A practical guide for psychologists.

/in /by

  • attachment

    for_prof_tutor.docx

    Save your time - order a paper!

    Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

    Order Paper Now

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. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists.

 

 

 

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. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists.

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. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists.

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.

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

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.