techniques, approaches, and systemic application are considered and discussed. 3 Points 20%

3 points

Student thoroughly discussed techniques, models, approaches, or systemic application, their own understanding of these, and critical thought related to how these will fit for them.

2.8 points

Student explored techniques, models, approaches, or systemic application and their own reflection of these.

2.7 points

Student discussed general points about techniques, models, approaches, or systemic application.

2.5 points

Student mentioned general points about techniques, models, approaches, or systemic application; however, they were incomplete, lacking, or inaccurate.

2.2 points

Student did not address techniques, models, approaches, or systemic application.

Score of Models, techniques, approaches, and systemic application are considered and discussed. 3 Points 20%,

/ 3

Cases and reflection that are presented reflect an awareness and understanding of difference, personal biases, and cultural humility. 3 Points 20%

3 points

Student reflected on biases and elements of self and how they have been exploring these in their own life. Student discussed their blind spots or challenges and what this might mean as a therapist.

2.8 points

Student gave a careful reflection on the uniqueness of the cases and presented a thoughtful reflection on their biases and blind spots.

2.7 points

Student highlighted a couple important uniquenesses within client scenarios and shared a general reflection of their reactions.

2.5 points

Student mentioned a couple of elements of self or uniquenesses in scenarios; however, it was general or lacking depth.

2.2 points

Student did not address backgrounds, differences or uniquenesses in client scenarios, and/or did not reflect on personal reflections or biases.

Score of Cases and reflection that are presented reflect an awareness and understanding of difference, personal biases, and cultural humility. 3 Points 20%,

/ 3

Paper reflects Integration of at least 5 readings and reflections from the course as a whole. 3 Points 20%

3 points

Student integrates over 5 references, reflection on elements from the course, and the role these play in their work as an MFT.

2.8 points

Student integrates over 5 or more references and provides some reflection on elements from the course.

2.7 points

Student highlights 5 references and a couple major elements from course content.

2.5 points

Student brings in fewer than 5 references and little reflection from course content overall.

2.2 points

There is a lack of references and/or student does not bring in other elements of the course.

Score of Paper reflects Integration of at least 5 readings and reflections from the course as a whole. 3 Points 20%,

/ 3

The writing is clear and compelling. 7% – 1 point

1.1 points

Student demonstrated strength in all the following areas: a well-developed focus, a logical organization of ideas, integration of readings revealing conceptual knowledge and skills, and inclusion of several scholarly citations to support ideas presented in the assignment.

1 point

Student demonstrated strength in almost all the following areas: a well-developed focus, a logical organization of ideas, integration of readings revealing conceptual knowledge and skills, and inclusion of some scholarly citations to support ideas presented in the assignment.

0.9 points

Student mostly demonstrated a well-developed focus, a logical organization of ideas, and exhibited an integration of readings revealing conceptual knowledge and skills.

0.8 points

Student demonstrated some focus, some logical organization of ideas, and some integration of readings revealing conceptual knowledge and skills.

0.7 points

Student failed to demonstrate a well-developed focus, and there is little evidence of integration of reading material or conceptual knowledge.

Score of The writing is clear and compelling. 7% – 1 point,

/ 1.1

The writing reflects correct punctuation, grammar, word usage, and APA style. 7% – 1 point

1.1 points

Student used correct grammar, punctuation, and APA formatting, with no more than one or two errors.

1 point

Student used correct grammar, punctuation, and APA formatting, with only three or four errors.

0.9 points

Student used mostly correct grammar, punctuation, and APA formatting, having less than five errors.

0.8 points

Student used some correct grammar, punctuation, and APA formatting.

0.7 points

Student needs to refine grammar, punctuation, and APA formatting because many errors were evident.

Score of The writing reflects correct punctuation, grammar, word usage, and APA style. 7% – 1 point,

/ 1.1

Criteria

Exceeds All Expectations (94%-100%)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0% – 72%)

Criterion Score

Week 11 Resources

Week 11 Resources

·


Acknowledgment and Possibility: The Two Cornerstones to Successful Couples Therapy

O’Hanlon, B. (2013). 
Acknowledgment and possibility: The two cornerstones to successful couples therapy [Video]. Milton H. Erickson Foundation.

This is a good video on technique, solution-oriented with Bill O’Hanlon; it includes movie clips and a discussion.

·


A Critical Review of Help-Seeking for Couples Therapy: Clinical Implications and Next Steps

Hubbard, A., & Harris, S. A critical review of help-seeking for couples therapy: Clinical implications and next steps. 
Contemporary Family Therapy, 42, 152–162.

This article explores reasons that couples may or may not seek therapy during times of conflict. It is an introduction to the types of conflicts couples experience.

·


Comfort in Treating Sexual Problems: Current Training and Counselor Self-Efficacy

Hipp, C. J., & Carlson, R. G. (2019) Comfort in treating sexual problems: Current training and counselor self-efficacy. 
The Family Journal, 27(2), 105-114.

This research highlights struggles that therapists might experience when working with sex therapy.

·


Queer Polyfamily Performativity: Family Practices and Adaptive Strategies Among LGBTQ+ Polyamorists

Pain, E. (2019). Queer polyfamily performativity: Family practices and adaptive strategies among LGBTQ+ polyamorists. 
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(3), 277-292.

This is an introduction to couple and family formation in poly queer communities.

·


Therapist Values: Assessing and Treating Traditional and Nontraditional Relationships

McCarthy, B., & Wald, R. L. (2019). Therapist values: Assessing and treating traditional and nontraditional relationships. 
The Family Journal, 27(1), 11-16.

Explores some of the challenges that therapists might experience while working with couples whose experiences and desires differ from their own.

Optional Resources

Week 11 Resources

Week 11 Resources

Week 11 Resources