1

ETHICS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Michael Stevens, PhD, DHC
The Ovidius University
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Abstract
This chapter focuses on ethics in psychological assessment. The Universal Declaration of
Ethical Principles for Psychologists and Romanian Deontological Code are valuable tools to
guide psychologists in the ethical practice of psychological assessment. Ethical meta-issues and
a decision-making model for resolving of ethical dilemmas in psychological assessment are
presented. The forms and ethical conduct of psychological assessment in clinical, forensic, and
work/organizational settings are described; included are vignettes with which to practice ethical
decision-making. Psychologists are advised to develop awareness of factors that could increase
the risk of ethical transgressions in psychological assessment.

Why are ethics important for psychologists? First, ethics that are codified and endorsed
by a recognition organization of psychologists serves to protect and benefit the public. Most
ethics codes incorporate aspirational principles and standards of conduct that revolve around the
fundamental ethical values of nonmaleficence and beneficence. Above all, do no harm is a
time-honored decree that is usually complemented by exhortations and guidelines for
psychologists to contribute to the betterment of the individual and all of society. Second, ethics
codes function to inspire confidence in the general public, which more than likely is not wellinformed about how psychologists should best approach the multitude of professional activities
in which they are involved. The existence of an ethics code communicates to the public that

2
psychology is a mature discipline and is invested in ensuring the integrity of psychologists,
whether researchers or practitioners. Third, ethics codes provide the means for standardizing the
conduct of psychologists along lines that are normatively desirable or unacceptable. If not for
such standardization, the evaluation of the propriety of psychologists conduct could be
determined idiosyncratically and, therefore, inconsistently. More importantly, the
standardization of professional conduct gives rise to a mechanism for evaluating deviation from
generally accepted patterns of professional conduct. Therefore, ethics codes offer a way for
professional organizations not only to monitor the integrity of their members, but also to
adjudicate cases in which allegations of ethical transgressions have been lodged against
psychologists.
Psychological assessment in clinical, forensic, or work/organizational contexts is the sine
qua non of professional psychology (Woody, 2008). Generally speaking, psychological
assessment entails a scientifically rigorous approach to measuring the assets and limitations of an
individual, group, or organization. Such information is useful in diagnosing, conceptualizing,
and intervening to remove obstacles that impede effective functioning and to promote wellbeing. Owing to the breadth and importance of psychological assessment, it is vital that
psychologists follow ethical principles and standards of conduct, as well as legal directives, that
regulate this professional activity in all its forms. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the role of
ethics in psychological assessment. The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for
Psychologists and Romanian Deontological Code are first presented, with emphasis on how each
informs psychologists about ethical approaches to psychological assessment. What follows is a
close examination of ethical meta-issues related to psychological assessment and a model of
ethical decision-making intended to facilitate the resolution of ethical dilemmas in psychological

3
assessment. Next, the forms and ethical conduct of psychological assessment in clinical,
forensic, and work/organizational settings is described, along with vignettes that readers are
encouraged to think about using relevant sections of the Romanian Deontological Code,
fundamental ethical values, and sequential decision-making. The chapter ends with advice to
psychologists to be mindful of circumstances that may increase the risk of ethical transgressions
in carrying out psychological assessments.
The Universal Declaration
In 2008, the International Union of Psychological Sciences and International Association
of Applied Psychology ratified the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists
(Ad Hoc Joint Committee, 2008). The Universal Declaration was derived from shared human
values and designed as a framework for creating and refining national ethics codes in
psychology, like the Romanian Deontological Code for the Free Licensed Psychologist
Profession. As a common moral foundation, the Universal Declaration was also intended to
inspire psychologists throughout the world toward the highest ethical ideals in their scientific and
applied work. For example, the Universal Declaration can help to steer debate on such issues as
balancing individual versus collective rights, protecting the public versus advocating social
change to reduce harm, and respecting the dignity of all versus taking special care when working
with vulnerable populations (Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero, 2010).
The Universal Declaration is comprised of a preamble and four general principles. The
Universal Declaration does not delineate specific standards of conduct because these vary crossculturally and should be developed at the national level to ensure their appropriateness. Like
most codes of ethics in psychology, the preamble underscores the centrality of psychological
ethics to the welfare of the individual and general public. It states that, adherence to ethical

