| Course | DNRS 6800 Advanced Pediatric Development and Behavior |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two peer replies |
| Length | About 510 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNRS 6800 Week 5
Week 5 Discussion: Initial Post
Stuttering at 3: Why I Would Refer Today Rather Than Watch Until the Next Visit
The strongest case for watching deserves to go first. Most young children who begin to stutter stop without treatment, and epidemiological work supports high rates of natural recovery in the preschool years (Yairi & Ambrose, 2013). Referring every child at onset would fill speech-language pathology waiting lists with children who would have recovered anyway and worry families unnecessarily.
My own position, for the composite 3-year-old girl in my case, is to refer today. The reasoning is tied to what has been seen twice and what has changed. She began to stutter at 2 years 10 months. At the first visit, her disfluencies were easy repetitions of whole words and parts of words, with no visible effort. Four months later, at today's visit, the repetitions are still there, and she now has blocks on the first sound of a word, with visible tension around her mouth and eye blinking as she pushes through them. Her father stuttered as a child. Duration beyond several months, physical tension and accompanying behaviors, and a family history are the features that make a watching strategy less comfortable.
The cost of waiting has to be counted in access, not only in clinical risk. In our region, the wait for a pediatric speech-language pathology assessment is about 5 months. Waiting 3 months to recheck and then referring means she would be seen about 8 months from now, when she is nearly 4. Families and clinicians describe such waits as lost time, with children's difficulties and family worry growing while they wait (McGill et al., 2020). The developmental window matters too: in a randomized trial of the Lidcombe Program in children aged 3 to 6, early treatment reduced stuttering compared with no treatment over the study period (Jones et al., 2005). Referring now does not commit her to treatment; the assessing clinician can still recommend monitoring, but the waiting will be done in the queue rather than before it.
The single fact that would flip my decision is the wait time. If assessment were available within a few weeks, I would recheck in 6 weeks and refer then only if the tension and blocks persisted, because the cost of waiting would be measured in weeks rather than most of a year.
Reply to Samantha
Samantha, you chose to watch your 3-year-old for 6 months because most children recover, which is the best argument for watching. Your case, though, describes stuttering that started 8 months ago and now includes sound prolongations. Given how long it has lasted already, would the natural recovery figures still apply to him in the same way?
Reply to Tyler
Tyler, we reached the same decision, but I am not persuaded by the reason you gave, that the parents are anxious. Parental worry matters, yet it is not in itself a reason to refer. Would you still refer if the stuttering had no tension and the parents were calm? If so, what feature of the child is carrying your decision?
References
Jones, M., Onslow, M., Packman, A., Williams, S., Ormond, T., Schwarz, I., & Gebski, V. (2005). Randomised controlled trial of the Lidcombe programme of early stuttering intervention. BMJ, 331(7518), 659-661. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38520.451840.E0
McGill, N., Crowe, K., & McLeod, S. (2020). "Many wasted months": Stakeholders' perspectives about waiting for speech-language pathology services. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(3), 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1747541
Yairi, E., & Ambrose, N. (2013). Epidemiology of stuttering: 21st century advances. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 38(2), 66-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2012.11.002
DNRS 6800 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 5 thread in DNRS 6800 often poses a decision in pediatric development, such as whether to refer, screen or wait, and asks you to take and justify a position. Doctoral sections reward a clear stance supported by evidence and an honest account of the opposing view. Cite primary research or clinical guidance in APA 7. The initial post usually runs a few hundred words and appears by midweek, with two replies later in the week. Each reply should engage the classmate's reasoning, and disagreement backed by evidence is welcome. Some instructors give a case; others ask you to build one. Name the factors that tip the decision. The case in the example is a 3-year-old, but the same structure works for a toddler with late talking or a preschooler with unclear speech. Keep the post to one child and one decision.
