| Course | NR 547 Differential Diagnosis in Psychiatric-Mental Health across the Lifespan Practicum |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Criteria mapping write-up |
| Length | About 1,150 words, 2 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 547 Week 2
Criteria Mapping Write-Up: A Doctoral Student's Five Weeks of Low Mood Mapped Row by Row Against the Major Depressive Episode Criteria, With Every Source Named and the Hypomania Rows Still Open
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 547: Differential Diagnosis in Psychiatric-Mental Health Across the Lifespan
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Criteria Mapping Write-Up: A Doctoral Student's Five Weeks of Low Mood Mapped Row by Row Against the Major Depressive Episode Criteria, With Every Source Named and the Hypomania Rows Still Open
Identifying Material
The patient is a 24-year-old first-year doctoral student in chemistry referred by the university health service with five weeks of low mood. History was gathered in two interviews with the student, a phone call with an older sibling (with the student's written consent) and the health service record. The criterion set used is the major depressive episode as defined in the current text revision of the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual, DSM-5-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). The criteria are summarized in my own words below rather than quoted. Screening scores at intake were a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) of 17, in the moderately severe range (Kroenke et al., 2001), and a Mood Disorder Questionnaire of 6 of 13 items with some functional problems reported.
The Map
Table 1 sets each element of the major depressive episode beside the case material that addresses it and the source of that material. Rows that are not met remain in the table.
A symptom counts only when it has been there for most of each day, on nearly all days, within one shared two-week window, as the criteria require. The student confirmed that the listed symptoms had all been present together since at least the second week.
Major depressive episode criteria mapped to case material and source
Table 1
| Criterion (paraphrased) | Case material | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Depressed mood most of the day | "Flat and heavy" nearly every day for 5 weeks | Student; sibling agrees | Met |
| A2. Markedly reduced interest or pleasure | Stopped running club and weekend climbing; "nothing pulls me" | Student | Met |
| A3. Change in weight or appetite | Evening overeating; about 3 kg gain in 5 weeks | Student; health service weight | Met |
| A4. Sleep disturbance | Sleeps 10 to 11 hours, wakes unrefreshed | Student; roommate report via student | Met |
| A5. Observable slowing or agitation | Speech slowed, long pauses before answers | Interviewer observation | Met |
| A6. Fatigue or loss of energy | "Dead weight" by midday | Student | Met |
| A7. Worthlessness or excessive guilt | Believes the lab group would be better off without them | Student | Met |
| A8. Reduced concentration or indecision | Cannot finish reading a paper; missed two lab meetings | Student; advisor email in record | Met |
| A9. Thoughts of death or suicide | Passive thoughts it would be easier not to exist; no plan, intent or attempt | Student; structured suicide screen | Met |
| Duration of at least 2 weeks | 5 weeks | Student; sibling | Met |
| Clinically significant distress or impairment | Draft chapter untouched for a month; withdrawn from friends | Student; advisor email | Met |
| Episode not explained by a substance or medical illness | Nonprescribed amphetamine 2 to 3 days a week; laboratory work pending | Student | Not yet established |
| No history of a manic or hypomanic episode | Sibling describes a possible 5-day episode two summers ago | Sibling | Not yet established |
How the Met Rows Were Established
Each met row rests on at least one direct statement and, where possible, a second source. Depressed mood and loss of interest, the two core symptoms, were described by the student and confirmed independently by the sibling, who noticed that the student had stopped answering messages and dropped the climbing trips they used to share. The psychomotor slowing in row A5 was observed during the interview rather than reported, which the criteria require: it must be noticeable to others, not only a subjective feeling. The concentration problem is supported by an email from the advisor in the health service record noting two missed meetings.
All nine symptoms are met, although only five, including one of the first two, are required. The threshold for a major depressive episode is reached on the symptom count, duration and impairment rows.
Where the student and the sibling differed, the difference was recorded rather than resolved. The sibling dated the withdrawal slightly earlier than the student did, which does not change any row but suggests the episode may have begun before the student noticed it.
How the Unmet Rows Were Handled
Two rows are not yet established, and they matter more than any of the met ones, because they decide what kind of disorder the episode belongs to.
The substance row is open because the student uses a friend's mixed amphetamine salts, usually 10 to 20 mg, two or three times weekly near deadlines, and has done so for about 14 months. Nonmedical use of prescription stimulants is well documented among students in the United States, particularly at competitive institutions (McCabe et al., 2005). Stimulant withdrawal can produce fatigue, increased sleep, increased appetite and low mood. To close this row, I need a day-by-day timeline of the past five weeks that separates stimulant days from the rest, and a urine drug screen. The student reports taking amphetamine on only four days in the past five weeks, all in the first week, which would argue against withdrawal as the cause of a continuous episode, but that account needs checking against the timeline. Laboratory tests for medical causes, including thyroid function and a blood count, are ordered.
The hypomania row is open because the sibling described a period two summers ago, before the student started using stimulants, of about five days of sleeping three or four hours a night, talking fast, starting several projects and spending about $1,800 on camera equipment. The student remembers it as "a really good week." If that period meets the criteria for a hypomanic episode, the correct diagnosis is not major depressive disorder but bipolar II disorder, current episode depressed. That question needs its own analysis and is left open here rather than decided by the table.
