The practice of psychology in general is extremely restricted and regulated in areas of ethics because as compared to other professions, the principle asset in the practice is the practitioner. Most decisions rest primarily on the practitioner yet can have major impact on the client be it a patient, student or otherwise (Foster, 2010). It is however in the arena of psychological testing that ethics most come into play.
Informed consent is a key ethical issue in psychological testing and has two primary characteristics. The first is the capacity and competence of the client, mostly if a mental patient or a minor, to give the consent (Foster, 2010). Informed consent entails not just the ability to grant the approval but also to understand the particulars regarding the tests being undertaken. The second ethical issue regarding informed consent regards full disclosure (Foster, 2010). It is not an informed consent unless all pertinent issues regarding the said test have been explained to the patient and are understood. This ethical issue often complicates the practice of psychology as it sometimes requires tests to establish the aptitude and, therefore, competence of a patient, yet the practitioner requires to establish competence before seeking consent for the tests in the first place.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second common ethical issue entails the use of internet and computer based psychological testing. Naglieri et al. (2004) gives its approval for the use of internet based testing but in strict adherence to ethics such as effects of the overall efficacy of the computerized system, the capacity and competence in IT, and confidentiality breaches. The adherence to this ethical issue has a generally positive effect to the practice of psychology since it enables the use of internet in testing with its kindred benefits and also helps maintain the reputation of the profession which is critical to its practice.
The field of testing also has several legal issues. In most cases, these legal issues are ethical issues that carry legal connotations mainly under the law of torts. The issues are, therefore, actionable in a court of law over and above the internal professional mechanisms regarding ethical issues. Among the key legal issues as defined above is the issue of confidentiality, which entails the extent to which details regarding an individual that have come to the knowledge of a practitioner through a test can be disseminated to a third party (Foster, 2010). An extended interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution includes the right to privacy which construes breach of confidentiality as an act of larceny. This legal issue creates major complications in some psychological tests whose nature demands some level of disclosure. Personality tests for example are usually for the consumption of 3rd parties including potential employers. The cure to this legal issue is a comprehensive informed consent.
The second common legal issue is the breach of scope of informed consent. It is illegal for instance to test whether an individual is compose mentis without either expressing informed consent or an order to that effect. However, it is possible for an experienced practitioner to informally arrive at deeper diagnosis when conducting a relatively simple test like a personality test for an employer (Foster, 2010). This realization may be crucial, perhaps depending on the intended job description. A practitioner undertaking a personality test on a potential caregiver of a challenged child for instance may realize that one of the candidates is in full control of their mind. This information is pertinent to the client who is the employer but is beyond the consent given by the individual being tested. When such cases are not well handled, court cases may arise and this may have negative implications on the practitioner. It is, therefore, evident that legal issues, complicate the ethical quagmire created by such scenarios.
Among the cases that have had one of the biggest impact in the arena of psychological testing is the case of Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust 487 U.S. 977 filed in 1987 and determined by Supreme court of the United States in 1988. This was a case by African-American bank teller against her employer for discrimination under the auspices of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Bersoff, Malson, & Verrilli, 1988; Parloff & Kaufman, 2007). The case could not be solved instantly and as it moved up the American court system, issues regarding corporations carrying out what were clearly informal psychological tests came to the fore (Bersoff, Malson, & Verrilli, 1988; Parloff & Kaufman, 2007). The case was initially dismissed on a technicality at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The dismissal was also upheld by United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit leading to the matter being heard by the United States Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the APA filed a 38 page Amicus Curiae brief, which had a significant impact in the outcome of the case. It reaffirmed that any testing procedures that ventured into the arena of psychology was indeed a psychological tests whether it is referred to as such or not. It, therefore, had to adhere to APA rules and procedures. The major significance of the instant case was giving a legal back up to the contention that all express or implied psychological tests fall under the ambit of the APA.
References
Bersoff, D. N., Malson, L. P., & Verrilli, D. B. (1988). In the supreme court of the United States: Clara Watson v. Fort Worth bank & trust. American Psychologist , 43 (12), 1019–1028. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.43.12.1019
Foster, D. F. (2010). Worldwide Testing and Test Security Issues: Ethical Challenges and Solutions. Ethics & Behavior, 20 (3/4), 207-228. doi:10.1080/10508421003798943
Naglieri, J. A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifitera, A., Margolis, A., & Velasquez, R. (2004). Psychological testing on the Internet: New problems, old issues. American Psychologist , 59 (3), 150–162. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.3.150
Parloff, R., & Kaufman, S. M. (2007). The war over unconscious bias. Fortune , 156 (8), 90-102.
