| Course | NU672 PMHNP Psychotherapy for Individuals, Groups, and Families Clinical |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Group session analysis |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU672 Unit 5
"This Is My Last Night": A Group Session Analysis of a Member's Announced Departure in Week Nine of an Outpatient Bereavement Group
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU672: PMHNP Psychotherapy for Individuals, Groups, and Families Clinical
Unit 5 Group Session Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The group and its members are composite; names and details are bracketed.
The Group
The group is a [12]-week closed bereavement group for adults who have lost a spouse or partner within the past two years. It meets for [90] minutes each Wednesday evening at a community mental health clinic, co-led by a licensed clinical social worker and by me as a student co-leader. Seven members began; six remain. By week nine the group had developed routines: a check-in round, open discussion and a closing round.
The Session
At about [18:20], during open discussion, Ms. [R.], [66], whose husband died [14] months ago, said: "I need to tell you all something. This is my last night. I've started volunteering at the library on Wednesdays, and I think I'm ready." There was a silence of about [ten] seconds.
Mr. [T.], [71], said, "Well, good for you," in a flat voice and looked at the floor. Ms. [A.], [52], said she felt "a bit abandoned" and then apologized for saying so. Mr. [B.], [59], asked Ms. [R.] how she knew she was ready. Two members said nothing for the rest of the discussion. My co-leader asked the group what it was like to hear the news. Over the next [40] minutes members talked about endings, including their spouses' deaths, and about whether getting better felt like betrayal. Ms. [R.] said she had worried that leaving would hurt people, and that she almost left without saying anything. The session ended with a round in which each member said something to her.
Reading the Stage
Tuckman described small groups as moving through forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965), and a final adjourning stage was later added to that model. This group was well into its working phase before the announcement: members challenged each other gently, shared difficult material and returned to themes across weeks. The announcement brought an early adjourning moment into a group still working.
The group's response showed it was mature enough to tolerate an ending, but not yet practiced at it, which is exactly what a bereavement group is for.
Evidence for stage: Mr. [B.]'s question to Ms. [R.] was direct and curious rather than hostile, which fits a group that has moved past storming; Ms. [A.]'s admission of feeling abandoned, followed by an apology, shows that members felt safe enough to voice negative feelings but not yet sure the group could hold them.
Roles Members Took
1. Ms. [R.], the departing member, was also the one who named the ending, a role that carried the group's theme into the room.
2. Mr. [T.] took a withdrawing role. His flat response suggested a feeling he could not yet put into words; he has spoken before about his wife leaving the room to die without him.
3. Ms. [A.] voiced the feeling others may have shared, abandonment, and then retreated from it with an apology.
4. Mr. [B.] took an exploring role, asking questions that kept the conversation open.
5. The two silent members were not easy to read, and the analysis does not assign them a role on the basis of silence alone.
Therapeutic Factors Displayed
Yalom described a set of therapeutic factors through which group therapy helps, including universality, interpersonal learning, catharsis, instillation of hope and group cohesiveness (Yalom & Leszcz, 2020). The analysis claims only those with direct evidence in this session.
1. Universality. Evidence: after Ms. [A.] spoke, two members said they also felt that getting better was a kind of betrayal of their spouse. Members discovered that a feeling they had held privately was shared.
2. Instillation of hope. Evidence: Ms. [R.] described volunteering and said she felt ready. Mr. [B.] said, "It helps to see someone get there."
3. Interpersonal learning. Evidence: Ms. [R.] said she had almost left without telling anyone, to avoid hurting people, and heard from the group that saying goodbye was better. This is feedback about how her behavior affects others.
4. Catharsis. Evidence: Ms. [A.] cried while describing her husband's last week, which she had not described before.
Factors not claimed: altruism and guidance may have been present, but no clear instance was observed, so they are not listed.
Cohesion
Group cohesion, the sense of belonging and commitment among members, is one of the most studied processes in group therapy. A meta-analysis of [55] studies found a moderate correlation between cohesion and treatment outcome, r = [0.26], with larger effects when leaders actively worked to build cohesion (Burlingame et al., 2018). The session tested cohesion: a departure could have fractured it. The closing round, in which every member addressed Ms. [R.] directly, suggests that the group held together and perhaps grew closer.
My Own Response as Co-Leader
I noticed my own reaction during the silence after the announcement. I felt a pull to congratulate Ms. [R.] at once, which would have closed the topic before anyone else had spoken, and I held back only because my co-leader caught my eye. On the recording, her question to the group, what it was like to hear the news, is what opened the next forty minutes. Had I spoken first, the group might have followed my lead into polite congratulations, and Ms. [A.]'s feeling of abandonment and the discussion of betrayal would probably not have surfaced. I also noticed that I avoided looking at Mr. [T.] after his flat response, perhaps because I did not know what to do with his withdrawal. In supervision I want to talk about how to tolerate a silence in a group, which feels longer than a silence with one client, and how to invite a withdrawn member back without putting him on the spot. The session taught me that a co-leader's restraint can be as important as any intervention, and that my urge to smooth things over is worth watching in groups as well as in individual work.
