Assignment

Ethical Considerations in Psychological Testing

Submitted to:
Miss Iram Qayyum
Submitted by:
Mr. Ahmad Hassan Naeem
Subject:
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING AND
MEASUREMENT-II
(PSY-502)
Ethics:
Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a
moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important issue under investigation psychologists needs to remember that they have a
duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by
certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

In Britain ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society and
in America by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct
is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology and psychologists themselves.
Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is therefore often a
matter of judgement whether the research is justified or not. For example, it might be that a study
causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants, maybe they suffer pain or perhaps
even come to serious harm.

On the other hand the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants
themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness. Rosenthal and
Rosnow (1984) also talk about the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is
to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?
Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not it is worthwhile
remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher it is
the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics
committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one
or more of the following:

 Department Ethics Committee (DEC): for most routine research.

 Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC): for non-routine research.
 External Ethics Committee (EEC): for research that is externally regulated (e.g. NHS
research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in
the light of possible risk of physical or psychological harm. These committees may request
researchers make changes to the study's design or procedure, or in extreme cases deny approval
of the study altogether.
Testing is generally applied in a responsible manner, but as previously noted, there are
exceptions. On rare occasions, testing is irresponsible by design rather than by accident.
However, testing practices do not always present in sharply contrasting shades, responsible or
irresponsible. The real challenge of competent assessment is to determine the boundaries of
ethical and professional practice. As usual, it is the borderline cases that provide pause for
thought.

Responsibilities of Test Publishers

The responsibilities of publishers pertain to the publication, marketing, and distribution of their
tests. In particular, it is expected that publishers will release tests of high quality, market their
product in a responsible manner, and restrict distribution of tests only to persons with proper
qualifications. We consider each of these points in turn.

Publication and Marketing Issues

Regarding the publication of new or revised instruments, the most important guideline is to
guard against premature release of a test. Testing is a noble enterprise but it is also big business
driven by the profit motive, which provides an inherent pressure toward early release of new or
revised materials. Perhaps this is why the American Psychological Association and other
organizations have published standards that relate to test publication (AERA/APA/NCME,
1999). These standards pertain especially to the technical manuals and user guides that typically
accompany a test. These sources must be sufficiently complete so that a qualified user or
reviewer can evaluate the appropriateness and technical adequacy of the test. This means that
manuals and guides will report detailed statistics on reliability analyses, validity studies,
normative samples, and other technical aspects.

Marketing tests in a responsible manner refers not only to advertising (which should be accurate
and dignified) but also to the way in which information is portrayed in manuals and guides. In
particular, test authors should strive for a balanced presentation of their instruments and refrain
from a one-sided presentation of information. For example, if some preliminary studies reflect
poorly on a test, these should be given fair weight in the manual alongside positive findings.
Likewise, if a potential misuse or inappropriate use of a test can be anticipated, the test author
needs to discuss this matter as well.
Competence of Test Purchasers

Test publishers recognize the broad responsibility that only qualified users should be able to
purchase their products. By way of brief review, the reasons for restricted access include the
potential for harm if tests fall into the wrong hands (e.g., an undergraduate psychology major
administers the MMPI-2 to his friends and then makes frightful pronouncements about the
results) and the obvious fact that many tests are no longer valid if potential examinees have
previewed them (e.g., a teacher memorizes the correct answers to a certification exam). In
general, test publishers try to screen out inappropriate requests by requiring that purchasers have
the necessary credentials. For example, the Psychological Corporation, one of the major
suppliers of test materials in the United States, requires prospective customers to fill out a
registration form detailing their training and experience with tests. Buyers who do not hold an
advanced degree in psychology must list details of courses in the administration and
interpretation of tests and in statistics. References are required, too.

Responsibilities of Test Users

The psychological assessment of personality, interests, brain functioning, aptitude, or

intelligence is a sensitive professional action that should be completed with utmost concern for
the well-being of the examinee, his or her family, employers, and the wider network of social
institutions that might be affected by the results of that particular clinical assessment (Matarazzo,
1990). Over the years, the profession of psychology has proposed, clarified, and sharpened a
series of thorough and thoughtful standards to provide guidance for the individual practitioner.
Professional organizations publish formal ethical principles that bear upon test use, including the
American Psychological Association (APA, 2002), the American Association for Counseling and
Development (AACD, 1988), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA,
1991), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP, 2010).

These principles apply to psychologists, Students of psychology, and others who work under the
supervision of a psychologist. We restrict our discussion to those principles that are directly
pertinent to the practice of psychological testing. Proper adherence to these principles would
eliminate most—but not all—legal challenges to testing.

They must also know the psychometric qualities of the test being used as well as the literature
relevant to the test. In addition, they are to ensure that interpretations based on the test are
justified and that the test is properly used. A test user cannot claim ignorance: “I didn’t realize
normative data were not representative.” The test user is responsible for finding out all pertinent
information before using any test (APA, 1992, 2002).

Best Interests of the Client

Several ethical principles recognize that all psychological services, including assessment, are
provided within the context of a professional relationship. Psychologists are, therefore, enjoined
to accept the responsibility implicit in this relationship. In general, the practitioner is guided by
one overriding question: What is in the best interests of the client?

The functional implication of this guideline is that assessment should serve a constructive
purpose for the individual examinee. If it does not, the practitioner is probably violating one or
more specific ethical principles. For example, Standard 11.15 in the Standards manual (AERA,
APA, NCME, 1999) warns testers to avoid actions that have unintended negative consequences.
Allowing a client to attach unsupported surplus meanings to test results would not be in the best
interests of the client and would, therefore, constitute an unethical testing practice.

