Session two of cognitive behavioral therapy for a composite store owner's generalized anxiety is planned minute by minute in this MN661 Unit 7 document, with worry-sorting at its center. Searches like "mn 661 unit 7 assignment example", "mn661 unit 7 sample" and "mn661 unit 7 example" land here.
Session Two Plan: Sorting Worries a 48-Year-Old Store Owner Can Act On From Those He Cannot
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MN661: PMHNP Psychopathological Disorders and Psychotherapy
Unit 7 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite patient written as a model document. No real person or business is described.
Session Aim
By the end of the session, he can place three worries from his own log into the correct category, a current problem he can act on now or a hypothetical situation he cannot solve today, and explain the difference in his own words.
Where He Is After Session One
In the first session he described worrying for most of each day about the store, his aging mother, his son's grades and money, scored 15 on the GAD-7 and agreed to keep a worry log for a week, writing down each worry, the time and how long it lasted. The session introduced the idea that worry can be an attempt to feel prepared for uncertainty. He found the idea "interesting but not me," which the plan anticipates in the core segment's contingency by letting his own log make the point.
Timed Plan
Minutes 0 to 5. Aim: measure symptoms and reconnect. Move: GAD-7 completed on paper (Spitzer et al., 2006); brief check on the week. Contingency: if the score has risen by 5 or more points, ask what happened this week before continuing.
Minutes 5 to 10. Aim: bridge from session one and set the agenda together. Move: ask what he remembers about the link between worry and uncertainty from last week; agree on today's two items, the log and the sorting task. Contingency: if he arrives with a crisis, such as a family emergency, set the agenda around it and move the sorting task to next week.
Minutes 10 to 20. Aim: review the worry log. Move: read through the log together, noting when worries occurred and how long they lasted. Contingency: if he forgot the log, reconstruct three worries from the past two days aloud and write them down together, then treat the forgetting as information rather than failure.
Minutes 20 to 35. Aim: sort worries into two categories. Move: for each logged worry, ask, "Is this a problem that exists now that you could take a step on this week, or is it about something that might happen?" Model the first one: the overdue supplier invoice is a current problem; whether the store survives a recession is hypothetical. He sorts the rest. Contingency: if he disputes the distinction, arguing that the recession is a real risk, agree that it is possible and ask what step he could take on it this week; if none exists, it is hypothetical by definition.
Minutes 35 to 45. Aim: set new home practice. Move: each evening he adds a letter to each logged worry, C for current or H for hypothetical, and for one current problem writes the next step. Contingency: if he says he has no time, reduce the practice to three worries on three evenings.
Minutes 45 to 50. Aim: feedback on the session. Move: ask what was useful, what was not and what he will remember. Contingency: if he says nothing was useful, ask what he expected and adjust the next session.
Rationale
The core task comes from the intolerance of uncertainty model of generalized anxiety disorder, in which people who find uncertainty hard to bear worry in an effort to prepare for or prevent every possible negative outcome (Dugas et al., 1998). Sorting comes before any problem-solving because the two kinds of worry need different responses: current problems call for action, while hypothetical worries call for learning to tolerate uncertainty, and treating one as the other keeps the worry going. His formulation, developed in the first session, centers on the belief that worrying prevents bad outcomes; he has said that if he stopped worrying about the store, "something would slip." Sorting his own worries shows him that much of his worry is about situations no amount of thinking can settle today, which prepares the ground for later work on that belief.
The session opens with a measure because tracking symptoms weekly shows whether treatment is working and gives him feedback of his own. It bridges from the previous session because he will retain more if new material builds on what he learned. It closes with feedback about the session itself because his view of what helped guides the next session and signals that the work is collaborative. Later in treatment, behavioral experiments that test his predictions about uncertainty will build on the sorting skill (Hebert & Dugas, 2019).
After the Session
Recorded afterward: his GAD-7 score, whether he sorted three worries correctly without prompting, his own explanation of the distinction and any disagreement he raised. Decision for session three: if he sorted at least three worries correctly and completed most of the home practice, session three moves on to problem-solving for current problems; if not, session three repeats sorting with new examples from his log.
References
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(2), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00070-3
Hebert, E. A., & Dugas, M. J. (2019). Behavioral experiments for intolerance of uncertainty: Challenging the unknown in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26(2), 421-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.07.007
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092-1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
How this MN661 Unit 7 example is structured
The table carries the plan and the prose carries the reasons, so neither repeats the other. Each row's aim is written as an observable change rather than a topic: he can place three logged worries into the correct category, not psychoeducation about worry. The contingency column is what separates this plan from an agenda; it states what the clinician does if he forgot the log, disputes the distinction, or arrives with a crisis. Timings add to fifty minutes exactly. The rationale follows the session order and links every segment to one element of the formulation from earlier work, chiefly his belief that worrying prevents bad outcomes. The document closes with what would be recorded afterward and what would decide whether session three moves on to problem-solving or stays with sorting for another week.
Get an MN661 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Tell us which session number and modality your MN661 Unit 7 prompt calls for, and supply the case or formulation it builds on. Attach the rubric too, and a template if your section uses one. A first plan is written at no cost and returned in 24-48h, timed to the minute, each aim observable and each segment given a fallback. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
MN661 Unit 7 questions, answered
Should the plan script what the clinician says?
Partly. Most prompts expect the clinician's key moves described, and a sample line or two of wording for the central task makes the plan concrete. A full script is rarely required and can crowd out the rationale. Where the prompt is silent, a table of moves with brief example phrasing for the core segment is a sensible middle course.
Which measure opens the session?
One brief, validated tool matched to the target problem, such as the GAD-7 for generalized anxiety or the PHQ-9 for depression. Repeated each session, it shows change over time and gives an early signal if things are worsening. Naming the measure and saying what score change would matter shows the plan is built for tracking.
Can the plan cover a first session instead?
Where the prompt permits, yes, but a first session is mostly assessment, rapport and orientation, which leaves less room to show a therapy technique. Many instructors prefer an early session after assessment for that reason. Check the wording: a session plan and an intake plan are different documents, and the rubric usually signals which one is wanted.