| Course | PA 505 Behavioral Medicine I |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Screening score interpretation |
| Length | About 730 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PA 505 Week 3
Screening Score Interpretation: A PHQ-9 Total of 14 Read Aloud at a Front Desk, Which Items Carried It and Where the Reading Stops
Student Name
Chamberlain University
PA 505: Behavioral Medicine I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Screening Score Interpretation: A PHQ-9 Total of 14 Read Aloud at a Front Desk, Which Items Carried It and Where the Reading Stops
Which Version Produced the Number
The form was the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the PHQ-9, which asks how often over the past two weeks each of nine depressive symptoms has bothered the patient, from "not at all" to "nearly every day," scored 0 to 3. It is not the two-item version, which screens only mood and interest, and not the eight-item version, which leaves out the question about thoughts of death. The cutoff that goes with this version is 10: in the original validation, a total of 10 or more had a sensitivity and specificity of 88% for major depression against a structured interview, and totals of 5, 10, 15 and 20 marked mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression (Kroenke et al., 2001).
How the Sheet Got Filled In
W.T., the 68-year-old widowed road worker in this course's case, had left reading glasses in the truck. The medical assistant read the nine items aloud at the front desk, with two other patients waiting about ten feet away, and marked the answers. That matters for every item, but most of all for the ninth, which covers wishing to be dead or thinking of hurting oneself, which W.T. answered "no" at the desk and later, in the exam room, answered differently. A form read aloud in a waiting area is a different document from one completed alone, even when the total is the same.
The Total and the Items Behind It
Table 1
PHQ-9 Item Scores as Marked at the Front Desk (Total 14)
| Item | What it asks about | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Little interest or pleasure | 2 |
| 2 | Feeling down or hopeless | 2 |
| 3 | Sleep | 3 |
| 4 | Tired or little energy | 3 |
| 5 | Appetite | 2 |
| 6 | Feeling a failure | 1 |
| 7 | Trouble concentrating | 1 |
| 8 | Slowed or restless | 0 |
| 9 | Thoughts of death or self-harm | 0 |
Note. Note. Item wording is summarized, not quoted. The ninth item was later answered differently in private; see the text.
The total of 14 sits in the moderate band. But eight of the fourteen points come from three bodily items, sleep, energy and appetite, and each of those has other explanations in this patient: whiskey most evenings, morning headaches that end sleep early, and a combination headache tablet taken on most days. The two core items, interest and mood, each scored 2, more than half the days. That is the content the total hides: a person with the same 14 made up of mood, guilt and concentration items would be a different patient.
Set Beside the Room
In the exam room, what I observed fit the core items. W.T. described mood as "flat," spoke slowly, and said the coffee group at the co-op had not seen them since spring. The slowness I saw is at odds with the zero on item 8, which may reflect that W.T. did not notice being slowed or did not want to say so at the desk. And when I asked privately about mornings, W.T. said there had been many of not wanting to wake up, which is the content item 9 was meant to find. The form and the room agree on mood and interest and disagree on two items, and both disagreements point in the same direction, toward a total read aloud being lower than the truth.
Where the Reading Stops
This total does not diagnose depression. The PHQ-9 is a screening and severity measure; a diagnosis needs an interview against the criteria, which is the next exercise, and needs the bodily items separated from alcohol, the headache tablets and a thyroid level that has not yet come back. The reading also stops at the ninth item: the private answer replaces the desk answer and is followed up in its own note. What this interpretation supports is that the screen is positive at the standard cutoff, that the core items are clearly present and that the total probably understates them. A repeat PHQ-9 completed alone, with glasses, would make a better baseline for tracking change.
References
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
Reading the PA 505 Week 3 instructions
Week three asks you to interpret a completed depression screening instrument for a patient in the case. Start by naming the exact version, since a total means nothing until a reader knows which form produced it and which cutoff belongs to that form, and cite the validation figures for that cutoff. Say how the form was completed: alone, read aloud, through a family member or in another language. Report the item scores, not only the total, and say which items carried it. Set the result beside what you observed during the visit and say where they agree and where they part. Name what the screen cannot establish, including diagnosis, and say which answers, if any, have been replaced by later information. Keep recommendations brief; the week is about reading the number correctly.
