Selective mutism fits once hearing, language and autism are addressed, and the NU677 Unit 2 write-up builds that conclusion from a composite first grader's three sources of evidence. Searches like "nu 677 unit 2 assignment example", "nu677 unit 2 sample" and "nu677 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished NU677 Unit 2 pediatric assessment write-up looks like
About five pages in five sections. Sources come first: a parent interview with the Selective Mutism Questionnaire (Bergman et al., 2008), a teacher report and a classroom observation, a play-based session with the child, and a pediatric record showing a passed hearing screen. A table sets each source's view side by side: fluent speech at home with her parents and brother, whispers to one cousin, silence with adults outside the family and at school, nodding and pointing to communicate. The rule-outs section covers a speech-language evaluation, autism spectrum disorder, and a second-language silent period, since her family speaks [Portuguese] at home and she has attended English-language school for [two] years. The formulation integrates an inhibited temperament, onset at school entry and accommodation at home. A plan names behavioral treatment first.
How a NU677 Unit 2 example is structured
Integration, not summary, organizes the write-up. Every informant arrives with a note on the part of her life it covers: parents observe home, the teacher observes school, the play session observes one unfamiliar adult, and the hearing screen answers a single question. The discrepancy between home and school is treated as the diagnostic signal rather than a conflict to resolve. The criteria are worked through singly, including the duration rule that excludes the first month of school and the language criterion, answered by her fluent English with her brother. Alternatives each receive a finding: typical social reciprocity at home argues against autism, and a language evaluation within range argues against a communication disorder. The plan puts behavioral treatment first, graded speaking steps with the teacher involved, with medication considered only if progress stalls, bracketed and reserved for the prescriber and parents.
What each source can see
Parents, teacher, a clinic session and a hearing screen each observe a different slice of her life. The write-up names each slice before reporting what it showed, so no source is asked to answer a question it cannot.
The split as the finding
Talking freely at home and not at all at school is not treated as disagreement between informants. It is the pattern that defines the diagnosis, and the write-up places it at the heart of the formulation.
Two languages, one criterion
Her family speaks [Portuguese] at home, and she speaks English fluently with her brother. That detail answers the criterion excluding silence caused by an unfamiliar language, and the write-up records the observation that settles it.
Autism weighed with evidence
Warm back-and-forth play at home, shared jokes with her brother and typical pretend play argue against autism spectrum disorder. The write-up lists what was observed rather than a single phrase saying the diagnosis was ruled out.
Speaking steps with the teacher
Graded exposure begins with her mother in the empty classroom after hours, then a whisper to the teacher, then words. The teacher's part is written into the plan, since school is where the silence lives.
Where marks go in NU677 Unit 2
Integration of the informants carries the grade. A write-up that reports the parent interview, then the teacher form, then the session, each walled off in a separate paragraph with no synthesis, has collected information without assessing anything, and instructors mark it accordingly. Treating the home and school split as unreliable reporting misreads the one finding this diagnosis depends on. Each criterion is tested separately, and the language and duration rules are where papers most often slip. Autism and communication disorders need their evidence, not a line saying they were excluded. Adult frameworks applied without adjustment cost credit, as does a plan that opens with medication for a six-year-old. Lighter deductions attach to an unnamed questionnaire, no teacher role in treatment, and the child's own view, or her silence, left out of the write-up.
Get a NU677 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Pediatric cases in NU677 Unit 2 arrive with different informants, so list the reports your case includes, parent, teacher or others, and forward the case alongside the rubric. Within 24-48h a free first write-up follows, joining those sources into a single developmental account, testing rivals with evidence and putting non-drug treatment where the evidence places it.
NU677 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which rating scales suit a young child's assessment?
Choose instruments validated for the age and the question, and name what each measures. For selective mutism, parent questionnaires such as the Selective Mutism Questionnaire and teacher versions cover different settings, and broader checklists can screen for co-occurring anxiety. State the informant for each score, since a teacher's rating and a parent's rating of the same child answer different questions.
Does a pediatric write-up need a developmental history?
Yes. Milestones, temperament, onset timing and family history often explain more than current symptoms alone. For a young child, include speech and language milestones, early temperament such as behavioral inhibition, and what changed around onset. Keep it focused on what bears on the diagnosis and the plan rather than a full chronology from birth.
When would medication appear in a pediatric plan like this?
Usually after behavioral treatment has been tried, and only with the reasoning shown. For many childhood anxiety presentations, psychotherapy with family and school involvement comes first. If a prompt calls for a medication discussion, keep regimens bracketed, cite pediatric evidence and leave that call with the prescriber and parents jointly.