Write a total of 500 words to answer the three questions below.
Cite the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) or the DSM-5-TR (APA, 2022) to support your answers for
questions 1-3. Use APA referencing style throughout your response.
Question 1 (10 marks)
A friend of yours named Julian is a 32-year-old graphic designer. Julian has always been a
health conscious person. He eats a balanced diet, runs every morning, and rarely gets sick. He
has regular check-up appointments at the GP every year to make sure that his physical health
is in order. These check-ups are typically an unremarkable part of Julian’s yearly routine.
However, recently Julian has admitted to you that there is one thing that he dreads about
going to the doctor - the possibility that his GP will recommend that he have an injection or a
blood test. Julian tells you that he has a fear of needles.
Julian’s fear of needles can be traced back to a childhood memory. When he was 7 years old,
Julian saw his older brother faint after getting a vaccine. The sight of the needle, a few drops of
blood, and his brother’s pale face as he collapsed were enough to instil a strong fear of needles
in him. For most of Julian’s childhood, he would try everything that he could to avoid getting a
needle. For instance, if he knew that it was a vaccination day at school, he would make up an
excuse that he was unwell so that he could stay home. If he could not get out of the injection,
when he saw the nurse holding the needle, Julian’s heart would start to race, he would get
extremely sweaty, feel like the room was spinning, and would burst into tears. On one occasion,
Julian even fainted at the sight of a needle.
However as Julian became an adult, while his fear of needles remained, he felt that he was
more in control of his fear. Every time his doctor recommended a needle, Julian would still feel
nervous--his heart would race, his palms would sweat, and his breathing rate would increase.
However, he had discovered some strategies that allowed him to get through the procedure
without feeling overwhelmed: he would look away from the injection site, and try to make
conversation with the Nurse or Doctor giving the injection in order to distract himself. Getting a
needle was still unpleasant for Julian, but he felt confident that he was able to get through it,
and would no longer try to find ways to avoid needles.
Is Julian likely to have an anxiety disorder? Why or why not? Justify your answer and
give a diagnosis if you think it is appropriate. In your answer, explain how Julian’s
behaviours do or do not align with the DSM-5/DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for the
most relevant diagnosis.
Question 2 (10 marks)
Summer is a 24-year-old project manager working and living in a bustling city. Her friends and
colleagues know her for her sharp wit and strong organisational skills. However, a hidden
aspect of her life that few are aware of is her profound fear of frogs.
This phobia began during a childhood vacation to a family friend’s farm. One night, Summer
woke up in shock to a frog that had jumped into her bed while she was sleeping. She can still
recall waking up to the slimy sensation of the amphibian landing on her arm. Ever since that
moment, Summer has been terribly afraid of frogs. For the rest of her childhood, she refused to
go back to the family friend’s farm, and if ever she saw a frog in a picture or video, she would
feel a rush of fear through her body and have a panic attack.
Now that Summer is an adult and living in a big city, the likelihood of her encountering a frog
is minimal, but if anything, the fear has been getting worse. For Summer, rainstorms are a
nightmare. Not because she fears getting wet or the thunder and lightning, but because she
fears that frogs might venture from wherever they're hiding into urban areas. After any
substantial rainfall, Summer would either take leave from work or insist on working remotely,
as she was worried about possibly encountering a frog on her commute.
She has also stopped visiting parks or gardens, places she once loved, to minimise the chances
of an encounter with a frog. Friends have found her behaviour increasingly perplexing. She
declined an invitation to a close friend’s baby shower that was held in a park because she
feared that she might see a frog there. This caused a major rift in the friendship.
Recently, Summer's manager has started to take note of her change in behaviour. She declined
a lucrative project because it required site visits to areas she deemed "high-risk" for frog
encounters, a decision that baffled her superiors. She has also started avoiding team-building
retreats if they're anywhere close to natural bodies of water. In a recent performance review
meeting, her manager told her that she was starting to question whether Summer was
committed to her job. Summer was told that she would not be considered for future
opportunities and promotions if she continued to turn down big projects and avoid workplace
activities. Summer wanted to explain her situation to her manager, but was worried that her
fears would not be understood.
Is Summer likely to have an anxiety disorder? Why or why not? Justify your answer and
give a diagnosis if you think it is appropriate. In your answer, explain how Summer’s
behaviours do or do not align with the DSM-5/DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for the
most relevant diagnosis.
