Differences between ethical and legal considerations
When designing and carrying out psychological tests, practitioners need to make certain ethical and legal considerations. There are a number of differences between the two types of considerations. Ethical considerations refer to the questions of right and wrong that must be answered. For example, there is a need to guarantee privacy. As they work with patients, psychologists need to ensure that the information provided by their clients is afforded utmost confidentiality (‘Ethical Principles of…’, 2010). The other ethical consideration that psychologists often need to make regards the welfare of clients. They need to ensure that patients do not suffer harm as a result of the interventions that they institute. While ethical considerations concern the issues of right and wrong, legal considerations relate to matters of law. The legal considerations stem from statutes and other laws enacted by legislative bodies (Svenson, 2013). There are a wide range of laws that govern the operations of psychologists. Those who violate these laws risk prosecution and other forms of legal action.
Sources of ethical principles
There are certain ethical principles that psychologists and other practitioners are required to abide by. These principles originate from a number of different sources. Utilitarianism is one of these sources (‘Five Sources of…’, 2008). Essentially, this approach involves taking the action that promises the most good. In the use of tests, psychologists need to implement measures that maximize benefit and minimize harm. Rights are the other source of ethical principles. Ethical principles should be such that they safeguard the rights of individuals. Justice and common good are the other sources of ethical principles (‘Five Sources of…’, 2008). Equal treatment needs to guide the ethical principles that are used. There is also a need to ensure that the actions taken serve some common good. As they design and administer tests, psychologists must ensure that common good is served and that all parties that they engage with are treated equally. Virtues are another source of ethical principles (‘Five Sources of…’, 2008). Ethical principles should serve humanity and this can only be achieved when the principles are inspired by certain virtues such as love and tolerance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical principles governing use of tests
As they conduct tests, psychologists need to adhere to several ethical provisions. Privacy is one of these. Psychologists must ensure that the information that patients share with them are not shared with any unauthorized individual (‘Ethical Principles of…’, 2010). Beneficence and nonmaleficence are the other provisions. These provisions apply to all practitioners in the psychology field. Practitioners must pursue good and protect patients from any harm (‘Ethical Principles of…’, 2010). Integrity and justice are yet other principles that should guide psychologists as they administer tests. While these principles are meant for the wider profession of psychology, they can be extended to the administration of tests. Psychologists need to promote justice and ensure accuracy as part of their pursuit of integrity. Respect for the rights of others is the other ethical provision that should be observed (‘Ethical Principles of…’, 2010). Psychologists administering tests need to treat patients with respect. One way that they can do this is obtaining the consent of patients before administering the tests.
Three-tier system for test user qualifications
The American Psychological Association established a system that provides guidelines on the qualifications that one needs to possess before they are allowed to administer tests. Essentially, this system demarcates three levels of qualifications and the corresponding tests that can be administered. The first level, level A, includes tests that can only be administered by individuals who possess Associate and Bachelor’s degrees (Neukrug, 2016). In addition to these academic qualifications, individuals are also required to possess knowledge of the test manual. The second level, level B is primarily meant for teachers. They are allowed to administer achievement tests (Neukrug, 2016). Human service practitioners also belong in this level. The system permits them to administer personality tests. Those in level B are not allowed to provide tests which require advanced training. Level C grants permission to administer tests to individuals who possess Master’s degrees and have received training on the test that they wish to administer (Neukrug, 2016). Psychologists who are stationed in schools and those who work with disabled individuals are among those in level C.
Sources of laws
As is the case with ethical principles, laws also stem from some sources. There are three primary sources. Statutory law, common law and constitutional law are some of the sources (‘Sources of American Law’, n.d). Constitutional law is basically the provisions of the constitution. The constitution provides guidelines on a wide range of issues as is regarded as supreme. In the United States, the constitutional law is derived from both the federal and state constitutions. Statutory laws refer to the legal provisions that are enacted by legislative bodies Sources of American Law’, n.d). In the US, state assemblies and the Congress are the chief bodies that design legislation. Common law refers to the legal provisions that the US borrowed from Britain. These laws are developed from the decisions that judicial officers make Sources of American Law’, n.d). In an effort to ensure consistency, it is common for judges to refer to rulings made by other judges in previous cases. This is the essence of the principle of precedent.
Provisions of laws
Different laws in the US contain different provisions on a wide range of issues. There are some laws that concern testing. The Civil Rights Act is one of these laws. One of the provisions of this act regards the use of tests in selection for employment. The Act makes it clear that tests used for employment selection should never be discriminatory (‘Employment Tests and…’, n.d). The Americans with Disabilities Act is another law that provides guidelines on testing. This law also prohibits the use of discriminatory practices in testing for employment (‘Employment Tests and…’, n.d). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is yet another law that sheds light on the administration of tests. This act requires that children who may have disabilities should be provided with all necessary assessment tools (‘Individuals with Disabilities…’, n.d). This provision essentially charges psychologists and other practitioners with the responsibility of administering tests that allow for disabilities to be identified. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complements the laws discussed above through guidelines. These guidelines stipulate the tests that can be used for employment selection purposes (‘Employment Tests and…’, n.d). For example, cognitive and physical ability tests can be used as part of the recruitment process.
