Physical assessment school age child

Details:
The needs of the pediatric patient differ depending on age, as do the stages of development and the expected assessment findings for each stage. In a 500-750-word paper, examine the needs of a school-aged child between the ages of 5 and 12 years old and discuss the following:

Compare the physical assessments among school-aged children. Describe how you would modify assessment techniques to match the age and developmental stage of the child.
Choose a child between the ages of 5 and 12 years old. Identify the age of the child and describe the typical developmental stages of children that age.
Applying developmental theory based on Erickson, Piaget, or Kohlberg, explain how you would developmentally assess the child. Include how you would offer explanations during the assessment, strategies you would use to gain cooperation, and potential findings from the assessment.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Developmental Assessment and the School-Aged Child
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00%3
Satisfactory
79.00%4
Good
89.00%5
Excellent
100.00%80.0 %Content 25.0 %Comparison of Physical Assessment Among School-Aged ChildrenA comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is omitted.An incomplete comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is summarized. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is omitted or contains significant inaccuracies.A general comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is summarized. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is generally described. More information or support is needed for clarity or accuracy.A comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is presented. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is described. Some information is needed for clarity.A detailed comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is presented. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is thoroughly described. Insight is demonstrated into the physical assessment of school age children.25.0 %Typical Assessment for a Child of a Specific AgeThe typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is not described. The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is summarized. The summary contains significant inaccuracies for the age of the child. The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is generally described. The description contains some inaccuracies for the age of the child.The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is described. The overall description is accurate. Some information is needed for clarity.The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is accurately and thoroughly described. 30.0 %Developmental Assessment of a Child Using a Developmental Theory (Erickson, Piaget, Kohlberg)A child assessment based on a developmental theory is omitted.A child assessment based on a developmental theory is partially summarized. Partial strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are omitted or are incorrect. There are significant inaccuracies.A child assessment based on a developmental theory is generally described. General strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are summarized. There are minor inaccuracies.A child assessment based on a developmental theory is described. Appropriate strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are described. Some information is needed for clarity.A child assessment based on a developmental theory is thoroughly described. Well-developed strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are all accurate and described in detail.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Thesis Development and PurposePaper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Argument Logic and ConstructionStatement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.15.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.5.0 %Format 2.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.All format elements are correct. 5.0 %Format 3.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)Sources are not documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.100 %Total Weightage