Question 3 (5 marks)
Compare and contrast the experiences of Julian and Summer regarding their specific
fears. Based on the DSM-5/DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for the most relevant
diagnosis, which specific criteria are most crucial in differentiating Julian’s experiences
from Summer’s? How does this inform your decision regarding a potential diagnosis
for each individual?
IMPORTANT: Use of Generative AI
You are permitted to use generative AI tools such as Grammarly, Notion AI, ChatGPT, etc., to
directly suggest readability improvements to your text in terms of grammar and expression.
However, you are not permitted to use generative AI tools for any other purpose. If you
choose to use generative AI tools, this must be appropriately acknowledged. You should do
this by inserting a note at the end of your submission where you need to describe the AI
tool(s) that you used, what you used it to do, what prompt(s) you provided, and how the
output of the artificial intelligence was used or adapted by you. This additional description
does not add to your word count. For example, an appropriate acknowledgement would
look like this:
“I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/) to refine the academic
language of my own work. On I submitted my entire draft response (document here>) with the prompt to . The output () was
then modified further to better represent my own tone and style of writing.“
Do not post confidential, private, personal, or otherwise sensitive information into these
tools. If you use these tools, you must be aware of their limitations, biases, and propensity
for fabrication. Your use of AI tools must adhere to the Student Charter 2020, including
upholding honesty, ethics, professionalism, and academic integrity. Ultimately, you are 100%
responsible for your assessment submission.
Marking Rubric
Questions 1 & 2 (10 marks each):
Evaluative
criteria
High Distinction 85-
100%
Distinction
75-84%
Credit
65-74%
Pass
50-64%
Fail
0-49%
Application of
theoretical
understanding of
normal anxiety
and anxiety
disorders to
provide an
appropriate
diagnosis
(40% of mark)
Exceptional application of
theoretical knowledge of
normal anxiety and anxiety
disorders to case vignette,
generating original
insights. Provides an
accurate diagnosis (if
appropriate), with a clear
line of reasoning behind
the choice. Demonstrates a
high level of adaptability
and versatility.
Very good application of
theoretical knowledge of
normal anxiety and
anxiety disorders to case
vignette, showing ability
to generate new
understanding. Provides
an accurate diagnosis (if
appropriate), backed by
coherent reasoning.
Demonstrates
adaptability and
versatility.
Good application of
theoretical knowledge of
normal anxiety and anxiety
disorders to case vignette.
Diagnosis is provided with a
basic line of reasoning,
which may have some minor
gaps or be slightly
ambiguous. May be minor
errors in choice of diagnosis.
Demonstrates some level of
adaptability, but may
struggle when situations are
more complex.

Acceptable ability to apply
theoretical knowledge of
normal anxiety and anxiety
disorders to case vignette,
but may struggle with
unfamiliar situations.
Diagnosis is given with
minimal reasoning which
may not cover all facets of
the decision or may be
somewhat unclear. May be
minor errors in choice of
diagnosis. Limited evidence
of adaptability
Fails to apply theoretical
understanding of normal
anxiety and anxiety
disorders effectively.
Major errors in choice of
diagnosis. The reasoning,
if present, is flawed or
incoherent, failing to
logically justify the chosen
diagnosis. Struggles to
adapt theoretical
knowledge when faced
with new or unfamiliar
situations
Analysis of case
vignette to
identify relevant
components of
behaviour and
relate them to
DSM-5 criteria
(40% of mark)
Exceptionally discerns and
articulates the components
of behaviour that relate to
DSM-5 criteria for anxiety
disorders. Demonstrates
depth by exploring
ambiguities or
complexities in the
vignette. Provides
insightful interpretations,
distinguishing effectively
between relevant and
Demonstrates a very
strong understanding of
the components of
behaviour that relate to
DSM-5 criteria for
anxiety disorders.
Interprets vignette
accurately and
distinguishes between
relevant and irrelevant
parts, while also
Good deconstruction of
behaviour into recognizable
components. Identifies some
patterns and relationships to
DSM-5 criteria for anxiety
disorders. Interprets vignette
reasonably accurately and
generally distinguishes
between relevant and
irrelevant parts.
Acceptable ability to break
down behaviour, identifying
some components and
patterns. Struggles with
vignette interpretation and
distinguishing between
relevant and irrelevant
parts.
Does not effectively break
down behaviour. Unable
to identify patterns or
relationships to DSM-5
criteria and struggles with
interpreting vignette. Fails
to distinguish between
relevant and irrelevant
parts.
irrelevant parts of the case
vignette.
identifying potential
areas of ambiguity.
