Appendix 5.2
Writing and Marking Guidelines – Clinical Studies 2 and 3: Intervention
and Evaluation (submitted at end of year 1 and mid-point of year 2)
Overview
Please submit with a signed Declaration and a completed Coursework
Confidentiality Checklist.
In these clinical study reports you are required to build on the skills developed
in Clinical Study 1. Again you are required to formulate a piece of clinical work
from your placement from the perspective of two different psychological
models. In Clinical Study 2 and 3 you are now required to describe how you
have implemented your formulation(s) into the intervention and how you have
evaluated the outcome(s). You should offer a clear summarised description of
the work that you have conducted and offer evidence, (quantitative and/or
qualitative as appropriate) for the outcomes. It is also important that you
describe how, as your work progresses, you have revised your formulation(s).
The supervisory relationship should also be considered in terms of how it
helped to you to shape up your formulations, interventions and the
development of the work. It is important that you offer a critique including your
personal reflections on the work and the nature of the therapeutic relationship
that has developed.
The work will usually be based on psychological therapy and/or other
interventions for an individual or couple/family or on work with groups, or with
teams or organisations e.g. team development work, supervision or
consultation.
You may wish to discuss the suitability of your choice of clinical work with your
academic/appraisal tutor, and you may submit a preliminary draft of Study 2 to
them for feedback and comment.
General aim
To assess your ability to conduct a substantial piece of clinical work which has
employed at least two models in the formulation of the problems and shows
the application of at least one model in the work conducted with (a) client(s).
Word limit – 5,000 words including tables and references but excluding
appendices. Word guidance for sections is indicative only; you can be flexible
with these. If you go more than 10% over word limit this will normally
automatically mean a Conditional Pass and the work will be returned for
shortening.
Format of report
Abstract: of no more than 250 words
Background and assessment - Include the process of referral, the client/s’
initial presenting problems and strengths/resources and, where relevant,
information gained from liaison with client/s’ family members, carers and/or
other professionals. Consider the client/s’ and/or key network members’
perspectives on their current situation and expressed needs and hopes.
Describe qualitative methods of gathering information and any psychometric
measures used at assessment. Note any limitations to opportunities to gather
relevant information. Address issues of risk and risk management. Where
relevant the assessment should include a genogram and time-line clarifying
key events in the client/family’s life that are relevant to the issues to be
addressed in the work. Summarise the information gained in terms of
predisposing, precipitating, maintaining and protective factors at a range of
levels. Ensure that you include all the relevant information that is drawn on in
the subsequent formulations. Ensure that you address issues of consent and
confidentially (word guidance 1000 words).
Brief review of relevant literature: briefly summarise key relevant theoretical
and empirical background information to the two formulation models chosen.
This will require conceptualisations of the kinds of problems displayed by the
client/s within each model, including reference to the evidence base for
practice and, where relevant, practice-based evidence which supports the
application of each model to an understanding and treatment of the
presenting issues (word guidance 500 words).
Formulation - Describe the formulation from each model in turn - formulations
should be presented succinctly. They should draw on and be clearly
supported by the information presented in the background/assessment of the
case (do not repeat material presented in background section though). You
may find it useful to consider a preliminary formulation based, for example, on
initial referral information and first impressions, followed by a second more
detailed formulation based on a more substantial assessment. Describe the
development of your thinking; for example in moving from initial
impressions to preliminary and subsequent formulations. Attempt to combine
your ideas into a brief, integrated summary formulation that can underpin
working hypotheses for continuing work/ intervention. Give an indication of
how you might negotiate and share your thinking on the formulation with your
client(s) or with key people in the client’s network, including the referrer (word
guidance 500 words).
Interventions/work conducted and evaluation – Explain how the
formulations informed your plan for intervention, and how this was negotiated
with the client/family. You may choose to describe either how the work
progressed in relation to only one of the formulations, or in relation to an
integration of both formulations. (NB if you choose to intervene on basis of
only one model you must reflect on possible integration in the critical
appraisal/ reflection section of the work.) Then describe the work that was
conducted, highlighting specific and important features of the work, indicating
what changes you have made in your formulation(s) as the clinical work has
progressed. Reformulations should highlight key areas where your and the
client/s perspectives have changed and the consequences of this. Explain
how the ending of the work was planned and conducted. Describe how the
work was evaluated (quantitatively and/or qualitatively). It is usually not
appropriate to offer a simple session by session account of the work but rather
a more conceptual and integrated overview is required (word guidance 1500
words).