4
principles in the context of their [psychologists] work contributes to a stable society (Ad Hoc
Joint Committee, 2008, p. 1). The four principles are:
1. Respect for the dignity of persons and peoples
2. Competent caring for the well-being of persons and peoples
3. Integrity
4. Professional and scientific responsibilities to society
Although the Universal Declaration does not address the topic of psychological
assessment per se, it will soon become evident that its four principles have relevance for the
ethical conduct psychological assessment whether performed in clinical, forensic, or
work/organizational settings. For example, criticism of psychological assessment has included
concerns about the misuse of assessment in environments where autonomy is restricted (e.g.,
detention centers), violations of confidentiality, assessment methods that invade a personal
privacy, release of assessment results to individuals who are not competent to interpret their
meaning, adoption of assessment methods with culturally diverse individuals that are culturally
non-equivalent, and, of course, the use of instruments whose psychometric properties are
unknown or have been found to be inadequate (Groth-Marnot, 2009; International Test
Commission, 2001; Leach, Stevens, Lindsay, Ferrero, & Korkut, 2012). Such criticisms not only
reflect breaches of all four ethical principles of the Universal Declaration, but also have resulted
in the restricted use of certain instruments and skepticism among the general public about
psychological assessment. Moreover, these criticisms make it abundantly clear that all
psychologists must be ethnically sensitive, knowledgeable, and skilled in psychological
assessment.
Deontological Code for the Free Licensed Psychologist Profession

5
The Romanian Deontological Code (College of Romanian Psychologists, n.d.) consists of
a set of principles, general ethical standards, specific ethical standards, an ethical decisionmaking model, and a glossary of terms. The Deontological Code represents a set of professional
norms about behavior that constitutes an ethical transgression by psychologists in carrying out
their professional activities. Specific reference to the ethical aspects of psychological assessment
are scattered throughout the Deontological Code, but appear mainly in the section on specific
general standards. It is critical for Romanian psychologists to execute the ethical standards that
regulate psychological assessment because these were developed to reflect the realities of
scientific research and applied practice in Romania. These standards not only serve to protect
consumers of psychological services and research participants, but also ensure that they benefit
from their participation in psychological assessment. Psychologists should realize that deviation
from the standards of conduct as articulated by the Deontological Code could result in a hearing
initiated by the College of Romanian Psychologists and the imposition of sanctions if the
psychologist is found to have violated any of these standards; of course, gross departures from of
the Deontological Code could also result in criminal or civil litigation in which the
psychologists reputation is tarnished irrespective of the outcome. Psychologists must also keep
current about modifications to the Deontological Code, as iterations may introduce an evolution
in perspective on the ethics of psychological assessment brought about by any number of factors,
such as advances in digital technologies from which have emerged unprecedented ethical
challenges.
General Ethical Standards
Article IV.5 of the Romanian Deontological Code states that psychologists should not
engage in psychological assessment beyond the limits of their competence and only do so after

