STEP 1: Read the following article: https://isom.ca/article/micronutrient-deficiencies-adhd-global-research-consensus/.
Respond to the following questions in short paragraphs.
- Briefly summarize ADHD including the prevalence, symptoms, diagnostic criteria, and costs of treatment.
- Select two dietary and nutrition-related factors that influence symptoms and discuss how they can be used as treatments.
- Identify the goals of personalized, integrative treatments of nutritional psychiatric practices.
STEP 2: Research a scientific journal article that evaluates treatment methods for children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Include the link to your article in your submission. Respond to the following questions:
- Briefly summarize the neurodevelopmental disorder mentioned in the article and the traditional treatments.
- Summarize the key points of your article. Specify and describe the specific treatment(s) of focus. What theoretical perspective is the treatment based on (biological, psychoanalytic, behavioral, etc)?
- What is the efficacy of the treatment? What are the beneficial and potentially harmful short and long effects of the medication or treatment?
STEP 3: In a paragraph, respond to the following question:
- Is it safe and ethical to treat children who have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder with pharmaceutical drugs? Why?
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent | Proficient | Needs Improvement | Points |
| Part 1: Response questions to ADHD article | Responded to all three questions thoroughly and clearly. Response included accurate information written cohesively and with little to no grammatical and structural errors. | Responded to all three questions adequately, but writing was a little confusing or unclear. Information was mostly accurate, but contained several grammatical and structural errors. | Did not respond to each question accurately or thoroughly. Writing was unclear and contained many grammatical and structural errors. | __/5 |
| Part 2: Research article and question responses | Research article was from a credible, scientific source and contained relevant and valid information. Responded to all questions thoroughly, accurately, and cohesively with little to no grammatical and structural errors. Link to the article was included. | Research article was adequate and came from a legitimate source. Responses to questions were mostly accurate, but contained some confusion or unclarity. There were few grammatical and structural errors. Link to the article was included. | Research article was not relevant or credible. Questions were not responded to accurately or thoroughly. Writing contained many grammatical and structural errors. Link to the article was not included. | __/6 |
| Part 3: Response to ethics question | Responded to the question thoroughly and clearly. Response included accurate information written cohesively and with little to no grammatical and structural errors. Response was carefully thought out and contained critical thinking. | Responded to the question adequately, but writing was a little confusing or unclear. Information was mostly accurate, but contained several grammatical and structural errors. | Did not respond to the question accurately or thoroughly. Writing was unclear and contained many grammatical and structural errors. | __/6 |
| Overall quality | All three parts were completed thoroughly and accurately. Paragraphs were cohesive and sentences were well formed and thought out. | All three parts were completed satisfactorily and contained mostly accurate and relevant information. Paragraphs and sentences were clear, but contained few errors. | All of the parts were not completed, and what was completed contained many errors, confusion, and irrelevant information. Many grammatical and structural errors. | __/3 |
| Total: | __/20 |