Critical appraisal and reflection: Attempt to identify both strengths and
potential weaknesses in the formulations and in the clinical work undertaken,
and how weaknesses might have been remedied. Identify any personal
factors for yourself and contextual factors that may have impacted on your
choice and use of the models. Discuss the relative contributions of the
models, and the opportunities and constraints for their integration. Consider
the relevance of the formulations and the work conducted for the client’s
particular life, circumstances and expressed needs and hopes. Reflect on how
your relationship with the client/s evolved and changed and the impact of the
work on you, including consideration of the role of supervision in the conduct
of the work. Ensure that throughout the work you have been sensitive and
thoughtful about issues of social inequalities and cultural diversity (word
guidance 1250 words).
Appendices - Include an actual or potential summary letter back to the
referrer or client, including succinct summary of reason for referral, client(s)
priorities and agreed aims/intentions for the work, key findings from
assessment, succinct summary of working formulation and of work conducted,
including outcomes so far where appropriate, as well as on-going plans for
further intervention, if relevant. The letter should be no more than two sides of
A4.
If appropriate, include fully anonymised copies of any questionnaires used, or
written information gained from the client which is relevant (diaries or sections
of transcripts of conversations, e.g. of recorded family therapy sessions).
Include anonymised copies of any letters written by you, as well as initial
referral letter and, where relevant, other communications, such as
reformulation letters.
Clinical Study 2 and 3: Intervention and evaluation - Marking Grid
Excellent
Presentation Abstract Background Use of
Formulation Intervention
and
Literature
and
assessment
Evaluation
(incl risk
assessment)
Material
Clear and The
General
Demonstrates Intervention
exceptionally succinct difficulties/iss claims and very sound
very clearly
well
summary ues to be
assumptions grasp of the
grounded in
organised
that
explained in are very well models being formulation(s)
according to covers all the
supported used. Offers a . Excellent
format in
of the
formulation by
very plausible concise
handbook.
main
are very
references and coherent summary
Tables,
points.
clearly
to
account of the demonstratin
figures, etc.
described.
appropriate development g that the
very
Sufficient
literature.
maintenance of work was
well placed &
background Shows
the identified very well
labelled.
information is excellent
difficulties. The conducted.
References
provided in a awareness formulation is The work
all in
very ordered of key ideas very well
shows strong
acceptable
and
in the
supported by sensitively to
format.
structured
relevant
assessment
the client/s’
Excellent
way to
area.
data or other needs and
writing style.
enable reader
appropriate
priorities.
No
to easily
means.
Excellent
typographical
follow the
Excellent
evaluation of
,
formulations.
awareness of the work:
spelling,
Includes
the
maybe shows
grammatical
excellent
connections
particular
errors.
attention to
and contrasts attention to
Well within
issues of
between the
innovative
word limit.
inequality and
models in
methods of
diversity.
terms of their evaluation
Consent and
conceptualisati and/or
confidentially
ons of the
particular
very well
problems.
attention to
addressed.
Excellent ability psychometric
Issues of risk
to integrate
properties of
and risk
formulations. any tools
management
proposed.
are
thoroughly
addressed.
Critical
appraisal and
reflection
Referral/
client letter
Shows
excellent
awareness of
potential
weaknesses in
the formulation
and indicates
how these
might be
remedied.
Excellent
discussion of
personal
position
regarding the
choices
regarding the
models,
differential use
of the models,
e.g. in how
personal factors
may have
influenced
gathering of
information and
analysis. Very
thoughtful
consideration of
the therapeutic
relationship and
role of
supervision.
Outstanding
letter to
referrer or
client; very
succinct,
very
well
structured,
very clearly
written and
including all
relevant key
points.
Good
Material well Clear
organised
succinct
according to summary
format in
that
handbook.
covers
Tables,
most
figures, etc. of the
appropriately main
placed and points.
labelled.
References in
acceptable
format. Clear
writing style.
Very few, if
any,
typographical
,
spelling,
grammatical
errors. Within
word limit.
The
General
Demonstrates Intervention
difficulties/iss claims and sound grasp of clearly
ues to be
assumptions the
grounded in
explained in are
models being formulation(s)
the
supported used. Offers a . Good
formulation by
plausible and concise
are clearly references coherent
summary of
described.
to
account of the key elements
Sufficient
appropriate development demonstratin
background literature.
maintenance of g that the
information is Shows good the identified work was well
provided in awareness difficulties. The conducted.
an ordered of key ideas formulation is The work
and
in the
adequately
shows good
structured
relevant
supported by sensitivity to
way to
area.
assessment
the client/s’
enable reader
data or other needs and
to follow the
appropriate
priorities.
formulations.
means.
Good plans
Includes
Good
for evaluation
good
awareness of of the work.
attention to
the
issues of
connections
inequality and
and contrasts
diversity.
between the
Consent and
models in
confidentially
terms of their
well
conceptualisati
addressed.
ons of the
Issues of risk
problems.
and risk
Good ability to
management
integrate
are well
formulations.
addressed.