6
they have acquired the necessary knowledge and skills. This warning about competent
psychological assessment covers the teaching of assessment, conduct of research that involves
assessment, and applied practices of any kind in which assessment plays a part.
Article V.9 stipulates that psychologists must obtain informed consent from a client,
employee, research participant, or any other person with whom they have established a
professional relationship in advance of performing a psychological assessment. The only
exception to obtaining informed consent is in the case of a crisis when psychologists must
complete an evaluation in order identify suitable options for intervention. In such circumstances,
psychologists may be able to secure informed consent for the psychological assessment
retrospectively.
Specific Ethical Standards
As already mentioned, most of the standards that regulate psychological assessment
appear as specific ethical standards in the Romanian Deontological Code, particularly Article
XIII. Article XIII.1 enjoins psychologists from rendering interpretations of respondents
psychological characteristics and functioning until they have completed a methodologically
sound psychological assessment, which provides an empirical foundation for their conclusions
and recommendations. This article further requires that psychologists make explicit the
limitations of their conclusions and recommendations in reports based on the weaknesses of the
assessment approach used.
The very next article, Article XIII.2, incorporates several key elements in the ethics of
psychological assessment. These include adherence to the methods and techniques (i.e.,
administration, scoring, and interpretation) of psychological assessment prescribed by the
College of Romanian Psychologists. More specifically, Article XIII.2

7
A. limits the use of assessment procedures to those that have acceptable psychometric
properties (i.e., reliability and validity) and have been normed for use with specific
populations;
B. stipulates that assessment methods must be appropriate for or adapted to the educational
level of respondents, unless the purpose of assessment indicates otherwise (e.g.,
knowledge of a foreign language);
C. mandates that psychologists respect copyright law in terms of the assessment instruments
they use;
D. allows psychologists to share their interpretation and recommendations of assessment
findings with respondents only after assessment is completed, and only if they are able to
based their interpretation and recommendations on the results of the assessment; and
E. supports psychologists who decline requests to (re)examine clients when such action is
unwarranted based on clinical and/or scientific evidence.
Article XIII.3 focuses on a singularly important ethical issue in psychological
assessment, namely informed consent. With few exceptions, informed consent must be obtained
for assessment-related services, such as a psychological evaluation or diagnostic work-up.
Informed consent is not required, however, when assessment is court-ordered (e.g., competence
to stand trial) or when in the typical course of activity in educational or organizational settings
(e.g., achievement testing, performance evaluations). Informed consent for psychological
assessment must include an explanation of the nature of the assessment that is understandable,
the psychological constructs and functions that are targeted, costs, third parties who might have
access to the results, limits to confidentiality, and the opportunity for the respondent to receive
answers to questions about any aspect of the assessment. For those with diminished cognitive

8
capacity or whose language differs from that of the psychologist, adjustments must be made to
ensure that consent has been given (e.g., simplified wording, engaging the services of a
professional translator) and that procedures are in place to ensure the security of assessment
materials and reports.
Article XIII.4 addresses ethical matters pertaining to the data obtained from a
psychological evaluation. It delineates the various forms in which assessment data can be
recorded, ranging from behavioral observations to interview responses to standardized scores.
When giving feedback to respondents, psychologists are required only to present the results, not
raw scores, which could easily be misinterpreted by a nave recipient. This article ends by
prohibiting psychologists from publishing the results of a psychological assessment because of
an overriding concern about the possibility of exploiting and harming the respondent.
The construction and adaptation of psychological instruments should be guided by
international standards, according to Article XIII.5 of the Romanian Deontological Code. The
International Test Commission has a long-standing commitment to promote suitable practices in
the development and use of psychological instruments. Its International Guidelines on Test Use
(International Test Commission, 2001) emphasizes the obligations of psychologists to assume
responsibility for the ethical use of psychological instruments and to follow best practices in their
use. The International Test Commission has also developed guidelines for adapting instruments
that have been imported from other countries (www.intest.com.org/itc_projects.htm) as well as
guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing (International Test Commission,
2006).
When interpreting the results of a psychological assessment, psychologists should take
into consideration the purpose of assessment as well as relevant respondent variables that could