In fact, with certain worry-prone and self-doubting clients, a psychologist may choose not to use
an appropriate test, since these clients are almost certain to engage in self-destructive
misinterpretation of virtually any test findings.

Informed Consent

Before testing commences, the test user needs to obtain informed consent from test takers or
their legal representatives. Exceptions to informed consent can be made in certain instances, for
example, legally mandated statewide testing programs, school-based group testing, and when
consent is clearly implied (e.g., college admissions testing). The principle of Informed consent
is so important that the Standards manual devotes a separate standard to it:

Informed consent implies that the test takers or representatives are made aware, in language that
they can understand, of the reasons for testing, the type of tests to be used, the intended use and
the range of material consequences of the intended use. If written, video, or audio records are
made of the testing session, or other records are kept, test takers are entitled to know what testing
information will be released and to whom.
Obsolete Tests and the Standard of Care

Standard of care is a loose concept that often arises in the professional or legal review of specific
health practices, including psychological testing. The prevailing standard of care is one that is
“usual, customary or reasonable” (Rinas & Clyne-Jackson,1988). To cite an extreme example,
in medicine the standard of care for a fever might include the administration of aspirin—but
would not include the antiquated practice of bleeding the patient.

Another concern relevant to the standard of care is reliance on test results that are outdated for
the current purpose. After all, individual characteristics and traits show valid change over time.
A student who meets the criteria for learning disability (LD) in the fourth grade might show large
gains in academic achievement, such that the LD diagnosis is no longer accurate in the fifth
grade. Personality test results are especially prone to quixotic change. A short-term personal
crisis might cause an MMPI-2 profile to look like a range of mountains. A week later, the test
profile could be completely normal. It is difficult to provide comprehensive guidelines as to the
“shelf life” of psychological test results. For example, GRE test scores that are year’s old still
might be validly predictive of performance in graduate school, whereas Beck Depression
Inventory test results from yesterday could mislead a therapist as to the current level of
depression. Practitioners must evaluate the need for retesting on an individual basis.

Responsible Report Writing

Except for group testing, the practice of psychological testing invariably culminates in a written
report that constitutes a semi-permanent record of test findings and examiner recommendations.
Effective report writing is an important skill because of the potential lasting impact of the written
document. It is beyond the scope of this text to illuminate the qualities of effective report writing,
although we can refer the reader to a few sources (Gregory, 1999;Tallent,1993). Responsible
reports typically use simple and direct writing that steers clear of jargon and technical terms. The
proper goal of a report is to provide helpful perspectives on the client, not to impress the referral
source that the examiner is a learned person! When Tallent (1993) surveyed more than one
thousand health practitioners who made referrals for testing, one respondent declared his disdain
toward psychologists who “reflect their needs to shine as a psychoanalytic beacon in revealing
the dark, deep secrets they have observed.” On a related note, effective reports stay within the
bounds of expertise of the examiner.

For example: It is never appropriate for a psychologist to recommend that a client undergo a
specific medical procedure (such as a CT scan for an apparent brain tumor) or receive a
particular drug (such as Prozac for depression). Even when the need for a special procedure
seems obvious (e.g., the symptoms strongly attest to the rapid onset of a brain disease), the best
way to meet the needs of the client is to recommend immediate consultation with the appropriate
medical profession (e.g., neurology or psychiatry).
Communication of Test Results

Individuals who take psychological tests anticipate that the results will be shared with them. Yet
practitioners often do not include one-to-one feedback as part of the assessment. A major reason
for reluctance is a lack of training in how to provide feedback, especially when the test results
appear to be negative. For example, how does a clinician tell a college student that her IQ is 93
when most students in that milieu score 115 or higher?

Providing effective and constructive feedback to clients about their test results is a challenging
skill to learn. Pope (1992) emphasizes the responsibility of the clinician to determine that the
client has understood adequately and accurately the information that the clinician was attempting
to convey. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the clinician to check for adverse reactions:

Is the client exceptionally depressed by the findings? Is the client inferring from findings
suggesting a learning disorder that the client—as the client has always suspected—is “stupid”?
Using scrupulous care to conduct this assessment of the client’s understanding of and reactions
to the feedback is no less important than using adequate care in administering standardized
psychological tests; test administration and feedback are equally important, fundamental aspects
of the assessment process.

Consideration of Individual Differences

Knowledge of and respect for individual differences is highlighted by all professional

organizations that deal with psychological testing. The American Psychological Association lists
this as one of six guiding principles:

 Principle D: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity . . . Psychologists are aware of
cultural, individual, and role differences, including those due to age, gender, race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socio-
economic status. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on
those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory
practices. (APA, 1992a)

The relevance of this principle to psychological Testing is that practitioners are expected to know
when a test or interpretation may not be applicable because of factors such as age, gender, race,
ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic
status. We can illustrate this point with a case study reported in Eyde et al. (1993). A
psychologist evaluated a 75-year-old man at the request of his wife, who had noticed memory
problems. The psychologist administered a mental status examination and a prominent
intelligence test. Performance on the mental status examination was normal, but standard scores
on the intelligence test revealed a large discrepancy between verbal subtests and subtests
measuring spatial ability and processing speed. The psychologist interpreted this pattern as
indicating a deterioration of intellectual functioning in the husband. Unfortunately, this
interpretation was based on faulty use of non-age-corrected standard scores. Also, the
psychologist did not assess for depression, which is known to cause visuospatial performance to
drop sharply (Wolff & Gregory, 1992). In fact, a series of further evaluations revealed that the
husband was a perfectly healthy 75-year-old man. The psychologist failed to consider the
relevance of the gentleman’s age and emotional status when interpreting the intelligence test.
This was a costly oversight that caused the client and his wife substantial unnecessary worry.