PSY356 discussion board Ethic
Learning Goal: I’m working on a psychology writing question and need support to help me learn.
For each discussion board, you are expected to use the information from the chapter to guide your responses. That means including a reference to the readings and/or videos in your responses.
Which of the following ethics violations bothers you most. Why? To receive full credit you will need to write a quality post AND respond to TWO other student’s posts. Each post (original and replies) should be at least 5 complete and meaningful sentences.
Scenario 1: Mother Accused of Killing Daughter
A university professor offered his clinical psychology graduate students to the district attorneys office to evaluate defendants, which gave the students valuable but unpaid experience and saved the prosecutor s office thousands of dollars. In a case in which a mother was accused of killing her 4-year-old daughter, tests administered by one of these students were reported by the media as likely to help seal a first-degree murder conviction.
- When deposed, however, the student testified that she had been unsupervised and that the Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition MMPI-2 she had administered was the first with which she had any experience.
- She also testified that she had been told by her professor to change some of the answers on the MMPI-2 based on the fact that the test had been administered in prison.
- The prosecutor’s office claimed ignorance of students having been sent alone to conduct evaluations on first-degree murder cases. Nevertheless, as a result of this incident, eight other first-degree murder cases came under review, with one defense attorney claiming that the psychological testing had been critical in her client s accepting a guilty plea instead of proceeding with a jury trial, and the prosecutor s office discontinued its use of student examiners.
- As for the professor, he said subsequently that it was all a misunderstanding and that the student had become flustered during her deposition and made some misleading statements. However, he did not dispute the production of an altered MMPI-2 answer sheet. The ethical misconduct in this case requires no further comment.
Scenario 2: Submitting False Assessment
A psychologist was asked by the attorney representing a father in a child custody dispute to review a report summarizing an evaluation of him that was prepared by a psychologist retained by the mother’s attorney. The reviewing psychologist was initially impressed with the quality of the examining psychologist s report, which included sufficient language to justify casting numerous aspersions on the quality of this father s character. On closer inspection, however, the reviewer became concerned by how much of the examiner s language appeared to be taken directly from a computer-generated test report.
- The reviewer was aware that narrative statements in computerized test reports warrant forming hypotheses but not drawing definite conclusions, because they describe characteristics of people in general who have certain scores on a test and do not necessarily describe the person who was examined (see Butcher, 2013).
- Upon printing his own computer-based narrative from the examining psychologist s test data, the reviewer confirmed that this examiner had indeed cribbed long sections of his report from the computer narrative without acknowledging their source.
- Moreover, he discovered that a not in the computer narrative had been omitted from the examining psychologist s written report at a critical point in the text where it would have reversed negative conclusions in the report about the father s suitability as a parent.
- The reviewing psychologist testified to this effect in court, with the computer-generated report and the examining psychologist s written report in evidence. The court concluded that the examining psychologist had misrepresented his findings and altered his report to please the attorney who had retained him. News of this outcome subsequently circulated among the local community of attorneys and psychologists working in family law cases.