9
influence the outcomes of the assessment. Article XIII.6 identifies a number of such variables,
including the cultural, linguistic, situational, and state and trait characteristics of respondents.
Psychologists are encouraged not to blindly interpret assessment data, that is, interpret the data
without incorporating the ecological domains in which psychological assessment is situated.
Articles XIII.7, XIII.8, and XIII.9 concern a narrower, but nonetheless important set of
specific ethical issues related to psychological assessment. Psychologists are expected to
monitor the qualifications of those who administer, score, and interpret psychological
instruments, and not to encourage unauthorized persons to use such instruments unless
supervised. Psychologists are not to use outdated instruments or assessment methods that depart
from the professional norms promulgated by the College of Romanian Psychologists. Finally,
psychologists must evaluate the purpose, psychometric properties, norms, and administrative
procedures for any instrument prior to implementing a psychological assessment. It should be
clear from the wording of this ethical standard that psychologists operate as gatekeepers of
quality, not only of psychological instruments, but also of the interpretation of the results of a
psychological assessment and the use to which the results are put. This responsibility holds
regardless of the form of assessment (objective, projective, behavioral), modality of
administration (individual, group, computerized, online), or purpose (scientific research, applied
practice) of assessment.
With some exceptions, Article XIII.10 requires that psychologists always be available to
give a clear and understandable explanation to respondents of the results of a psychological
assessment even when other personnel, such as a human resource specialist in a commercial
organization, is tasked with making the assessment results known to respondents.

10
Finally, Article XIII.11 stipulates that psychologists must ensure that psychological
assessment materials are securely stored. These materials include test manuals, psychological
instruments, answer sheets and other forms, and interview protocols. Security precautions go a
long way toward protecting copyright law and contractual arrangements for the use of
assessment materials, as well as prevent unscrupulous persons from obtaining assessment
materials for illicit purposes.
Overarching Ethical Concerns
The Romanian Deontological Code is quite clear and thorough in the expectations and
guidelines it sets forth for ethical psychological assessment. Close reading of the Deontological
Code reveals repetition of several pre-eminent ethical standards presumably because of their
foundational significance in advising psychologists on avoiding harm and on maximizing the
benefits of psychological assessment. It would be helpful at this juncture to identify the
overriding ethical issues found in the general and specific ethical standards of the Deontological
Code. These ethical issues can be identified and discussed as rights, and include the right to
privacy, the right to results, the right to confidentiality, and the right to the least stigmatizing
label (Groth-Marnot, 2009).
Right to Privacy
Psychological assessment can invade respondents right to privacy in several ways.
Respondents may not be fully aware of the nature of information being collected in the course of
an assessment (e.g., psychological dysfunction, criminal history). Merely being told that they
will complete a psychological instrument or interview is insufficient in conveying an accurate
understanding of what psychologists hope to discover about respondents past and present
functioning. Compounding matters is the purpose to which the results of a psychological

11
assessment will be used. Here, too, individuals who submit to a psychological assessment may
not be entirely cognizant of future decisions made by professionals in positions of authority that
could have significant life consequences. Finally, the manner in which psychologists
communicate information about psychological assessment may make it difficult for some
individuals (e.g., less educated, non-native speakers) to fathom the nature of data to be collected
or the purposes to which those data will be used. These and other threats to privacy can be
partially remedied though the informed-consent process. Psychologists should obtain informed
consent prior to initiating assessment procedures (Groth-Marnot, 2009; International Test
Commission, 2001; Leach et al., 2012; Reamer, 2009; Woody, 2008). Informed consent
involves a clear explanation of what assessment procedures will be implemented, the relevance
of the procedures, and how the results will be used. Informed consent involves communicating
not only the rationale for assessment, but also the kinds of data obtained and the possible uses of
those data. Introducing the assessment procedures and intent in simple, respectful, and forthright
terms significantly reduces the chance that someone will perceive psychological assessment as
an invasion of privacy and increase the trust and cooperation needed to yield valid assessment
results.
The right to privacy also hinges on the relevance of the methods that are adopted in a
psychological assessment. A key question that psychologists should ask themselves before
proceeding with an assessment is this: Is the information gathered through my assessment
relevant to the work agreed upon with the recipient of the assessment? Psychologists should be
able to clearly state the purpose as well as the risks and benefits of the psychological assessment.
But, what if a psychologist accidentally discovers some aspect of a respondents psychological
functioning that the respondent would rather keep secret? This could easily occur if a

