| Course | NS420 Nutritional Counseling |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Counseling self-evaluation |
| Length | About 810 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Nutrition Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NS420 Unit 9
Three Recordings, One Habit That Moved and One That Did Not: A Unit 9 Counseling Self-Evaluation Coded With the MITI
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NS420: Nutritional Counseling
Unit 9 Counseling Self-Evaluation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The practice sessions are composite and every bracketed count is a placeholder for the student's own coded figures; the coding manual, the motivational interviewing text and the reflection source cited are real.
Method
I recorded three practice sessions with classmates playing clients: Week 2, Week 5 and Week 8. Each was twenty minutes. I coded a randomly chosen ten-minute segment of each recording using the fourth version of the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity code, which counts specific counselor behaviors and rates four global dimensions on a five-point scale (Moyers et al., 2016). I coded alone, so my counts were not checked by a second coder, and I listened to each segment twice to reduce missed codes.
The Counts
Week 2 session, client with afternoon soda habit: questions [14], simple reflections [5], complex reflections [1], affirmations [1], persuading without permission [4].
Week 5 session, client eating lunch in a parked car: questions [10], simple reflections [7], complex reflections [4], affirmations [2], persuading without permission [1].
Week 8 session, client snacking after work: questions [9], simple reflections [6], complex reflections [6], affirmations [3], persuading without permission [3].
What Improved
My ratio of reflections to questions rose from [0.4] in Week 2 to [1.1] in Week 5 and [1.3] in Week 8. Complex reflections, the ones that add meaning beyond what the client said, grew from [1] to [6] in the ten-minute segments. The manual treats a higher proportion of complex reflections as a sign of deeper listening, and I can hear the difference in the recordings. In the first session, clients often answered my reflections with a flat yes and waited for my next question. In the later sessions, they kept talking after a reflection, adding details I had not asked about, which is the response a good reflection is meant to draw out. In Week 2, I mostly repeated the client's words. By Week 8, I was saying things like "So the snack is the line between work and home," and the client picked the idea up and ran with it.
The reflection count improved because I practiced it on purpose after Week 2, while persuasion without permission stayed high because I never noticed it happening until I coded the tapes.
What Did Not Improve
Persuading without permission dropped from [4] in Week 2 to [1] in Week 5 and then rose again to [3] in Week 8. In each case, I offered a suggestion before the client asked for one or before I asked if they wanted ideas. In Week 8 it happened three times in the last four minutes, when I felt the session was running out of time and wanted to end with a plan. Miller and Rollnick (2023) describe this urge to fix as the righting reflex, and my recordings show that time pressure brings mine back.
Global Ratings
Cultivating change talk: Week 2 [2], Week 5 [3], Week 8 [4]. Partnership: Week 2 [2], Week 5 [4], Week 8 [3]. Empathy: Week 2 [3], Week 5 [4], Week 8 [4]. Softening sustain talk: Week 2 [2], Week 5 [3], Week 8 [3].
Partnership dropped in Week 8 for the same reason persuasion rose. When I took over the plan at the end, the session stopped being shared.
Comparing Myself to the Thresholds
The manual offers thresholds for fair and good proficiency. My Week 8 reflection ratio of [1.3] is above the fair level, and my complex reflection share of [50] percent approaches the good level. My persuasion count keeps me from claiming consistent proficiency, since the manual treats persuasion without permission as inconsistent with the approach.
What I Take From This
Recording and coding my sessions showed me things I could not see while counseling. Schön distinguishes reflection in action, adjusting during the work, from reflection on action, looking back afterward (Schön, 1983). Coding is reflection on action, and it found a habit that reflection in action had missed three times.
Plan for the Next Term
I will practice ending sessions with a summary and a question, "What, if anything, would you like to try?", instead of a suggestion. I will set a timer at fifteen minutes so the end of the session does not surprise me. I will also ask a classmate to code one of my sessions blind, so my counts are checked against someone else's. Coding alone this term may have flattered me, since I knew what I was trying to do in each recording and may have heard reflections where a stranger would hear questions. A second coder would also catch persuasion I did not notice, which is exactly the habit I most need to see.
References
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2023). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change and grow (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Moyers, T. B., Rowell, L. N., Manuel, J. K., Ernst, D., & Houck, J. M. (2016). The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code (MITI 4): Rationale, preliminary reliability and validity. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 65, 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.001
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
What the NS420 Unit 9 assignment asks for
For Unit 9, NS420 asks students to evaluate their own counseling using recorded sessions and, usually, a formal coding instrument. The prompt may name the MITI or allow another tool from the course. Record at least two or three sessions spread across the term. Explain your method: which segments you coded, how long they were and whether anyone checked your codes. Report counts and ratings for each session in a way that shows the trend. Interpret what improved and why. Give equal attention to what did not improve, with a specific example from a recording. Compare your figures with any thresholds the manual provides. Link the experience to a concept about reflective practice. End with a plan aimed at your weakest skill. Three to five pages is typical.
