| Course | NU673 PMHNP Diagnosis and Management Across the Lifespan I |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Follow-up score interpretation |
| Length | About 590 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU673 Unit 9
Sixteen, Thirteen, Ten, Nine: A Follow-Up Score Interpretation of Four GAD-7 Results Over Twelve Weeks in a 50-Year-Old HVAC Dispatcher
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU673: PMHNP Diagnosis and Management Across the Lifespan I
Unit 9 Follow-Up Score Interpretation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is composite; scores, doses and dates are bracketed.
Background
Mr. [H.] is a [50]-year-old dispatcher for a heating and air conditioning company with generalized anxiety disorder, diagnosed at intake [12] weeks ago. He worries constantly about his daughter's health, his job and money, sleeps poorly and has muscle tension. He started escitalopram [10] mg at intake, increased to [15] mg at week [four], and attended [six] sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy. At intake, he and I agreed that success would mean a GAD-7 score below [5], the conventional threshold for minimal anxiety, and that a reduction of at least [50] percent would count as response.
The Scores
1. Intake: [16].
2. Week 4: [13].
3. Week 8: [10].
4. Week 12: [9].
Interpretation
Question 1: Is the change real, or within measurement noise? Its developers set severity bands starting at scores of 5, 10 and 15, and in primary care patients the scale proved both reliable and valid (Spitzer et al., 2006). A study of its sensitivity to change estimated the minimal clinically important difference at about [4] points (Toussaint et al., 2020). His total change from intake is [7] points, larger than that estimate. The change is therefore likely to be real and clinically meaningful, not noise.
Question 2: Has he met the goal set at intake? No. A [50] percent reduction from [16] would require a score of [8] or below; he is at [9]. His score remains in the mild range, above the target of less than [5]. By the definitions agreed in advance, this is partial response. The improvement is real, and it is not enough, and the note has to say both.
Question 3: What is the trend? The first eight weeks brought a drop of [6] points, the last four weeks only [1]. Improvement has flattened. A one-point change is well within the range of measurement noise and should not be read as continued improvement.
Question 4: Does anything else explain the scores? He reports that his daughter's medical tests at week [ten] were reassuring, which might have lowered his worry for reasons other than treatment. He has taken escitalopram consistently, by his report and pharmacy refills. He drinks [one or two] beers most evenings, a change from intake, which he says helps him sleep; alcohol can worsen anxiety and sleep and may be limiting his progress.
Comparison With a General Population Reference
Population norms help put his score in context. In a large general population sample, the average GAD-7 score was about [3], with women scoring slightly higher than men (Löwe et al., 2008). At [9], he remains well above the average for his age.
Plan Based on the Interpretation
1. Discuss the partial response with him openly, using his own scores.
2. Address the new evening drinking first, since it may limit further improvement.
3. Increase escitalopram to [20] mg, since he tolerates it and the flattening suggests the current dose has reached its effect.
4. Continue cognitive behavioral therapy, focusing on worry postponement and tolerance of uncertainty, with [six] further sessions.
5. Repeat the GAD-7 at weeks [16] and [20]. If the score has not fallen below [8] by week [20], consider switching to a different medication or adding another approach.
References
Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2008). Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Medical Care, 46(3), 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318160d093
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
Toussaint, A., Hüsing, P., Gumz, A., Wingenfeld, K., Härter, M., Schramm, E., & Löwe, B. (2020). Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7). Journal of Affective Disorders, 265, 395-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.032
Reading the NU 673 Unit 9 instructions
For Unit 9 you interpret a series of rating scale scores for a patient in treatment and decide what they mean. Prompts usually provide or ask you to create several scores and want you to judge whether change is real, whether predefined goals were met, what the trend shows, and what other factors might explain the scores, then to set a plan that follows from the interpretation. These notes are short, often two or three pages, and the strongest ground interpretation grounded in the scale's evidence, such as its cut points and minimal important difference, and in goals set before treatment. Checking alternative explanations, such as life events or substance use, before changing medication is a mark of careful reasoning.