How the PA 505 Week 3 example is put together
The interpretation opens by naming the nine-item questionnaire, separating it from the two-item and eight-item versions, and citing the original validation, in which a total of 10 or more had 88% sensitivity and specificity for major depression. It then records that the medical assistant read the items aloud at the front desk because W.T. had left reading glasses in the truck, with two patients within earshot. A table gives all nine item scores. The analysis shows that sleep, energy and appetite carried eight of the fourteen points and that each has another explanation here, from evening whiskey to a daily caffeine headache tablet. In the room, slowness contradicted the zero for being slowed, and a private answer about mornings replaced the desk answer on the ninth item. The final section explains that the total is a positive screen that probably understates the core items, and that it is not a diagnosis.
PA 505 Week 3 rubric: what full points look like
The heaviest deduction falls on a total turned into a diagnosis, a step the instrument's own authors do not take and the rubric is built to catch. Close behind is an interpretation written as though the form had been completed alone and unhurried, with nothing said about who read it, where, or who could hear. Further losses come from a total reported without the version, so the cutoff belongs to a different form; from item scores collapsed into the sum, which throws away the content; from a low score treated as reassurance; and from an interpretation that never compares the form with the encounter. The top marks reward work that names the version and cutoff with a source, records the conditions, reports items, sets them beside observation, flags superseded answers and states what the screen cannot establish. Brief, specific limits earn more than a long list of next steps.
Common PA 505 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Screening scores look simple, which is why so many interpretations stop at the total. If you share the completed instrument and the case details your section provides, we can help you identify the exact version and its validated cutoff, decide which items carried the score and explain what the conditions of completion might have changed. We can also help you set the items beside the encounter and write a short paragraph on where the reading stops. When the case contains a disclosure that contradicts an item, such as a private answer about thoughts of death, we can help you record which answer stands and why. The interpretation is yours to sign. If your section uses a different instrument, such as the GAD-7 or a geriatric depression scale, the custom sample applies the same approach to that form and its cutoff.
Get a PA-505 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the completed sheet or the total your assignment supplies, the rubric, and the exact instrument your classroom teaches, since versions differ in item count and in where the cutoff falls. A custom PA-505 Week 3 interpretation is written to those numbers and returned inside 24-48h, with the first one free.
More PA 505 papers and MPAS samples
- PA 505 Week 1: Where Depression Is First Met
- PA 505 Week 2: MSE Narrative
- PA 505 Week 4: Criteria Application Exercise
- PA 505 Week 5: Delirium Versus Depression Comparison
- PA 505 Week 6: Substance Use History Brief
- PA 505 Week 7: Risk Formulation Note
- PA 505 Week 8: Capacity Determination Note
- PA 504 Week 3: HPI Draft
- PA 503 Week 3: Problem Representation
- PA 502 Week 3: NNT Calculation
- PA 501 Week 3: State Practice Act Analysis
PA 505 Week 3 questions, answered
We were given the total and nothing else. Is that enough to write?
It is workable, and saying so explicitly earns marks. Report what a bare figure supports: a level of reported symptom burden and nothing about which symptoms produced it. Then name what is missing outright, since the item pattern was the only thing the sheet was ever going to tell you. Graders here give more to an interpretation marking where its evidence runs out than to one that carries on as though it had not.
The score and the encounter disagree. Which one wins?
Neither, and the disagreement is usually the most interesting sentence available. Record both, say which items produced the total, say what was observed, and offer the ordinary explanations: a form completed in a hurry, a question read differently than intended, a person more willing to write something down than to say it. Then state what would settle it.
Can the interpretation recommend that the instrument be repeated?
Where your rubric leaves room, one line naming a repeat and the reason for it stays inside the week, because asking again is a further question rather than a course of action. What crosses the boundary is the paragraph after it, setting an interval and describing what would count as a response, which belongs to the second behavioral course entirely.
Where can I find a free PA 505 Week 3 sample paper?
This page carries the full PA 505 Week 3 interpretation of a PHQ-9 total of 14 read aloud at a front desk, with every item score in a table.
Why does the PA 505 Week 3 sample say the total probably understates the problem?
Because the items were read aloud where others could hear, the patient appeared slowed despite scoring zero on that item, and a private answer about thoughts of death replaced the desk answer.