NR-606 Week 2 handles the fact that shapes almost every chart in this population: the history usually arrives from somebody other than the patient. A parent, a guardian, a teacher, a partner or a case worker is describing what they saw, and the second stage of an eight-week session is where you learn to write that account as attributed evidence with its own reliability rather than as fact. Your section may print this as NR 606 or NR606; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog arc; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR-606 Week 2 asks for
The territory is source management. Every sentence in a subjective section has an author, and a write-up that blurs them costs a reader the ability to judge anything. The skill has three parts: attributing each observation to the person who made it, describing the conditions under which each informant sees the patient, and saying what you did when two informants disagreed. A parent sees mornings, bedtimes and weekends. A teacher sees a structured six hours with thirty other children in the room. Neither is more truthful, and the difference between them is often the most informative thing in the chart.
The second demand is weighting. Reliability here is not about honesty. It is about vantage point, recency, what the informant was in a position to observe, and what they came into the room hoping to hear. A caregiver worried about a school referral and a caregiver worried about medication will describe the same child differently, and naming that context is analysis rather than commentary, provided you keep it descriptive.
At this point in an eight-week session the deliverable is usually a history-focused write-up or an assessment with a collateral component, three to five pages, sometimes with a posted response. The practicum boundary continues: your clinical hours, log, preceptor forms and signed documentation stay yours alone, and obtaining collateral happens inside your setting's consent rules. If your section runs a discussion this week, draft it outside the classroom, because a posted response cannot be edited once it is in.
The NR-606 Week 2 method, step by step
Six moves that turn several accounts of one patient into a single readable history.
-
List your informants and their vantage points first
Who provided history, in what role, over what period, and in what settings they see the patient. That short list at the top of the subjective section tells the reader how to weigh everything below it, and it takes three lines.
-
Attribute inside the sentence, not in a header
The mother reported, the teacher described, the patient denied. A section labeled collateral at the top and then written in an unowned voice loses attribution by the third paragraph. Keeping the source in the sentence is what makes the history auditable.
-
Ask each informant for behavior, not conclusions
What does it look like, how often, for how long, what happens right before, what happens after. Difficult and defiant are conclusions. Refuses to start written work and leaves the desk after two minutes is a behavior you can measure and later treat.
-
Put disagreements on the page as findings
Where accounts conflict, write both, say which you weighted and why, and name what would settle it. Conflict between home and school reports is itself diagnostic information in this population, and a paper that smooths it away has thrown data out.
-
Get the patient's own account at whatever level they can give it
Even a young child can report what they like, what they hate, what happens at school, whether they sleep. An adolescent's account is primary, not supplementary. Record it in their words and mark clearly where it differs from the collateral.
-
Say what the collateral changed
Close the section with one sentence naming the decision that moved because of information you would not otherwise have had. That converts collateral from a box checked into evidence used, which is what the assessment rows are pricing.
A layout and word budget for a multi-source history
Below is the drafting frame our tutors use for a collateral-heavy history, sized for roughly 1,300 to 1,500 words. It is our own outline rather than anything the university issues, and your week's rubric outranks it wherever the two disagree. Scale each target proportionally if your assigned length differs.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Informants and vantage points | Role, relationship, how long they have known the patient, and the settings in which they observe. | 110 to 140 |
| Presenting concern by source | The concern as each informant states it, in their own framing, before you reconcile anything. | 200 to 240 |
| Behavioral detail | Frequency, duration, antecedents and consequences for the two or three behaviors that matter most. | 250 to 300 |
| The patient's own account | What the patient said, at their developmental level, recorded in their words. | 180 to 220 |
| Convergence and conflict | Where accounts agree, where they diverge, how you weighted them, and what would resolve the difference. | 280 to 330 |
| What the collateral changed | The specific decision or differential shift that the outside information produced. | 120 to 150 |
Evidence craft for multi-informant assessment
Cross-informant agreement is modest, and that is a documented finding. When you report a discrepancy, you can support the general point with the literature on informant agreement rather than treating the disagreement as a local oddity. Name the source and the population it studied.
Rating scales have informant-specific versions for a reason. If you cite a parent form and a teacher form of the same instrument, treat them as separate measures with separate norms. Comparing raw scores across forms without saying what you are doing is a technical error that a specialty reader will catch.
Report the setting a behavioral finding came from. A behavior observed in one setting and absent in another is a different claim from a behavior observed everywhere, and the distinction carries diagnostic weight in this population. Put the setting in the sentence with the finding.
Keep consent and access out of the assertions. Say only what you actually had access to. If a school report was described to you rather than read by you, write that. A history that quietly upgrades secondhand summaries into primary documents is the kind of inaccuracy that matters past the grade.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- An unattributed subjective section. History written in a single anonymous voice leaves the reader unable to weigh anything, and it is the most common structural fault in this genre.
- Conclusions recorded as observations. Manipulative, lazy and oppositional are interpretations. The rows want the behavior that produced the interpretation.
- Disagreement resolved silently. Choosing one account without saying you chose, or why, discards the most informative material in the file.
- The patient's voice missing entirely. Even where collateral dominates, an absent patient account reads as an assessment done about someone rather than with them.
- Collateral gathered and never used. If no decision in the paper depends on the outside information, the section was decoration.
Before you submit
- Every informant is named by role with their vantage point stated
- Attribution appears inside sentences rather than only in a heading
- Key behaviors carry frequency, duration and what precedes and follows them
- At least one disagreement between sources is reported and weighed
- The patient's own account appears at their developmental level
- Every reference appears in the text and every in-text citation appears in the list
Writing a collateral history for NR-606?
Send the case and the rubric from Canvas. A premium original draft comes back in 24 to 48 hours with sources attributed, conflicts weighed and behaviors written in measurable terms, and revisions run until the grade lands.