Psychology Question

Overview

Diagnosis of a Fictional Character Project (Part 3): Rubric

Part 3: Final Reflection and Critique (75 points)

Due: Thursday November 13th at 11:59 p.m. (Week 12)

Revised Deadline: Thursday, November 20th at 11:59pm (Week 13)

Format: Submit as PDF or Word document in Blackboard (No electronic or other formats)

Length: 2-3 pages double spaced (4 pages is okay, anything less than 2 and more than 5

pages will receive a point deduction)

Assignment Overview

This is the final step of your semester-long project, where you will bring together your work

from Parts 1 and 2, refine your diagnosis, and evaluate how accurately your chosen media

portrayed mental health and psychological disorders. You will take on the role of both a

clinician (reviewing your diagnostic reasoning) and a media critic (evaluating the accuracy

of the representation).

Before writing, revisit your Part 2 feedback and make note of anything you may have

missed, misunderstood, or opportunities for more depth in your analysis. This insight

should inform your final diagnosis and strengthen your critique of how the media handled

the portrayal.

Your final reflection should demonstrate three things:

1. How your understanding of your character and diagnosis evolved since Part 1.

2. How accurately (or inaccurately) the media portrayed your chosen disorder.

3. Your awareness of limitations, assumptions, and real-world implications.

Writing Guidance

Your paper should include the following:

1. Final Diagnosis

State the diagnosis you now believe most closely fits your character. It is okay if the

portrayal did not provide enough information for your character to meet full criteria of the

disorder. Based on your analysis what would be the best fit? If your understanding has

changed since Part 2, explain why. It is okay if this information restates your summary from

part 2.

2. Media Portrayal Critique (Central focus)

This is the central focus of Part 3 and should take up the most space in your reflection.

Analyze how your character’s mental health, symptoms or disorder was portrayed in the

media by discussing:

Accuracy: Did the portrayal reflect realistic symptoms, causes, or treatments?

• Stereotypes: Were any harmful clichés or exaggerated traits present?

Omissions: What aspects of the disorder were missing or oversimplified?

Complexity: Did the media show nuance or a one-dimensional depiction?

Context: How did culture, gender, or social factors shape the portrayal?

Impact: How might this portrayal affect public understanding or stigma surrounding

this disorder?

Tip: You may briefly reference course concepts (e.g., the 4 D’s, the biopsychosocial

model, or symptom clusters) to strengthen your critique, but avoid writing another

diagnostic report or feeling the need to cite your reasoning. This is all about your own

interpretation and reflection.

3. Limitations of the portrayal

Briefly explain the challenges of diagnosing fictional characters:

What key information was missing from the media?

How did dramatization or storytelling influence your interpretation?

What limits exist when trying to apply DSM-5-TR criteria to fictional media?

4. Growth & Reflection

Reflect on how your understanding evolved throughout the project:

What did this project teach you about diagnosis or about media representation of

mental health overall?

AI Use Policy

No AI use is permitted for this section. The analysis, critique, and reflection must be entirely

your own work. Submissions using AI without disclosure will receive a zero and may be

reported as an academic integrity violation.

1. Media Portrayal Critique and Limitations /40 points

32–40 pts: Insightful, balanced, and specific critique. Accurately identifies

stereotypes, omissions, and accurate elements. Connects observations to class

concepts and builds upon your findings from part 2. Also discusses real-world

impact of portrayal.

20–31 pts: Clear and relevant critique with good examples; some missing nuance

or depth.

16–19 pts: Basic summary of accuracy/inaccuracy; limited analysis or connection

to course material.

0–15 pts: Minimal, vague, or missing critique.

2. Diagnostic Reasoning & Final Diagnosis /15 points

13-15 pts: Diagnosis is stated and reflects refined understanding since Part 2.

Acknowledges uncertainty but makes an accurate best guess given character

analysis

10-12 pts: Accurate but lacks detail or reflection on prior feedback.

7-9 pts: Some reasoning present but incomplete or unclear.

0–6 pts: Diagnosis missing, unsupported, 3. Growth & Reflection /15 points13-15 pts: Thoughtful and detailed reflection on growth since Part 1 and 2. Clearlydemonstrates learning throughout project.10-12 pts: Mentions growth but somewhat general or surface-level.7-9 pts: Vague or limited reflection.0–6 pts: Missing or minimal reflection.3. Clarity, Organization, & Effort /5 points5 pts: Writing is clear, professional, and organized. Work demonstrates effort andcareful integration of earlier project parts.4 pts: Mostly clear and organized; minor issues.3 pts: Some clarity or organization issues.0–2 pts: Disorganized or incomplete

feedback from pt 2 - I think you are off to a good start here! You primarily lost points for not fully completing major components of the assignment that were listed on the worksheet, and I am wondering if your choice to not complete the worksheet and instead write an essay contributed to this. For your part 3 submission I recommend focusing on the following: 1) make sure you are answering ALL parts of the assignment and addressing ALL aspects of each prompt. There are specific prompts listed for a reason and you will be graded on whether you answered each part and how well! 2) Highlight your thinking process - we aren't as focused on how accurate your diagnostic impression is, but we really want to see you thinking deeply and critically about these concepts. 3) Reach out for professor/TA support if you have questions!!!