12
psychologist chooses to administer an assessment procedure that probes more deeply than
necessary into the history and current functioning of the respondent, as when a
work/organizational psychologist administers the intrusive Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory to a company employee in the course of providing career guidance. Because many
items in this inventory are disguised due to the criterion-keyed approach to test construction,
respondents may reveal aspects of themselves without ever realizing it. Privacy has been
invaded in this case because the psychologist did not respect the right of the respondent to make
autonomous decisions during the assessment. A related concept to invasion of privacy is
inviolacy. Inviolacy refers to the negative impact of threatening assessment materials on
respondents (Groth-Marnot, 2009). Respondents may experience anxiety when reading items
that inquire about taboo subjects or an employee may feel pressured to disclose intimate details
of their lives in order to remain eligible for a promotion. In such cases, psychologists must exert
sensitivity and competence in selecting the least intrusive assessment method and in anticipating
the possible adverse effect of the assessment on respondents in view of the context in which the
assessment is performed.
Right to Results
Those who undergo a psychological assessment have the right to their assessment results.
As described in the Romanian Deontological Code, an explanation of the results of a
psychological assessment must be packaged in terms that can be readily understood. This is
easier said than done because the interpretation of an assessment is far from a simple mechanical
procedure that involves reporting standardized and cutoff scores. It requires an integration of the
distinctive characteristics of the respondent, gives consideration to the multiple milieus in which
he or she is situated, and addresses the interests of stakeholders in the outcome of the assessment.

13
Unfortunately, whereas an assessment method and administration may be deemed valid, there are
few criteria with which to evaluate the validity of the interpretation of assessment data (GrothMarnot, 2009; International Test Commission, 2001; Pope 1992; Reamer, 2009). Psychologists
should be attentive to the educational level of the recipients of the interpretation, their knowledge
of psychological assessment, and sensitivity to the information that is disclosed, especially when
the interpretation touches upon weaknesses in functioning or outright impairment. It is not
uncommon to include background information in order to orient the person receiving the
interpretation. Such information can include the rationale for the assessment, the nature of the
assessment materials that were administered, the conclusions that were drawn, the limitations of
the assessment, and a set of tentative recommendations if this is part of the agenda of the
assessment. Effective interpretations of assessment results require a sophisticated appreciation
of the needs and vocabulary of the respondent, referral source, and significant others, such as
parents, if the interpretation includes recommendations for reducing problematic functioning and
augmenting desired functioning.
Right to Confidentiality
Those who participate in a psychological assessment have the right to confidentiality of
their assessment results. There are a number of exceptions to this right, as in court-mandated
assessment, organizations in which employee and patient records contain assessment data and
reports, and clinical settings in which members of an interdisciplinary treatment team have
access to records that contain assessment data and reports. These exceptions may create ethical
dilemmas for psychologists because of the conflict between competing fundamental values that
underlie professional ethics, namely between the autonomy of respondents in determining what
information should be disclosed to whom and the beneficence of other professionals who seek to