Writing
(20% of mark)
The writing demonstrates
a deep understanding of
the audience, purpose, and
context, with appropriate
style, voice, and language.
The writing is clear,
cohesive, and organized,
allowing readers to easily
follow the flow of ideas.
The writing effectively
communicates according
to audience, purpose,
and context, using
appropriate style, voice,
and language. The
writing is clear and
cohesive allowing the
easy flow of ideas.
The writing effectively
communicates according to
audience, purpose, and
context, using appropriate
style, voice, and language.
The writing is clear and
cohesive, with occasional
inconsistencies.
The writing demonstrates
some understanding of
audience, purpose, and
context, with mostly
appropriate style, voice, and
language. Inconsistencies in
style, voice, language, and
organization hinder the
flow of ideas.
The writing lacks
understanding of
audience, purpose, and
context, with
inappropriate style, voice,
and language. The thesis
is unclear, weak, or
absent, and lacks clarity,
cohesiveness, and
organization, making it
difficult to follow the flow
of ideas.
Question 3 (5 Marks):
Evaluative
criteria
High Distinction 85-
100%
Distinction
75-84%
Credit
65-74%
Pass
50-64%
Fail
0-49%
Ability to analyse the
experiences of Julian
and Summer in
context of their
fears, use DSM-5
diagnostic criteria
for understanding,
identify crucial
differentiating
factors, and make an
Provides a nuanced and
insightful comparison of
Julian's and Summer's
experiences, drawing out
subtle distinctions and
parallels. Demonstrates an
expert-level understanding
of the DSM-5 diagnostic
criteria and aptly relates it
to the individuals'
experiences. Pinpoints and
Demonstrates a strong
comparison between
Julian and Summer,
capturing major elements
of their experiences.
Shows a clear
understanding of the
DSM-5 diagnostic criteria
and how it relates to the
described behaviours.
Identifies the key DSM-5
Provides a good basic
comparison between Julian
and Summer's fears, missing
some finer points.
Demonstrates a general
understanding of DSM-5
diagnostic criteria but may
show minor
misinterpretations. Mentions
some differences in
behaviour relating to DSM-5
Offers a rudimentary
comparison between
Julian and Summer,
missing out on
significant aspects of
their experiences.
Displays a limited grasp
of the DSM-5 diagnostic
criteria with potential
inaccuracies. Struggles to
pinpoint the most
Fails to effectively
compare and contrast
Julian’s and Summer's
experiences. Lacks
understanding or
makes significant
errors in the
application of the
DSM-5 diagnostic
criteria. Misses out on
identifying
informed diagnostic
decision.
(80% of mark)
elaborates on the most
crucial DSM-5 criteria
differentiating the two.
Draws well-informed,
nuanced conclusions based
on the analysis to make
potential diagnoses,
showcasing a high degree
of analytical judgement.
criteria that differentiates
Julian's experiences from
Summer's, with minimal
oversight. Provides
informed conclusions and
presents potential
diagnoses with justified
reasoning.
criteria, but may miss crucial
differences. Reasoning
behind diagnostic choices
may not be fully fleshed out.
relevant differentiating
criteria. Attempts to
conclude with a potential
diagnosis but lacks clear
or accurate reasoning.
differentiating criteria.
Unable to provide a
coherent diagnosis or
reasoning behind a
diagnostic decision.
Writing
(20% of mark)
The writing demonstrates a
deep understanding of the
audience, purpose, and
context, with appropriate
style, voice, and language.
The writing is clear,
cohesive, and organized,
allowing readers to easily
follow the flow of ideas.
The writing effectively
communicates according
to audience, purpose, and
context, using appropriate
style, voice, and language.
The writing is clear and
cohesive allowing the easy
flow of ideas.
The writing effectively
communicates according to
audience, purpose, and
context, using appropriate
style, voice, and language.
The writing is clear and
cohesive, with occasional
inconsistencies.
The writing
demonstrates some
understanding of
audience, purpose, and
context, with mostly
appropriate style, voice,
and language.
Inconsistencies in style,
voice, language, and
organization hinder the
flow of ideas.
The writing lacks
understanding of
audience, purpose, and
context, with
inappropriate style,
voice, and language.
The thesis is unclear,
weak, or absent, and
lacks clarity,
cohesiveness, and
organization, making it
difficult to follow the
flow of ideas.