Threshold, Severity and Specifiers
The threshold for a major depressive episode is met. Severity is moderate to severe on the basis of the number of symptoms, the PHQ-9 of 17 and the degree of impairment, which is substantial but has not stopped the student from living independently or attending some classes. There are no psychotic features. The anxious distress specifier is not met; the student reports little tension or worry. The atypical features specifier is not met in full, since mood reactivity is absent, although increased sleep and appetite are present.
What the table does not yet support is a named disorder. The episode is established. Whether it is part of major depressive disorder, bipolar II disorder or a substance-induced depressive disorder depends on the two open rows, and naming a disorder now would require assuming answers the evidence has not given.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
McCabe, S. E., Knight, J. R., Teter, C. J., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: Prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction, 100(1), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00944.x
NR 547 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
This week asks you to map a patient's presentation against published diagnostic criteria. The prompt typically requests identifying information, the criterion set used, a criterion-by-criterion mapping with supporting evidence, discussion of unmet criteria and a conclusion about whether the threshold is met, with severity and specifiers. Name the manual and edition before mapping. Present criteria in order, paraphrased rather than quoted, each with the case material that addresses it and its source, such as the patient, a relative, the record or your own observation. Keep unmet or unsettled rows in the table and say how absence was checked. Give duration and impairment their own rows. Close with the threshold decision, severity, specifiers and what the map cannot yet decide. Cite the manual and any rating scales in APA 7.
Inside the NR 547 Week 2 example
The write-up opens with brief identifying material, the sources of history and intake screening scores. Table 1 maps nine symptom criteria, duration, impairment and two exclusion rows, each with case material, source and status. A paragraph explains how met rows were established, noting that psychomotor slowing was observed by the interviewer rather than reported, and records a small disagreement between student and sibling about onset. A section on unmet rows explains why the substance row stays open until a day-by-day use record and a urine screen are in, and why the hypomania row stays open after the sibling's account of a five-day summer period. The conclusion confirms the episode, rates severity, rejects two specifiers and declines to name a disorder yet.
Reading the NR 547 Week 2 grading rubric
Criteria mapping write-ups are generally assessed on accurate use of the criterion set, complete and specific mapping, attribution of evidence to sources, honest handling of unmet criteria and a sound conclusion. A table that places each criterion beside a line of case material and its source shows the traceability the week is built on. Keeping unmet and unsettled rows visible, and explaining how each was checked, earns more than a table of only met rows. Separate rows for duration and impairment show attention to the full definition. A conclusion that distinguishes an established episode from an unestablished disorder shows mature reasoning. Paraphrasing criteria rather than reproducing them reads as understanding. Citations to the manual and rating scales in APA 7 complete the expectations.
NR 547 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Mappings often reproduce the published criteria in full and add a yes beside each, which shows nothing about the patient. Paraphrase briefly and fill the evidence column carefully. Another weakness is failing to say who supplied each piece of evidence, since a relative's report and your own observation carry different weight. Some students delete unmet rows, hiding the checks that matter most. Keep them. Duration and impairment are often assumed rather than shown; give them rows. Avoid naming a disorder when the exclusion rows are still open. Specifiers deserve a line each, even when not met. Keep identifying material short so the table appears early, and make sure the symptom count in your conclusion matches the table.
Get a NR 547 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 2 instructions with the case or template your section provides, and a custom example is mapped against those criteria and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Whether a criterion is genuinely met in a patient of your own stays a clinical judgment, and it stays yours.
More NR 547 papers and PMHNP samples
- NR 547 Week 1: Diagnostic Position Discussion
- NR 547 Week 3: Diagnostic Formulation
- NR 547 Week 4: Rule Out Analysis
- NR 547 Week 5: Case Analysis
- NR 547 Week 6: Lifespan Variation Write-up
- NR 547 Week 7: Medical Mimic Brief
- NR 547 Week 8: Diagnostic Case Paper
- NR 546 Week 2: Receptor Mechanism Write-Up
NR 547 Week 2 questions, answered
Does it have to be a table?
Many sections supply a template and that decides it. Where the format is open, a table with an interpretive paragraph beneath usually reads better than prose, because the alignment between criterion and evidence is the thing being marked and a table makes misalignment obvious. Prose can hide a gap for a paragraph at a time; a table cannot.
What belongs in the evidence column?
Material, not restatement. The patient's own words, an observed sign, a collateral report, a documented result, each with its source attached. If the entry could have been written before anyone met this person, it is a paraphrase of the criterion and earns nothing. The test is simple: could two different patients have generated the same cell? Then the cell is empty.
What if the case does not supply enough to judge a criterion?
Mark it not assessed rather than not met, and name the question that would settle it. The two are different claims and conflating them is a real error: absent means checked and found missing, unassessed means nobody looked. Vignettes often leave gaps on purpose to see whether the writer notices, so naming the gap tends to earn more than filling it with assumption.
Where can I find a free NR 547 Week 2 sample paper?
The row-by-row criteria map for the doctoral student is the complete NR 547 Week 2 sample above, open in every section. If your case needs a different criterion set, share it with our team and a mapping with sources named can be prepared.
Should unmet criteria stay in the NR 547 Week 2 table?
Yes. Keep each unmet or unsettled row, mark it and say how it was checked. The sample leaves the substance and hypomania rows open and explains what would close them.