14
ease the suffering and enhance the well-being of respondents. However, there typically are
judicial safeguards in such cases against the unnecessary and potentially damaging disclosure of
assessment results (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2013; Woody, 2008). Moreover, participants in
psychological assessment are customarily informed about the limits to confidentiality that obtain
from the nature of the referral for assessment; for example, official health records and any
psychological assessment data and reports contained therein may be subject to subpoena in a
criminal investigation. Another important element of the right to confidentiality is that
assessment results should only be released to a third party with sufficient expertise to interpret
the results after respondent have given consent. In addition to keeping psychological assessment
materials secure, assessment data and reports based on those data must be stored in such a way as
to minimize the possibility of their unauthorized disclosure (e.g., encryption of electronic files).
As an aside, the task of ensuring the confidentiality of psychological assessment results has
become more difficult given the trend to digitize assessment data and integrated electronic
databases (Groth-Marnot, 2009; International Test Commission, 2006; Leach, Stevens, Lindsay,
Ferrero, & Korkut, 2012).
Right to the Least Stigmatizing Label
Psychological assessment has implications for the categorization of people, whether in
the form of clinical diagnosis or more general labeling. Individuals who undergo psychological
assessment have the right to the least stigmatizing diagnosis or label. The tendency to infer
psychopathology and dysfunction can occur when psychologists are not familiar with the
reference groups to which respondents belong (Draguns & Tanaka-Matsumi , 2003). Like
people in general, lack of familiarity with values and customs that depart from what is familiar
and comfortable to psychologists are all to often judged by psychologists as deviant.

15
Psychologists are susceptible of incorrectly inferring deviance from assessment data that appear
noticeably different from those produced by a normative sample representing the general
population. Simply put, the effects on assessment results of culture, socioeconomic status, and
linguistic facility can be profound and lead psychologists to draw invidious conclusions about
the character and functioning of respondents. In todays globalized world in which psychologists
are likely to have professional contact with increasingly diverse clients, employees, and research
participants, it is essential that they become aware of and address any personal and professional
prejudices in order to minimize injustices to respondents. Furthermore, psychologists must
acquire basic competencies to avoid ethical misconduct in the psychological assessment of
diverse populations. Perhaps, the most important of these is cultural competence. Cultural
competence begins with a fearless self-exploration of personal attitudes toward and continues
with a commitment to gain knowledge about other cultures. Psychologists must also develop a
skill set for the competent psychological assessment diverse populations, including the
assessment of cultural identity, level of acculturation, determination of the cultural suitability of
assessment methods, and guidelines for interpreting assessment data produced by culturally
diverse respondents (Groth-Marnot, 2009). The culturally appropriate interpretation of
assessment findings requires psychologists to consider the many ecological domains in which
respondents are situated and which define their worldviews. Applying this knowledge in
constructing a culturally informed interpretation of a psychological assessment an prevent the
automatic and unquestioned claim that an unusual set of assessment results reflects deviance,
dysfunction, and impairment.
Ethical Decision-making

16
Just as codes of ethics are not set in stone, so too are the circumstances in which an
ethical dilemma is situated. Thus, psychologists may struggle at times to resolve an ethical
dilemma that involves psychological assessment even when relevant ethical standards of conduct
seem clear. Ethical decision-making models have proliferated in recent years because
psychology organizations believe that their members can be assisted in resolving ethical
dilemmas in ways that maximize, or at least minimally compromise, certain fundamental ethical
values (Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996; Lindsay, 2012). These fundamental ethical values
include: autonomy, beneficence, integrity, nonmaleficence, and justice. The value of autonomy
speaks to the responsibility of psychologists to permit those with whom they have a professional
relationship freedom of choice and action. Beneficence reflects the responsibility of
psychologists to contribute to the well-being of those with whom they have professional contact.
Integrity involves the cultivation of trust and faith in the professional relationship through honest
communication and honoring commitments. Nonmaleficence, perhaps the most important of the
five fundamental ethical values, involves not inflicting intentional harm and not placing those
with whom they have professional contact in harms way. Justice refers to basing the differential
treatment of individuals and groups with which psychologists have a professional relationship on
a sound and impartial rationale (e.g., scientific evidence of individual or group differences) that
supports the appropriateness of differential treatment.
Most ethical decision-making models, like the one included in the Romanian
Deontological Code, have a sequence of steps that begin with identification of the ethical
dilemma (Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996; Lindsay, 2012), and proceed sequentially with
determining the nature and dimensions of the dilemma, generating possible courses of action,
considering the potential consequences of all options, choosing and implementing a course of