Shows good
awareness of
potential
weaknesses in
the formulation
and indicates
how these
might be
remedied.
Good
discussion of
personal
position
regarding the
choices
regarding the
models,
differential use
of the models,
e.g. in how
personal factors
may have
influenced
gathering of
information and
analysis.
Thoughtful
consideration of
the therapeutic
relationship and
role of the
supervisor.
Good letter
to referrer or
client; quite
succinct,
fairly well
structured,
reasonably
clearly
written and
including
most
relevant
key points.
Material
Reasonab The
Some
Minor
Intervention
reasonably ly
difficulties/iss general
misunderstandi reasonably
Satisfactory organised
clear/conc ues to be
claims and ngs
grounded in
according to ise
explained in assumptions of the models formulation(s)
format in
summary the
are
or
.
handbook.
that
formulation unsupported their applicatio Reasonable
Tables,
Includes are
by
n in
concise
figures, etc. some key reasonably references. formulation.
summary of
reasonably points.
described.
Some
Some parts of key elements
placed and
Sufficient
references the formulation demonstratio
labelled. Most
background are
are not
n that the
references in
information is inappropriat adequately
work was
acceptable
provided in a e
explained, or reasonably
format. Fair
fairly ordered or irrelevant. lack
well
writing style.
and
Some key clear support, conducted.
May be a few
structured
ideas have or rely on
The work
typographical
way to
been
misinterpretatio shows some
spelling,
enable reader overlooked. ns of the
sensitivity to
grammatical
to follow the
evidence.
the client/s’
errors. Word
formulations.
Some ability to needs and
limit
Includes
integrate
priorities.
exceeded by
some
formulations, Fair plans for
more than
attention to
but some
evaluation of
10% but is
issues of
issues
the work.
otherwise
inequality and
regarding
reasonably
diversity.
compatibility
presented.
Consent and
are not
.
confidentially
adequately
are
explained.
reasonably
Some
addressed. Is
misunderstandi
sues of risk
ngs
and risk
of how the
management
models are
are
compatible or
reasonably
otherwise
addressed.
Some gaps in
the
identification of
weaknesses in
the formulation
and intervention
or
how these
might
be remedied.
Evidence of
personal
reflection but
limited and not
differentiated
between the
models.
Some
consideration of
the therapeutic
relationship and
role of
supervision.
Fair letter to
referrer or
client;
could be
more
succinct or
better
structured,
or more
clearly
written.
Includes
some
relevant key
points.
Weak
Unacceptable Summary Difficulties/iss Insufficient Serious
Intervention
level of
is
ues to be
references misunderstandi insufficiently
presentation Incoheren explained in to
ngs or poor
grounded in
throughout
t or
formulation appropriate grasp of the
formulation(s)
the work.
otherwise insufficiently literature;
models are
; and/or
Word limit
fails
described;
and/or many evident; and/or unclear
exceeded by to convey and/or
unsupported major aspects depiction of
more than
an
background general
of the
the work
10% and/or understan information claims and formulation
conducted
work is
ding of
provided in assumptions lack sufficient with some
rambling or the work. incoherent or ; and/or
supportive
indication that
disorganised
unstructured most key
evidence;
the work was
way that does ideas have and/or
not well
not lead on to been
formulation is conducted;
the
overlooked; incoherent,
insufficient
formulations; and/or
selfsensitivity to
and/or no
general
contradictory; the client/s’
attention to claims are and/or
needs and
issues of
made that insufficient
priorities;
inequality and have no
ability to
and/or
diversity;
support in
integrate
insufficient
and/or
existing
formulations; plans
consent
literature.
and/or serious for evaluation
and/or
misunderstandi of
confidentially
ngs in
the work.
are
explaining or
insufficiently
considering
addressed.
questions of
Issues of risk
compatibility
and risk
between the
management
models.
insufficiently
addressed.
NB if
confidentiali
ty is
completely
compromise
d ie client
identity is
clear
through full
name,
address or
identifying
number, this
normally
leads to
refer; if
partially
compromise
d ie first
name,
service or
worker
names
given, this
normally
leads to
conditional
pass.
No significant
attempt made
to
critically
evaluate the
formulation and
intervention;
and/or little
evidence of
awareness of
personal and/or
contextual
factors in the
selection and
application of
the models in
the process of
formulation;
and/or
insufficient
consideration of
the therapeutic
relationship and
role of
supervisor.
Poor letter to
referrer or
client;
insufficiently
succinct
and/or poorly
structured/
written;
and/or
misses most
essential key
points.