| Course | MSW 525 Trauma Treatment for Children and Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Treatment model comparison |
| Length | About 620 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 525 Week 2
Treatment Model Comparison for N., 9, After a Car Crash: Trauma-Focused CBT in a Clinic and the Bounce Back School Group, Compared by What Each Demands of the Child, the Age Band Studied and the Adult Hours Each Needs
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 525: Trauma Treatment for Children and Adolescents
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Treatment Model Comparison for N., 9, After a Car Crash: Trauma-Focused CBT in a Clinic and the Bounce Back School Group, Compared by What Each Demands of the Child, the Age Band Studied and the Adult Hours Each Needs
The Child
N., 9, fourth grade, has post-traumatic stress symptoms after a car crash in January, an expressive language disorder and a working single parent with a younger child at home. The referral asks which approach fits.
The parent works an early shift at a distribution center and can leave at 3:30 on weekdays with notice. The family has one car. N.'s school has a clinician who runs a Bounce Back group each spring.
Trauma-Focused CBT: Its Demands
Studied with children aged 8 to 14 in its multisite trial, where it outperformed child-centered therapy on post-traumatic stress, depression and behavior problems (Cohen et al., 2004). A session asks the child to learn and practice skills, then build a narrative of the event, spoken, written or drawn, and read it aloud to the caregiver in a joint session (Cohen et al., 2017). Change is located in gradual exposure to memories and in correcting unhelpful thoughts. Adult hours: the caregiver attends roughly half of each weekly session for 12 to 16 weeks, about 12 hours, plus travel to the clinic, which for N.'s parent means leaving work early.
Bounce Back: Its Demands
A school-based group for elementary children exposed to traumatic events. In its first randomized trial, 74 children in grades 1 to 5 who received it immediately improved more on post-traumatic stress and anxiety than those on a three-month waitlist (Langley et al., 2015). A replication with first to fourth graders found reductions in child-reported post-traumatic stress (Santiago et al., 2018). The child takes part in ten group sessions at school with other children, plus a few individual sessions to build a trauma narrative. Change is located in shared skills practice and the narrative. Adult hours: a small number of caregiver sessions, about three to four hours in all, often at school.
How Long the Arrangement Holds
Trauma-focused CBT holds as long as the parent can leave work weekly. Bounce Back holds as long as N. stays at the same school and the group runs that term; the next group starts in January.
Where Each Fits N.
Bounce Back fits the parent's hours and keeps N. at school, where the bus refusal plays out. Its group format asks N. to talk in front of peers, which is hardest with a language disorder. Trauma-focused CBT allows the narrative to be drawn and built one to one, which suits N., and its joint sessions give the parent skills for the nightly bed problem.
There is also the question of who carries the bus problem. At school, staff see the refusals every morning; in a clinic, the parent reports them. A school group would put the work where the refusals happen, while a clinic approach depends on the parent practicing the bus with N. Both can work, but they ask different adults to do the practicing.
Recommendation
Trauma-focused CBT, with sessions at 4:30 p.m. so the parent can attend after a shortened shift, approved by the parent's employer for twelve weeks.
One Component Named for Adjustment
The cognitive coping step will use picture choices for thoughts, as N.'s spoken language is below age.
References
Cohen, J. A., Deblinger, E., Mannarino, A. P., & Steer, R. A. (2004). A multisite, randomized controlled trial for children with sexual abuse-related PTSD symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(4), 393-402. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200404000-00005
Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., & Deblinger, E. (2017). Treating trauma and traumatic grief in children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Langley, A. K., Gonzalez, A., Sugar, C. A., Solis, D., & Jaycox, L. (2015). Bounce Back: Effectiveness of an elementary school-based intervention for multicultural children exposed to traumatic events. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(5), 853-865. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000051
Santiago, C. D., Raviv, T., Ros, A. M., Brewer, S. K., Distel, L. M. L., Torres, S. A., Fuller, A. K., Lewis, K. M., Coyne, C. A., Cicchetti, C., & Langley, A. K. (2018). Implementing the Bounce Back trauma intervention in urban elementary schools: A real-world replication trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000229
The Chamberlain MSW 525 Week 2 instructions
The comparison assignment sets two child trauma approaches side by side for one referred child. Describe each by its demands: the age range it was studied in, what a session asks the child to produce, where the account of change sits and how many hours of adult time it requires each week. Count the caregiver's hours honestly, since an approach that needs an adult present every week may not be available to a family with shift work or no car. Say how long each arrangement would hold for this family. Then decide, tying the recommendation to the child and the family's real constraints. Name one component of the chosen approach you would adjust for this child, and keep theory to what the comparison needs.
