| Course | MSW 525 Trauma Treatment for Children and Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Session progress review |
| Length | About 540 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 7
Session Progress Review for N. at Session 8: Attendance First, the Same Measures From Child, Parent and Teacher in Separate Rows, Never Averaged, and a Decision on Whether to Begin the Hardest Narrative Chapter
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 525: Trauma Treatment for Children and Adolescents
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Session Progress Review for N. at Session 8: Attendance First, the Same Measures From Child, Parent and Teacher in Separate Rows, Never Averaged, and a Decision on Whether to Begin the Hardest Narrative Chapter
Attendance Before the Figures
Sessions scheduled: 8. Attended: 7. Session 5 was canceled when N.'s sibling was sick. All seven attended sessions included the parent's portion.
The Same Forms, at Intake and Session 8
Table 1
Measures by Informant
| Informant | Measure | Intake | Session 8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| N. (with therapist reading items) | UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-5, child report | 41 | 30 |
| Parent | UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-5, caregiver report | 46 | 38 |
| Teacher | Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, teacher version, total difficulties | 17 | 15 |
Note. Note. Scores are shown separately for each informant and are not averaged. The child report was read aloud because of N.'s language disorder.
Reading the Rows
N.'s own report fell the most. The child self-report measure has shown strong internal consistency in youth samples (Kaplow et al., 2020), but N. completed it with items read aloud, which may affect comparability with norms. The parent sees a smaller drop, which fits the nights: N. sleeps alone on about half of nights now, not all. The teacher sees the least change, and the school notes show N. took the bus twice in four weeks. Each informant sees different hours of N.'s week, which is why the rows stay separate. The teacher's measure covers behavior broadly rather than post-traumatic stress (Goodman, 1997), so a small change there is expected.
If the three rows had been averaged, the result would have suggested moderate change everywhere and hidden the one thing worth acting on: the school, where the bus refusals happen, is changing least.
What Else Happened
N.'s grandmother returned home from rehabilitation in week 6, and N. visited twice. That visit may account for part of the drop in scores.
Other changes in the period: the parent moved to an earlier shift in week 3, which allowed the parent to drive N. to school on refusal mornings, and that may have reduced pressure on the bus. Neither change can be separated from treatment with three informants and two time points, so the review notes them rather than explaining them away.
The Decision
Proceed to chapter 3 of the narrative, the moment of the crash, at session 9. Reasons: chapters 1 and 2 were completed with end ratings below peak; N. has used breathing and the feelings thermometer independently; the parent has heard chapters 1 and 2 calmly. Watch: the teacher row and the bus. If the bus count does not rise by session 12, plan in vivo practice with the parent.
What Each Person Is Told
N.: "You worked really hard, and your scared number went down." Parent: the table and the decision. Teacher: thanks for the weekly notes and a request to continue them; no scores are sent to the school.
References
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
Kaplow, J. B., Rolon-Arroyo, B., Layne, C. M., Rooney, E., Oosterhoff, B., Hill, R., Steinberg, A. M., Lotterman, J., Gallagher, K. A., & Pynoos, R. S. (2020). Validation of the UCLA PTSD Reaction Index for DSM-5: A developmentally informed assessment tool for youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(1), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.10.019
MSW 525 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
The progress review is short, mostly figures and ends in a decision rather than a summary. Report attendance before any scores, so a reader can tell whether the figures reflect the treatment planned. Show the same measure at two or three points, with the child's, caregiver's and teacher's answers in separate rows, never averaged, since they see different hours of the same week. Say what else happened in the period that could explain change. Read the rows briefly. Then make a decision, such as continuing, moving to the next phase or changing approach, with reasons and something to watch. End with what each person will be told, since a child, a parent and a teacher need different things.
How the MSW 525 Week 7 example is put together
The attendance section reports seven of eight sessions, with one canceled for a sibling's illness. Table 1 shows the child report falling from 41 to 30, the parent report from 46 to 38 and the teacher's total difficulties from 17 to 15. The reading section notes the child report's internal consistency in youth samples, citing Kaplow et al. (2020), the read-aloud administration, the half of nights N. now sleeps alone and two bus rides, and that the teacher measure, from Goodman (1997), is broader. It explains that averaging would hide the slow change at school. Other changes include the grandmother's return home and a shift change. The decision is to begin chapter 3, with the bus count as a watch point, and a closing section sets what each person hears.
MSW 525 Week 7 rubric: what full points look like
Averaging the three informants loses the most, because the reason for collecting from child, adult and school is that they see different hours. A review reporting scores with no attendance beside them comes next. Faculty credit the same instrument at each point, separate rows, attention to other events and a decision with reasons and a watch point. Accurate naming of instruments and their versions matters, and sources should be cited in APA. Telling each person something appropriate shows the review serves the family and school as well as the record. A review that only summarizes, without a decision, misses the assignment.
MSW 525 Week 7 help from the desk
The review that loses most averages the child's, parent's and teacher's scores into one number. Close behind is a table of scores with no attendance, so missed sessions look like a weak approach. Some reviews change instruments between time points, which makes comparison impossible. Others end with a paragraph of summary and no decision. Reviewing a teenager with depression alongside post-traumatic stress, keep attendance first, the same measures in separate rows, events in the period and a decision. A review drafted for your case would be brief and say in its last line what happens at the next session.
Get a MSW-525 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the review instructions, the rubric and whatever form or rating scale your classroom named, and a custom MSW-525 Week 7 review is written into it and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. The part to set beside your own is the decision, since that is what separates a review from a report.
More MSW 525 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 525 Week 1: Component Mismatch Post
- MSW 525 Week 2: TF-CBT Versus Bounce Back
- MSW 525 Week 3: Caregiver Handout After a Crash
- MSW 525 Week 4: Trauma Narrative Plan for N.
- MSW 525 Week 5: Play Session Write-Up for N.
- MSW 525 Week 6: School Coordination Memo for N.
- MSW 525 Week 8: Termination Session Plan
- MSW 524 Week 7: Intake Office Environment Review
- MSW 521 Week 7: Long-Term Recovery Committee Plan
- MSW 520 Week 7: Cross-Border Consultation Record
- MSW 517 Week 7: Young Caregivers Macro Write-Up
MSW 525 Week 7 questions, answered
What if the ratings have not moved at all?
Then the review is more useful, not less, and sections reward it. Flat figures with full attendance and every component reached point somewhere quite different from flat figures with half the meetings canceled, and the document is expected to say which situation it is in. The weak version reports no change and then continues unchanged with no reason offered for continuing.
Which instrument should the review use?
Whichever your classroom names, and where it names none, a published scale with child, caregiver and teacher versions suits this course, since the three-informant structure is what the week is about. Say who completed each version and when. A scale invented for the assignment is acceptable in some sections but has to be described well enough that a reader could see it repeated.
Do the young client's own ratings count for as much as the adults'?
Sections differ on weighting and most decline to set one, which is itself the point. A child reporting less trouble than the adults report is not simply wrong, and neither is the reverse. The review names the difference and says what would explain it, such as something visible only at night or behavior only school hours contain. Removing the child's row is what loses marks.
Where can I find a free MSW 525 Week 7 sample paper?
This page shows a complete MSW 525 Week 7 progress review for a 9-year-old at session 8, with its informant table and margin notes on the decision.
Why are the scores not averaged in the MSW 525 Week 7 sample?
Because the child, parent and teacher see different hours of the week, and averaging would hide that the school, where bus refusals happen, shows the least change.