Ethical Concerns in Psych Testing
In the midst of this ever changing crazy, obscene world it’s hard to come by a reliable and trustworthy person to confide in. However, one should be able to assume that their psychologist or their therapist would reasonably fit into that category, where the client could confidently trust the professional not to violate any grounds of morality and provide them with competent service in their testing. Unfortunately, this is not the case for certain individuals. As troublesome as it is to think there are numerous cases in which psychologists have been caught red handed in malpractice. To the naïve client, they can’t help but blindly trust their psychologist’s competence, to keep their confidentiality and general ethical practice.
One of the most prominent cases in violation of ethical regulations that often falls through the cracks, yet explodes with media coverage, is that of competence. A major ethical concern in psychological testing is the competence that is accredited to the psychologist, there needs to be more preliminary background checking in ensuring the clients are not in hazard and receiving that best care. In class professor Stoteland elaborates on the importance of this ethical aspect in all forms of testing. Generally, competence is established through training, experience, supervised practice, etc. Clients of these psychological services have the right to expect that the practitioner is competent to provide the services offered.
In reality, there are numerous flaws and policy slips that renders a psychologist’s competence into question. Ironic isn’t it, trusting the psychologist to properly administer and analysis these psychological tests/assessments, yet it is more than possible that they may not be emotionally or mentally suitable or equipped enough to do so themselves? It baffles me that psychologists are being employed to perform tests and assessments of individuals when they themselves do not go through the same procedures to ensure their competence and ability to perform these tests. Take the famous case of Stuart Greenberg. As Seattle Times puts it Greenberg was at the top of his profession: a renowned forensic psychologist who in court could determine which parent got custody of a child, or whether a jury believed a claim of sexual assault.” Little did anyone know that this trusted and accredited psychologist was severely violating numerous ethical concerns. He was accused of demonstrating bias; reaching sweeping conclusions on hearsay; violating confidentiality; and ignoring damning information about one parent while loading up on another. He was also caught using a hidden camera in his facility’s washroom, exposing his employees’ and clients’ nudity on camera for his own personal enjoyment. Three weeks after his arrest Greenberg committed suicide.
The troubling thought of this is wondering if this incident (which effected nearly 2000 people in his assessments) could have been avoided. Perhaps Greenberg undergoing a professional personality test and assessment would have indicated some red flags that would have deemed unqualified and unable to proceed in testing due to his lack of competence. Greenberg is clearly not the only one who falls in this category, there are other numerous incidents out there and even more that go unaccounted for.
To a certain extent Greenberg’s case sets, a daunting standard in the realm of psychological assessment and testing, if he incompetently assessed over 2000 people and get away with it, how many more similar cases are happening today? As stated previously the competence that is accredited to the psychologist is and ever growing testing concern, how many more malpractice facilities/personnel are affecting countless lives all tracing back to lack in competence. As times and people are changing so should the regulations governing psychological testing.
