An ethical dilemma
For some time I have been interested in what the reflections of colleagues might be on the issue of reconciling the APS Code of Ethics (the Code) guidelines for ensuring informed consent and the administration of tests involving validity indicators, or for that matters tests aimed at detecting malingering.
The Code is clear (Standard 3.3) that psychologists ensure client consent is informed by: a) ‘Explaining the nature and purpose of the procedures they intend using’ and b) ‘Clarifying the reasonably foreseeable risk, adverse effects, and possible disadvantages of procedures they are using’.
It is arguably the case that subjecting examinees to tests containing and aggregating validity items, the nature of which must be withheld from examinees, could be counter to the need to explain: ‘the nature and purpose of the procedures they (psychologists) intend using’.
It is also arguably the case that subjecting examinees to these procedures could, depending on how they respond to the test items, result in examinees being looked at unfavourably in any ongoing deliberations.
Some writers point to the stark contrast between client (and often litigant) autonomy in these situations and some suggest adoption of a middle ground indicating it appropriate to warn that processes for detecting exaggeration or poor effort are part of the process. Studies however have found that warnings or instructions differing from standard instructions impact on test outcomes.
Some writers addressing these issues include:
Bush, S. S., Heilbronner, R. L., & Ruff, R. M. (2014).’Psychological assessment of symptom and performance validity, response bias and malingering: Official position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 197-205.
Foote, W. E., & Shuman, W. D. (2006). ‘Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer’. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 37(5), 437-445.
Schenke, K. S., & Sullivan, K.A (2010). ‘Do warnings deter rather that produce more sophisticated malingering’. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23 (7), 752-762.
Domenico V C Garuccio MAPS
Submitting letters
Deadline for submission: Friday 31 July
[email protected]
Letters to the editor should be no more than 400 words in length. By submitting your letter for publication you agree that the letter may be edited for space, legal or other reasons. Selection of letters for publication will consider the breadth of issues covered, avoidance of repetition and variety of authors.