Appendix 5.

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/familys 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 clients 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 clients
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

Presentation Abstract Background Use of Formulation Intervention Critical Referral/

and Literature and appraisal and client letter
assessment Evaluation reflection
(incl risk
assessment)
Material Clear and The General Demonstrates Intervention Shows Outstanding
exceptionally succinct difficulties/iss claims and very sound very clearly excellent letter to referrer
Excellent well summary ues to be assumptions grasp of the grounded in awareness of or client; very
organised that explained in are very well models being formulation(s) potential succinct, very
according to covers all the supported used. Offers a . Excellent weaknesses in well structured,
format in of the formulation by very plausible concise the formulation very clearly
handbook. main are very references to and coherent summary and indicates written and
Tables, points. clearly appropriate account of the demonstratin how these including all
figures, etc. described. literature. development g that the might be relevant key
very Sufficient Shows maintenance of work was remedied. points.
well placed & background excellent the identified very well Excellent
labelled. information is awareness difficulties. The conducted. discussion of
References provided in a of key ideas formulation is The work personal
all in very ordered in the very well shows strong position
acceptable and relevant supported by sensitively to regarding the
format. structured area. assessment the client/s choices
Excellent way to data or other needs and regarding the
writing style. enable reader appropriate priorities. models,
No to easily means. Excellent differential use
typographical, follow the Excellent evaluation of of the models,
spelling, formulations. awareness of the work: e.g. in how
grammatical Includes the connections maybe shows personal factors
errors. excellent and contrasts particular may have
Well within attention to between the attention to influenced
word limit. issues of models in termsinnovative gathering of
inequality and of their methods of information and
diversity. conceptualisati evaluation analysis. Very
Consent and ons of the and/or thoughtful
confidentially problems. particular consideration of
very well Excellent ability attention to the therapeutic
addressed. to integrate psychometric relationship and
Issues of risk formulations. properties of role of
and risk any tools supervision.
management proposed.
are
thoroughly
addressed.
 Material well Clear The General Demonstrates Intervention Shows good Good letter to
organised succinct difficulties/iss claims and sound grasp of clearly awareness of referrer or
Good according to summary ues to be assumptions the grounded in potential client; quite
format in that explained in are models being formulation(s) weaknesses in succinct,
handbook. covers the supported used. Offers a . Good the formulation fairly well
Tables, most formulation by plausible and concise and indicates structured,
figures, etc. of the are clearly references to coherent summary of how these reasonably
appropriately main described. appropriate account of the key elements might be clearly
placed and points. Sufficient literature. development demonstratin remedied. written and
labelled. background Shows good maintenance of g that the Good including
References in information is awareness the identified work was well discussion of most relevant
acceptable provided in anof key ideas difficulties. The conducted. personal key points.
format. Clear ordered and in the formulation is The work position
writing style. structured relevant adequately shows good regarding the
Very few, if way to area. supported by sensitivity to choices
any, enable reader assessment the client/s regarding the
typographical, to follow the data or other needs and models,
spelling, formulations. appropriate priorities. differential use
grammatical Includes good means. Good plans of the models,
errors. Within attention to Good for evaluation e.g. in how
word limit. issues of awareness of of the work. personal factors
inequality and the connections may have
diversity. and contrasts influenced
Consent and between the gathering of
confidentially models in terms information and
well of their analysis.
addressed. conceptualisati Thoughtful
Issues of risk ons of the consideration of
and risk problems. the therapeutic
management Good ability to relationship and
are well integrate role of the
addressed. formulations. supervisor.
 Material Reasonab The Some Minor Intervention Some gaps in Fair letter to
reasonably ly difficulties/iss general misunderstandi reasonably the referrer or
Satisfactory organised clear/conc ues to be claims and ngs grounded in identification of client;
according to ise explained in assumptions of the models formulation(s) weaknesses in could be more
format in summary the are or . the formulation succinct or
handbook. that formulation unsupported their application Reasonable and intervention better
Tables, Includes are by in formulation. concise or structured,
figures, etc. some key reasonably references. Some parts of summary of how these or more clearly
reasonably points. described. Some the formulation key elements might written.
placed and Sufficient references are not demonstratio be remedied. Includes some
labelled. Most background are adequately n that the Evidence of relevant key
references in information is inappropriate explained, or work was personal points.
acceptable provided in a or irrelevant. lack reasonably reflection but
format. Fair fairly ordered Some key clear support, well limited and not
writing style. and ideas have or rely on conducted. differentiated
May be a few structured been misinterpretatio The work between the
typographical way to overlooked. ns of the shows some models.
spelling, enable reader evidence. sensitivity to Some
grammatical to follow the Some ability to the client/s consideration of
errors. Word formulations. integrate needs and the therapeutic
limit Includes formulations, priorities. relationship and
exceeded by some but some Fair plans for role of
more than attention to issues evaluation of supervision.
10% but is issues of regarding the work.
otherwise inequality and compatibility
reasonably diversity. are not
presented. Consent and adequately
. confidentially explained.
are Some
reasonably misunderstandi
addressed. Is ngs
sues of risk of how the
and risk models are
management compatible or
are otherwise
reasonably
addressed.
 Unacceptable Summary Difficulties/iss Insufficient Serious Intervention No significant Poor letter to
level of is ues to be references to misunderstandi insufficiently attempt made referrer or
Weak presentation Incoheren explained in appropriate ngs or poor grounded in to client;
throughout t or formulation literature; grasp of the formulation(s) critically insufficiently
the work. otherwise insufficiently and/or many models are ; and/or evaluate the succinct
Word limit fails described; unsupported evident; and/or unclear formulation and and/or poorly
exceeded by to convey and/or general major aspects depiction of intervention; structured/
more than an background claims and of the the work and/or little written;
10% and/or understan information assumptions;formulation lack conducted evidence of and/or misses
work is ding of the provided in and/or most sufficient with some awareness of most essential
rambling or work. incoherent or key ideas supportive indication that personal and/or key points.
disorganised unstructured have been evidence; the work was contextual
way that does overlooked; and/or not well factors in the
not lead on to and/or formulation is conducted; selection and
the general incoherent, insufficient application of
formulations; claims are self- sensitivity to the models in
and/or no made that contradictory; the client/s the process of
attention to have no and/or needs and formulation;
issues of support in insufficient priorities; and/or
inequality and existing ability to and/or insufficient
diversity; literature. integrate insufficient consideration of
and/or formulations; plans the therapeutic
consent and/or serious for evaluation relationship and
and/or misunderstandi of role of
confidentially ngs in the work. supervisor.
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.