What the Co-Leaders Might Do Next
Three leadership tasks follow. First, invite Mr. [T.] to speak about his reaction next week, carefully, since his flat response may connect to his wife's death. Second, begin preparing the group for its own ending in three weeks, using this session as a rehearsal. Third, discuss with my co-leader whether the group's rules on leaving early should be clearer in future groups, since Ms. [R.] almost left without saying anything.
References
Burlingame, G. M., McClendon, D. T., & Yang, C. (2018). Cohesion in group therapy: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 384-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000173
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2020). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (6th ed.). Basic Books.
Reading the NU 672 Unit 5 instructions
For Unit 5 you analyze one session of a group you co-led or observed. Prompts usually ask for a description of the group, a summary of the session's key events, an assessment of the group's developmental stage, the roles members took, the therapeutic factors at work, and implications for leadership. Most groups ask for about four or five pages. The best marks go to analyses that support each claim with specific evidence from the session, such as a quote or an observed behavior, rather than labeling the group from its week number or listing every factor in the textbook. Reflecting on your own role as a leader, including what you did not do, adds depth.
How the NU 672 Unit 5 example is put together
The group is described first: a closed, twelve-week bereavement group with six remaining members. The session section gives the announcement, the silence, and each member's response in their own words. The stage section applies Tuckman's model and uses two behaviors as evidence, with a highlighted sentence on what the group could and could not yet do. Five roles are listed, with a note that silence alone is not treated as a role. Four therapeutic factors are claimed, each with its evidence, and two are named as not claimed. The cohesion section cites the Burlingame meta-analysis. A section on the student's own response follows, and three leadership tasks close the analysis.
Reading the NU672 Unit 5 grading rubric
Group analyses are generally graded on accuracy of description, evidence-based stage assessment, identification of roles and factors, leadership reflection and scholarly support. The description earns full points when the key event is reported with enough detail to be checked. Stage assessment rewards citing behaviors rather than the week number. The roles and factors row gives credit for claims tied to quotes or actions, and for restraint where evidence is absent. Leadership reflection is judged on honest attention to the student's own interventions and omissions. Scholarly support points go to a stage model, a factors framework and research on cohesion or another group process, each applied rather than summarized. Clarity and correct citations complete the marks.
NU672 Unit 5 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is listing therapeutic factors from the textbook without evidence from the session. Another is assigning a developmental stage by week number alone. Students often assign roles to silent members on no evidence. Some analyses describe the members in detail but say nothing about the leaders. Others treat a member's departure as a disruption to manage rather than material for the group's work. And forgetting to connect the session to what comes next, such as the group's own ending, leaves out the practical purpose of the analysis, which is to guide the co-leaders' plan for the coming weeks. Keep member identities hidden in every example you quote.
Get an NU672 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Is your NU672 group a process, psychoeducational or skills group, and which stage model does your section use? Include those facts, the group's structure in general terms and the rubric. A first analysis built on composite members costs nothing and arrives in 24-48h, with every stage, role and factor argued from quoted behavior. 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 NU672 papers and MSN samples
- NU672 Unit 1: Psychotherapy Practicum Learning Goals
- NU672 Unit 2: Process Recording, IPT Session Four
- NU672 Unit 3: Supervision Note on Self-Disclosure
- NU672 Unit 4: Countertransference, Foster Care Youth
- NU672 Unit 6: Discussion Board Post
- NU672 Unit 7: Genogram and Formulation
- NU672 Unit 8: Treatment Plan
- NU672 Unit 9: Comparative Process Recording
- NU672 Unit 10: Termination Summary
- NU671 Unit 5: Body Dysmorphic Disorder Reflection
- NU670 Unit 5: Depression Biotypes Seminar Reflection
- NU657 Unit 5: Central Line Preparation, Low Platelets
- NU656 Unit 5: High-Flow Oxygen Seminar Reflection
NU672 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which stage model should the analysis use?
The one your section teaches. Yalom describes an initial stage of orientation, a second of conflict and dominance, and a third of developing cohesiveness; Tuckman's forming, storming, norming and performing is also common, with adjourning added later. The models broadly agree. Choose one, apply it consistently, and note that open groups move back through earlier stages when membership changes.
How many therapeutic factors should be identified?
As many as the meeting shows, which is usually two to four. Yalom and Leszcz list eleven, but not all operate in every session, and some, such as the corrective recapitulation of the primary family group, may take many meetings to become visible. A short list with quoted evidence reads as careful observation; a long one suggests the definitions were stretched.
Can I analyze a group I only observed rather than co-led?
Many sections allow observation, and the analysis then weighs the leaders' interventions as well as the members' behavior. Say plainly which role you had. Observation hours and any site paperwork are yours; the sample is limited to written analysis of an invented group, so nothing in it describes real people.
Where can I find a free NU672 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page contains the complete NU672 Unit 5 group session analysis, covering the session, stage, roles, four evidenced therapeutic factors, cohesion, the co-leader's response and next steps, with three references. An analysis of your own group session can be written to your prompt.
Which therapeutic factors does NU672 Unit 5 claim?
Four, each with evidence: universality, when members found they shared a sense of betrayal; instillation of hope, from the departing member's readiness; interpersonal learning, from feedback about saying goodbye; and catharsis, when a member described her husband's last week for the first time.