Principles in court cases
A number of cases in the United States have defined the use of testing in a variety of settings. The Griggs vs. Duke Power Company is among these cases. This case established that tests and other hiring procedures should promote fairness and ensure that individuals fit for a given position are selected (‘Case: Landmark: Griggs…’, n.d). Debra P. vs. Turlington is another case that redefined the use of tests. In this case, black students protested against the administration of tests that they were required to pass before being issued with diplomas. Essentially, this case established the requirement that competency tests must have content that is valid. The case paved the way for the administration of standard tests to assess minimum levels of competency (Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2008). GI Forum vs. Texas Education Agency and Larry P. vs. Riles are the other cases that presented implications for testing. The former case established a principle which required that before administering test, notice should be issued and that the tests should satisfy professional standards (Phillips, 2000). On the other hand, the Larry P. vs. Riles case set the stage for the principle that requires that that individuals taking tests must not suffer on the basis of their race (‘Controversy over Assessment…’, n.d). The Pase vs. Hannon case is another that provided insights on the use of tests. The case centered on the use of intelligence tests to determine mental health. The court established the principle that no test should promote discrimination on the basis of race (Reynolds and Fletcher-Janzen, 2007). The Karaker vs. Rent-A-Center Inc. is yet another landmark case that concerned the use of tests. In this case, the court held that tests that could expose individuals to discrimination could not be administered (Mulvihill, 2006). This is the principle that this case established. The principle that racial discrimination is not permitted in the administration of test is the most important principle set by the Crawford vs. Honig case (Kaplan and Saccuzzo, 2012).
Forensic applications of tests
Psychological tests have a wide range of applications. They are used in employment screening and assessing the academic ability of students. The application of these tests can be extended to forensics. One way that the tests can be used is in forensic assessment (Ward, 2013). Basically, this involves the evaluation of individuals involved in the criminal justice system. For example, suspects can be assessed to determine the truth in their testimonies. The tests can also be used in cases where the suspects plead insanity. In such cases, it is the mandate of practitioners to determine if the suspect is indeed insane. Psychological assessment which is an integral component of forensics can also be used to gain insights about unique characteristics of individuals (Shapse, n.d). For example, tests can be used to assess an individual’s propensity for violence. Overall, the psychological tests can allow law enforcement officials to understand the personalities and psyche of those that they engage with.
References
Case: Landmark: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (n.d). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.naacpldf.org/case/griggs-v-duke-power-co
Controversy over Assessment: The Changing Sociopolitical Climate. Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/conted2/abc3.htm
Employment Tests and Selection Procedures. (n.d). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
Ethical Principles of Psychologists Code of Conduct. (2010). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Five Sources of Ethical Standards. (2008). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/files/2008/09/five_sources.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (n.d). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/disability/idea.aspx
Kaplan, R. M., and Saccuzzo, D. P. (2008). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Kaplan, R. M., and Saccuzzo, D. P. (2012). Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications and Issues. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Mulvihill, M. E. (2006). Karaker v. Rent-a-Center: Testing the Limits of the ADA, Personality Tests, and Employer Preemployment Screening. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Vol. 37 (4), 865-910. Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=luclj
Neukrug, E. S. (2016). Theory, Practice, and Trends in Human Services: An Introduction. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Phillips, S. E. (2000). GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Psychometric Evidence.
Applied Measurement in Education. Vol. 13 (4), 343-385. Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.marces.org/mdarch/pdf/1000024.pdf
Reynolds, C. R., and Fletcher-Janzen, E. (2007). Encyclopedia of Education: A Reference for The Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and other
Exceptional Individuals. Vol. 3. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Shapse, S. N. (n.d). Forensic Psychology Assessment. Retrieved 27th September 2016 from
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5100
Sources of American Law. (n.d). Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.delmarlearning.com/companions/content/1401810829/pdf/ch5%20outline.pdf
Svenson, E. V. (2013). Legal Issues in Clinical and Counseling Testing and Assessment. In
Geisinger, K. F., Bracken, B. A., ; Carlson, J. F., Hansen, J. C., Kuncel, N. R., Reise, S. P., Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 2: Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology . Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association,
Ward, J. T. (2013). What is Forensic Psychology? Retrieved 27th September 2016 from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2013/09/forensic-psychology.aspx
