Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists.
For PROF Tutor
Develop an 8- to 10-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation with detailed speaker notes on the selection process of a culture-neutral assessment. Include examples of when culture-biased assessments have been problematic.
This can be in word form I will make the powerpoint I coped chapter 12 so you can find the info you need.
Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Standards on Assessment
9. Assessment
9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic
or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient
to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and
Professional Judgments.)
Psychological assessment serves the public good by providing information to
guide decisions affecting the well-being of individuals, families, groups, organizations,
and institutions. Psychologists who draw their conclusions on information
and techniques based on the scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline
are uniquely qualified to interpret the results of psychological assessments in ways
that merit the public trust. However, the public and the profession are harmed
when psychologists provide opinions unsubstantiated by information obtained or
drawn from data gathered through improper assessment techniques (Principle A:
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence and Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility).
Standard 9.01a of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2010c) prohibits psychologists from
providing written or oral opinions that cannot be sufficiently substantiated by the
information obtained or the techniques employed.
The standard is broadly worded to apply to all written and oral professional
opinions irrespective of information recipient, setting, or type of assessment.
Information Recipient
The standard prohibits unfounded professional opinions offered to, among others,
(a) individual clients/patients or their representatives; (b) other professionals;
HMO
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
268——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
(c) third-party payors; (d) administrative and professional staff at schools, hospitals,
and other institutions; (e) businesses, agencies, and other organizations; (f) the
courts; (g) the military or other governing legal authorities; and (h) callers to talk
radio programs or those interacting with psychologists via the Internet or through
other media.
Setting
Standard 9.01a applies to (a) diagnostic opinions offered orally in the office of a
private practitioner; (b) written reports provided to clients/patients, other practitioners,
or third-party payors through the mail, the Internet, or other forms of
electronic transmission; (c) testimony provided in the courts; and (d) opinions
about an individual’s mental health offered over the Internet, radio, television, or
other electronic media.
Types of Assessment
The standard pertains to all unfounded opinions claiming to be based on any
form of evaluation, including but not limited to (a) standardized psychological,
educational, or neuropsychological tests; (b) diagnostic information gained
through clinical interviews; (c) collateral data obtained through discussions with
family members, teachers, employee supervisors, or other informants; (d) observational
techniques; or (e) brief discussion or correspondence with an individual via
radio, television, telephone, or the Internet.
Violations of this standard are often related to failure to comply with other standards,
including Standards 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments;
9.01b, Bases for Assessments; and 9.02b, Use of Assessments. The following are
examples of opinions based on insufficient information or techniques that would
be considered violations under this standard:
Testifying on the validity of a child abuse allegation based on the results of an idiosyncratic,
improperly constructed parent checklist of child behaviors
Diagnosing an adult with impaired decisional capacity as developmentally disabled
without taking a developmental history
Providing preemployment recommendations on the basis of a personality test with no
proven relationship to job performance
Submitting a diagnosis of neurological impairment to a health insurance company
based solely on information derived during therapy sessions
Informing parents that their preschooler is autistic on the basis of a single observational
session
Recommending a child for special education placement solely on the basis of scores
on a standardized intelligence test
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chapter 12 Standards on Assessment——269
Psychologists who knowingly provide unsubstantiated opinions in forensic,
school, or insurance reports fail to live up to the ideals of Principle C: Integrity
and may also find themselves in violation of Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False
or Deceptive Statements (see Hot Topic “Avoiding False and Deceptive Statements
in Scientific and Clinical Expert Testimony,” Chapter 8). However, psychologists
should also be alert to personal and professional biases that may affect their
choice and interpretation of instruments. For example, in a survey of forensic
experts testifying in cases of child sexual abuse allegations, Everson and Sandoval
(2011) found that evaluator disagreements could be explained, in part, by individual
differences in three forensic decision-making attitudes: (1) emphasis on
sensitivity, (2) emphasis on specificity, and (3) skepticism toward child reports
of abuse.
(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics
of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate
to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination
is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those
efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity
of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations.
(See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting
Assessment Results.)
Standard 9.01b specifically addresses the importance of in-person evaluations
of individuals about whom psychologists will offer a professional opinion.
Under this standard, with few exceptions, psychologists must conduct individual
examinations sufficient to obtain personal verification of information on which
to base their professional opinions and refrain from providing opinions about
the psychological characteristics of an individual if they themselves have not
conducted an examination of the individual adequate to support their statements
or conclusions. As video conferencing and other electronically mediated
sources of video communication become increasingly common, appropriately
conducted assessments via these media may meet the requirements of this standard
if the psychologist has had the appropriate preparatory training and the
validity of the video methods of assessment has been scientifically and clinically
established for use with members of the population tested (Standards 2.01e,
Boundaries of Competence; 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgment;
9.02, Use of Assessments).
Offering a diagnosis of PTSD based on a 5-minute discussion with a listener to a radio
program hosted by the psychologist
Offering a diagnosis of bipolar disorder based on an individual’s comments on the
psychologist’s blog
Prescribing a psychotropic medication to an elderly patient complaining of memory
lapses without conducting a neuropsychological assessment
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
270——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
Standard 9.01b also recognizes that in some cases, a personal examination may
not be possible. For example, an individual involved in a child custody suit, a disability
claim, or performance evaluation may refuse or, because of relocation or
other reasons, be unavailable for a personal examination. The standard requires
that psychologists make “reasonable efforts” to conduct a personal examination.