How the NU 673 Unit 9 example is put together
The background gives the diagnosis, the escitalopram and therapy course and the goals agreed at intake. The four scores are listed. Four numbered questions follow. The first uses the Spitzer cut points and Toussaint's estimate of a four-point minimal important difference to show the seven-point change is real. The second applies the intake goals and finds partial response, with a highlighted sentence. The third reads the flattening trend. The fourth checks his daughter's reassuring tests, adherence and a new evening drinking habit. A population comparison uses Löwe's norms. A five-step plan answers each question, and a margin note explains why each step is tied to one.
NU673 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Score interpretation notes are usually graded on use of the scale's properties, comparison with predefined goals, trend analysis, consideration of confounders and a plan built on what the numbers showed. The first row earns full points when cut points and a minimal important difference are cited and applied. Comparison with goals rewards a clear verdict against thresholds set before treatment. Trend analysis is judged on reading change over time, not only the latest score. Confounders earn credit when life events, adherence and substances are checked before medication is changed. The plan row looks for steps that each answer a finding, with a date to repeat the measure.
Common NU673 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common error is judging improvement from the last score alone. Another is treating any fall in score as meaningful without reference to the minimal important difference. Students often move the goal after the fact, calling a partial response success. Some notes change medication without checking for alcohol, stress or missed doses. Others ignore item scores that might show which symptoms remain. And a plan that says continue current treatment when the trend has flattened misses the point of measuring, which is to act when the numbers stop moving, while there is still time to try another step. Share the graph of scores with the patient when discussing the plan.
Get an NU673 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Send the scores your NU673 Unit 9 case gives, sometimes carried over from an earlier unit, along with the instrument, any thresholds set before treatment and the rubric. The first interpretation is free; it reads totals against those thresholds, tests each change against noise and shows which items moved, and it arrives within 24-48h. 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 NU673 papers and MSN samples
- NU673 Unit 1: Medical Causes Before Anxiety Post
- NU673 Unit 2: Differential for Late-Life Apathy
- NU673 Unit 3: Kratom Screening Write-Up
- NU673 Unit 4: YMRS Rating Scale Rationale
- NU673 Unit 5: Wilson Disease Seminar Reflection
- NU673 Unit 6: ECT Baseline Workup Plan
- NU673 Unit 7: PMDD Initial Treatment Plan
- NU673 Unit 8: Antipsychotic Informed Consent Note
- NU673 Unit 10: Measurement-based Care Case
- NU672 Unit 9: Comparative Process Recording, Grief
- NU671 Unit 9: Alliance With a Court-Mandated Client
- NU670 Unit 9: Study Critique, Santarelli 2003
- NU657 Unit 9: Case Conference, ACE Angioedema
NU673 Unit 9 questions, answered
What counts as partial response?
Definitions vary, but partial response commonly means improvement that is real yet short of the response threshold, often a reduction between about 25 and 50 percent on the chosen scale. State the definition the paper uses and its source, show the calculation, and check the change against measurement error before applying the label.
Should the interpretation look at item scores or only the total?
Both. The total answers whether the patient has responded; item scores show which symptoms changed and which did not. A plateau in the total can hide one domain improving while another stays fixed, and that pattern often matters most for the treating clinician. Keep item analysis brief and tied to the conclusion.
What if one score looks out of line with the others?
Note it, look for context, and test whether it changes the conclusion. A stressful week, a different setting or a misunderstanding of the form can shift a single score. Reading the series with and without that point shows whether the interpretation depends on it. Quietly dropping an inconvenient score undermines the whole analysis.
Where can I find a free NU673 Unit 9 sample paper?
The full NU673 Unit 9 follow-up score interpretation is on this page, with four scores, four questions answered, a population comparison and a five-step plan, plus three references. An interpretation of your own patient's scores can be written on request.
Is a drop from 16 to 9 on the GAD-7 a response in NU673 Unit 9?
Not by the goal set at intake. The fall of seven points is larger than the four-point minimal important difference, so it is real, but a 50 percent reduction would require a score of 8 or less, so this is partial response.