How this NS420 Unit 9 example is built
The sample begins with its method: three twenty-minute sessions, a randomly chosen ten-minute segment of each, single coder and two listens. Counts for each week follow in short paragraphs, all bracketed. The improvement section reports the reflection ratio and the growth in complex reflections, with a quoted Week 8 reflection and a description of how clients kept talking. The highlighted sentence explains why one habit improved and another did not. The next section traces persuasion without permission across the three weeks and connects its return to the clock. Global ratings show partnership dipping in the same session. A thresholds section is careful about what can be claimed. Schön's distinction frames the value of coding, and the plan targets the closing minutes.
Where the points sit in the NS420 Unit 9 rubric
Self-evaluations of counseling skill are generally graded on the quality of evidence, honesty of interpretation, connection to course concepts and the usefulness of the improvement plan. The greatest share of points typically goes to analysis: explaining why a measure changed or stayed flat, using specific moments from the recordings. Instructors value a clear method, including how segments were chosen and whether codes were checked. Reporting a weakness candidly usually earns more than presenting uniform progress. Comparison with published thresholds shows understanding of the instrument. A plan aimed at the weakest skill, with concrete steps, is expected. Proper citation of the coding manual and course text in APA 7 rounds out the rubric, along with clear presentation of the numbers.
NS420 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
A common problem with these evaluations is reporting counts without saying what they mean. Another is choosing only the best segments, which hides real habits. Writers often describe every measure as improving, even when the recordings show otherwise. The method is skipped, so the reader cannot judge the numbers. Thresholds are cited without checking whether the student met them. Plans for improvement stay general, like listen more. Some evaluations never quote a single line from a recording. If you have recordings and coded counts but are unsure how to interpret the pattern, a writer can help you turn the numbers into an honest account of what changed, what did not and what to practice next.
Get an NS420 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Describe the practice sessions your term produced and the framework your Unit 9 prompt names, then attach the rubric. The sample lays out method, results table, discussion and plan with every count bracketed, since the coding and the judgments about your own sessions stay yours. It lands within 24-48h, with no fee for the first. 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.
More NS420 papers and BS in Nutrition Science samples
- NS420 Unit 1: Counseling Approach Post
- NS420 Unit 2: Intake Interview Script
- NS420 Unit 3: Counseling Session Transcript
- NS420 Unit 4: Stages of Change Assessment
- NS420 Unit 5: Role-Play Seminar Reflection
- NS420 Unit 6: Goal-Setting Worksheet
- NS420 Unit 7: DAP Client Case Note
- NS420 Unit 8: Fire Crew Group Session Plan
- NS420 Unit 10: Counseling Portfolio
- NS410 Unit 9: Program Evaluation Plan
- NS325 Unit 9: Picky Toddler Meal Plan
- NS310 Unit 9: Rheumatoid Cachexia Case
- NS305 Unit 9: Garlic Spread Recall
NS420 Unit 9 questions, answered
Do I have to use a formal coding instrument?
Only if the prompt requires one, but an instrument makes the evaluation far easier to support. MITI is widely taught alongside motivational interviewing; some courses supply their own checklist instead. Without any instrument, anchor every claim in a quoted moment from a recording or transcript, with a time stamp, so the grader can see the evidence rather than take your word for it.
What if my scores did not improve across the term?
Report them accurately and analyze why. A flat or falling measure, explained through specific moments, often makes a stronger self-evaluation than steady improvement, because it shows honest analysis. Look for what changed between sessions, such as a harder role-play client or a longer segment, and say whether that explains the pattern. Then build the development plan around it.
Can a classmate code my sessions instead of me?
Where the course allows it, a second coder strengthens the evaluation, since self-coding tends to be generous. Report both sets of scores if you have them, and note where they disagree. Get the classmate's agreement and keep the recordings private. If only self-coding is possible, the method section should name that as a limitation.
Where can I find a free NS420 Unit 9 sample paper?
A complete Unit 9 self-evaluation is on this page, coding three recorded practice sessions with the MITI 4 manual, with bracketed counts to replace, an honest trend analysis and a plan aimed at the weakest skill.
Why are the numbers bracketed in the NS420 Unit 9 sample?
The figures belong to the student's own recordings, so the sample marks each count and rating as a placeholder. The surrounding analysis shows how to interpret a trend once your real numbers are in.