Efforts that would not be considered reasonable in the prevailing professional judgment
of psychologists engaged in similar activities would be considered a violation
of this standard. Consider the following two examples of potential violations:
A psychologist testified about a parent’s psychological fitness for visitation rights,
drawing his opinion solely from comments made by the child and divorced spouse in
the absence of an individual examination of the parent.
A psychologist contracted by an insurance company to evaluate an individual’s mental
health as part of a current disability claim provided an opinion based solely on
job performance evaluations written by the insured’s immediate supervisors and
diagnostic information collected by another psychologist prior to the incident cited
in the claim.
A psychologist working in a correctional facility who was asked to recommend
whether a prison guard’s mental status was a risk to prisoner protections did not
personally examine the guard but instead gave an opinion based on reports by facility
administrators, staff, and prisoners.
A psychologist was contracted by a prison to evaluate the job potential of guards
hired for a probationary period. Without conducting an individual interview, the psychologist
wrote a report concluding that emotional instability of one job candidate
made him ineligible for full-time employment. The psychologist justified the lack of a
personal examination on the fact that several coworkers claimed the guard was too
dangerous to interview.
A psychologist hired by the attorney of a husband engaged in a custody suit provided
court testimony on the wife’s parenting inadequacies without having interviewed her
personally. The psychologist claimed that the wife did not respond to the psychologist’s
letter requesting the interview. On cross-examination, it was revealed that the
letter written by the psychologist included the following language seemingly designed
to discourage agreement to be examined: “I have reason to believe from interviews
with your spouse and an examination of your children that you are responsible for the
children’s current mental health problems and would like to conduct an examination
to confirm or dispute these assumptions.”
When, despite reasonable efforts, a personal interview is not feasible, under
Standard 9.01b, psychologists in their written or oral opinions must document and
explain the results of their efforts, clarify the probable impact that the failure to
personally examine an individual may have on the reliability and validity of their
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chapter 12 Standards on Assessment——271
opinions, and appropriately limit their conclusions or recommendations to information
they can personally verify. For example:
(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an
individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this
and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.
This standard applies to those assessment-related activities for which an individual
examination is not warranted or necessary for the psychological opinion.
Such activities include record or file reviews where psychologists are called on to
review preexisting records and reports to assist or evaluate decisions made by
schools, courts, health insurance companies, organizations, or other psychologists
they supervise or with whom they consult. Record reviews can be performed to (a)
determine whether a previously conducted assessment was appropriate or sufficient;
(b) evaluate the appropriateness of treatment, placement, employment, or
the continuation of benefits based on the previously gathered information and
reports; (c) adjudicate a disability or professional liability claim based on existing
records; or (d) resolve conflicts over the applicability of records to interpretations
of federal and state laws in administrative law or due process hearings
(Hadjistavropoulos & Bieling, 2001; Krivacska & Margolis, 1995).
Reviewers provide a monitoring function for the court or a function of forensic
quality control so the court will not be misled by expert testimony of evaluators that
is based on flawed data collection and/or analysis (Austin, Kirkpatrick, & Flens,
2011). According to Standard 9.01c, psychologists who provide such services must
clarify to the appropriate parties the source of the information on which the opinion
is based and why an individual interview conducted by the psychologist is not
necessary for the opinion.
Simply complying with this standard may not be sufficient for psychologists who
are in supervisory roles that carry legal responsibility for the conduct of assessments
by unlicensed supervisees or employees. In many of those instances, psychologists may
be directly responsible for ensuring that individuals are qualified to conduct the assessments
and do so competently (see Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others).
A court-appointed psychologist attempted to contact the biological parent of a child
currently in foster care to make recommendations regarding parental visitation. The
parent was no longer at the last known residence and had not left a forwarding
address. In testimony, the psychologist described the current mental health status of
the child, the child’s statements regarding the biological parent, and the observed
relationship between the child and foster parents. In referring to the biological parent,
the psychologist informed the court of efforts to contact the parent, described how
failure to interview the parent limited any conclusions that could be drawn regarding
the parent’s psychological characteristics and parenting competence, and clarified
that recommendations regarding visitation were based on the child’s attitudes, mental
health, and foster care arrangements.
HMO
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
272——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
Review of Data From Surreptitious
Investigative Recording
There are instances when forensic psychologists may be asked to evaluate past
mental states from audio or video recordings of a defendant’s behavior at the time
of the alleged offense or surreptitious recordings of a plaintiff ’s behavior in a personal
injury, insurance disability, or divorce case (Denney & Wynkoop, 2000).
Before agreeing to review such recordings, psychologists should make sure that the
surveillance information was obtained legally at the time it was recorded, that the
party requesting the psychologist’s evaluation has the legal right to share such
information, and that inadmissibility of such information will not compromise the
psychologist’s findings. Psychologists should also take reasonable steps to ascertain
that they have been provided with all legally available recordings and other available
information relevant to the forensic opinion. The psychologist’s oral testimony or
written report should clarify the source of the information and why an individual
examination is not warranted or necessary for the type of evaluation requested.
9.02 Use of Assessments