How this DNRS 6800 Week 5 example is built
The post begins by granting the strongest version of the position it will not take, in two sentences, without irony. Only then does it state its own. What follows is a short chain of reasoning tied to a specific described presentation: what has been seen twice, what has changed since the last contact, and what the cost of waiting looks like measured in access to services rather than in clinical risk alone. One source supports the wait time claim and one supports the developmental window claim. The post ends by naming the single fact that would flip the writer's decision. Two replies follow, one to a classmate who chose differently and one to a classmate who chose the same way for a reason the writer thinks is weak.
Where the marks sit in the DNRS 6800 Week 5 rubric
In a decision thread the rubric row for taking a position is usually easy points that get thrown away by posts written as balanced summaries. The example holds it by committing in one sentence and never softening it later. A second row asks for support, and support here means a source attached to the contested claim rather than a general reference at the foot. Marks slide when a post argues the general case for early identification, which every classmate has also argued, instead of the specific presentation the prompt described. They slide further on replies that restate the classmate's post before adding a sentence of agreement. Where a section grades the posting window separately, a strong post submitted late still loses that row on its own.
DNRS 6800 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Decision threads lose easy points when the post becomes a balanced summary of both options. Take a position in the first paragraph. Another mistake is ignoring the strongest argument against your view; stating it fairly makes your choice more convincing. Writers also cite recovery statistics without noting the risk factors that lower the chance of recovery. Name them. Avoid treatment details beyond what supports the decision. In replies, disagree where you can, politely and with a source. Check that author names and years for the stuttering literature match the reference list. Another weakness is a post that never says what referral involves or how long the family might wait. Mention what a speech language pathologist would do first. Writers sometimes also forget the parents' worry, which is itself a reason to act. Keep replies short enough that the point stands out.
Get a DNRS 6800 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 5 prompt, the described scenario your section posted, and the rubric, and the desk writes a thread post that argues from your scenario rather than this one. Nothing is charged for the first custom sample, it returns in 24-48 hours, and it comes with the replies drafted alongside the initial post.
More DNRS 6800 papers and DNP samples
- DNRS 6800 Week 1: Discussion Post
- DNRS 6800 Week 2: Observation Write-Up
- DNRS 6800 Week 3: Milestone Analysis
- DNRS 6800 Week 4: Behavior Log Analysis
- DNRS 6800 Week 6: Case formulation
- DNRS 6800 Week 7: Family interview write-up
- DNRS 6800 Week 8: Referral letter
- DNRS 6800 Week 9: Discussion post
- DNRS 6800 Week 10: Parent guidance plan
- DNRS 6800 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 8002 Week 5: DNP problem statement
- DNRS 6630 Week 5: Discussion Post
- NURS 8003 Week 5: Self-assessment paper
- DNRS 6211 Week 5: Cost-Benefit Analysis
DNRS 6800 Week 5 questions, answered
Does it matter which side the post takes?
Not to the rubric, which pays for a defended position rather than a correct one. What costs points is refusing to choose, or choosing and then hedging the choice back to neutral by the last paragraph. The example picks referral, argues it from the described presentation, and states openly what would have made it choose otherwise.
Is Week 5 always a decision thread?
Sections vary and Walden posts no public schedule, so treat this as the typical shape rather than a fixed title. Around the middle of a course like this, threads commonly shift from describing development to deciding something about it. Your prompt names the actual question, and the example adapts to whatever concern your section put on the table.
Should replies disagree with classmates?
Disagreement is not required, but adding something is. The two replies in the example both bring evidence the original post did not have, one by opposing the classmate and one by strengthening a shared position that had been argued weakly. Either move satisfies an extension row. Agreement with nothing attached to it does not, in any classroom we have seen.
Where can I find a free DNRS 6800 Week 5 sample paper?
The stuttering referral post is shown here with replies to Samantha and Tyler and margin notes on how it states the opposing case before deciding.
Should a 3-year-old who stutters be referred in DNRS 6800 Week 5?
The example argues for referral now when stuttering has lasted months, runs in the family or is distressing the child, while acknowledging many preschoolers recover on their own.