How the MSW 525 Week 2 example is put together
The child section gives N.'s age, symptoms, language disorder, a single parent with an early shift and one car, and a school that runs Bounce Back in spring. The first approach is described through Cohen et al. (2004), ages 8 to 14, and Cohen et al. (2017): skills, a narrative that can be drawn and joint sessions, with about 12 caregiver hours plus travel. The second is described through Langley et al. (2015), 74 children in grades 1 to 5, and Santiago et al. (2018): ten group sessions, a few individual ones and three to four caregiver hours. A section compares how long each arrangement holds. The fit section weighs the group format against N.'s language disorder. The recommendation sets 4:30 sessions, and the cognitive step is adjusted.
Where the points sit in the MSW 525 Week 2 rubric
The comparison loses the most when it contains no child: two accurate descriptions with a referral mentioned once and never used. Almost as costly is leaving out adult hours, since an approach requiring a caregiver every week may be unavailable to the family. Faculty credit approaches described by demands, age bands taken from the studies themselves, an honest count of the caregiver's time and a recommendation tied to the family's constraints. Naming a component to adjust shows the writer has thought about delivery. Evidence should be reported accurately, with the population studied, and cited in APA. A comparison that combines approaches should explain how.
MSW 525 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The comparison most often reads as two encyclopedia entries with a verdict at the end. Another frequent problem is ignoring the caregiver's hours, which is often what decides whether treatment happens. Some papers report effectiveness without the age range or population studied. Others recommend an approach and never say how the family will get there. If your referral is different, perhaps a 15-year-old after a shooting or a 4-year-old after a house fire, compare approaches by the same demands: age band, what a session asks, adult hours and how long the arrangement holds. A comparison drafted for your referral would end with the schedule that makes the recommendation possible.
Get a MSW-525 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the referral your classroom supplied along with the rubric and any element list, and a custom MSW-525 Week 2 comparison is written to them and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. The block worth reading first is the one converting weekly adult time into something this household could attend.
More MSW 525 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 525 Week 1: Component Mismatch Post
- MSW 525 Week 3: Caregiver Handout
- MSW 525 Week 4: Trauma Narrative Plan
- MSW 525 Week 5: Play Session Write-up
- MSW 525 Week 6: School Coordination Memo
- MSW 525 Week 7: Session Progress Review
- MSW 525 Week 8: Termination Session Plan
- MSW 524 Week 2: Acute, Complex, Developmental Brief
- MSW 521 Week 2: Gas Explosion Phase Analysis
- MSW 520 Week 2: UNHCR Bangladesh Agency Profile
- MSW 517 Week 2: Practice Frame Inventory
MSW 525 Week 2 questions, answered
Do both approaches have to be manualized?
Sections differ, and where yours names two published models it usually expects both. Where one side is an approach rather than a manual, say so and compare it on the same terms anyway: what a session asks of the child, what it asks of the adult, and how long it runs. What loses marks is setting a manual's meeting count against an approach that has none and calling that a difference.
The referral does not say how old the child is. What then?
Read the assignment again first, since many sections supply an age and expect it to drive the answer. Where the case genuinely leaves it open, the document states the age it is written for, says why that reading is reasonable, and notes which part of the comparison would change at a different one. An unstated age lets both approaches look equally suitable, which is how a comparison ends up deciding nothing.
Can the two approaches be combined instead of chosen between?
Most sections want a commitment, and a document delivering half of each usually scores below one that picks. Where the assignment allows a sequence, write it as a sequence with an order and a reason: one approach runs, a stated result moves the work to the second. Taking components from two manuals without saying which came from where is the version that reads as avoidance.
Where can I find a free MSW 525 Week 2 sample paper?
The complete MSW 525 Week 2 comparison of trauma-focused CBT and Bounce Back for N., a fourth grader hurt in a collision, sits below in full, with notes in the margin on adult hours.
Why does the MSW 525 Week 2 sample choose the clinic approach?
Because its narrative can be drawn and built one to one, which suits the child's language disorder, and a 4:30 schedule makes the parent's weekly attendance possible.