17
action that is minimally disturbing and maximally beneficial, and evaluating the degree to which
the course of action resolved the ethical dilemma. The Deontological Code also encourages
psychologists to consult with colleagues and/or specialists in psychological ethics when
necessary. In the three sections of this chapter that follow, ethical dilemmas in psychological
assessment are described that are relevant to the work of clinical, forensic, and
work/organizational psychologists. Resolutions of these ethical dilemmas will not be provided
because your are invited to apply the Romanian Deontological Code, the five fundamental
ethical values, and an ethical decision-making model to generate solutions to the ethical
dilemmas that minimize negative outcomes and maximize positive ones. You are encouraged to
review the information presented thus far and to search for more detailed material in preparation
for this task.
Ethics in Clinical Assessment
Psychological assessment in clinical practice involves much more than testing. It is a
holistic approach aimed at determining a clients level of functioning in various life domains that
takes into consideration the past, current, and anticipated contexts in which such functioning is
embedded. The focus of psychological assessment can range from identifying interests and
values to intellectual strengths and weaknesses, to personality style and maladaptive tendencies;
the procedures used can vary greatly in terms of cost and time. Psychological assessment entails
the administration, scoring, and interpretation of objective and projective instruments. It can
include informal and structured interview protocols (e.g., mental status exams, Diagnostic
Interview Schedule). It can involve various procedures subsumed under behavioral assessment,
such as naturalistic observation, role-play assessment, and self-monitoring. Psychological
assessments can be administered to individuals or groups, and can be given, scored, and

18
interpreted in vivo or via computer. Psychological assessment has several functions that dovetail
with the process of psychotherapy. Clinical psychologists conduct psychological assessment for
any or all of the following reasons: to clarify and better understand the nature of a clients
presenting concerns, to facilitate the therapeutic relationship by enhancing motivation through
incorporating the interpretation of assessment findings into psychotherapy sessions, and to
monitor the progress of psychotherapy as well as the maintenance of treatment gains after once
treatment has terminated.
Ethically improper psychological assessment in clinical practice can include a broad
spectrum of activities (Groth-Marnot, 2009; Pope, 1992; Pope, Sonne, & Greene, 2006; Reamer,
2009). Claims of misconduct often allege that psychologists conducted an assessment in ways
that departed from the normative standards of the clinical practice. For example, psychologists
may neglect to ask critical questions during an assessment (e.g., appraisal for suicide) or to
document such information. They may perform a psychological assessment for which they are
not qualified by training or which require that an experienced colleague supervise them. They
may neglect to optimize the conditions in which psychological assessment takes place (e.g., poor
lighting), violate standardized administrative procedures (e.g., deviating from verbatim
instructions, administering selected subtests or stimulus materials) and interpret the responses as
if the entire assessment was properly given, or fail to integrate their interpretation of assessment
data with contextual information (e.g., medications which may slow a clients speed of cognitive
processing). Other instances in which psychologists may fall short of upholding ethical
standards of conduct include failure to seek expert consultation when warranted, as when
psychologists are unable to draw conclusions from a psychological assessment within a
reasonably degree of certitude. Related to this ethical concern are occasions when psychologists

19
do not recognize the need to refer clients to colleagues for specialized psychological assessment,
as when a client manifests suspicious signs of cognitive deterioration that warrant more
extensive neuropsychological assessment. Psychologists may be at greatest risk for violating
ethical standards when the assessment of suicide ideation and risk become paramount. Imagine a
scenario in which a the family of a client who committed suicide files a charge of ethical
misconduct against a psychologist alleging that risk of suicide was not properly assessed.
Finally, psychologists are guardians of the sensitive information they have gleaned from a
psychological assessment, which if disclosed, could result in extensive and lasting damage to the
reputation clients. It is important to note that as long as the actions of psychologists comport
with widely accepted professional standards that govern the conduct of psychological
assessment, it is unlikely that they will be found guilty of breeching professional ethics or
successfully sued for malpractice.
Psychological assessment in clinical settings is complex. No approach to psychological
assessment can ever fulfill all of the objectives for which it is intended with all clients across all
situations. Selecting an approach to psychological assessment demands that psychologists
answer the following question: "Are the methods being contemplated for a psychological
assessment of an client from this population for this particular purpose in these set of conditions
psychometrically sound? In other words, psychologists must be able to justify their decisions to
conduct psychological assessments with their clients. The International Guidelines for Test Use
(International Test Commission, 2001) identifies a number of best practices in psychological
assessment, many of which provide psychologists with direction in determining how best to
minimize harm and maximize the benefits to their clients of psychological assessment. The
following guidelines stand out because of their clear connection to ethical practice of

20
psychological assessment (Groth-Marnot, 2009; International Test Commission, 2001; Koocher
& Keith-Spiegel, 2013; Stevens et al., 2012):

Familiarity with ethical and legal standards of psychological assessment

General knowledge and understanding of psychometrics and assessment

Specific knowledge and skills regarding the assessment methods to be used

Knowledge of age, gender, culture, disability status, education level, socieconomic status
other contextual variables and how they may influence asessment results

Written consent (or written refusal) after clients have been fully informed of their rights
and the uses to which the assessment results will be put

Impartial and respctful treatment of clients regardless of sociodemographic status

Preservation of the confidentiality of the assessment results unless authorized to release

such information

Assessment in the language that would afford clients the condition to optimize their
performance

Development or adaptation of materials and procedures to best suited to the client and the
circumstances of the assessment

Standardization of administration, accuracy in scoring, and appropriate use of norms or

cut-off scores

Clear communication of assessment results to appropriate or qualified parties, inclduing

the fallibility of the assessment data and interpretation

Secure storage and controlled access to assessment materials, data, and reports

Clinical Vignettes

21
The following vignettes (Pope, 1992; Reamer, 2009) are intentionally vague, but suggest
that the clinical psychologist has approached or crossed an ethical standard, violating
professional norms regarding psychological assessment. In thinking about the core ethical
dilemma in these vignettes, apply the relevant ethical standards on psychological assessment
found in the Romanian Deontological Code, fundamental ethical values (i.e., autonomy,
beneficence, integrity, nonmaleficence, and justice), and the first steps in an ethical decisionmaking model (i.e., identify the dilemma, generate possible courses of action, and evaluate the
potential consequences of all options).
1. A clinic supervisor discovered that many clients have been misdiagnosed or received
inappropriate treatment plans based on the reports of a particular psychologist. When
the supervisor asked the psychologist to detail his training and experience, he admitted
he had virtually no training or experience in the psychological assessment procedures he
used psychological except for the literature he had read and lectures he had attended
while in graduate school. HE claimed that he was gaining expertise on the job.
2. A psychologist sees a husband and wife in couples counseling. A judge subpoenas the
psychologist in a divorce proceeding at the request of the husbands attorney. The
husband claims that the psychologist has evidence of the wifes mental instability from a
psychological assessment of the wife that took place at the start of couples counseling. In
addition to administering an inventory of marital adjustment, the psychologist had asked
the wife to complete a measure of psychopathology. The husband believes the
psychologist can testify about the effect of the wifes mental instability on the marriage.
The husband waives his right to confidentiality. The psychologist refuses to testify on the
basis of the confidential disclosures made by the wife.

22
3. A 15-year-old boy comes to a psychologists office and asks for a psychological
evaluation. He has been experiencing anxiety, depression, and headaches. The boy has
dropped out of high school and lives with his parents. The psychologist conducts a
comprehensive psychological assessment. During the following year the psychologist
receive requests for information about the assessment from
A. the boy's parents, who are concerned about his psychological adjustment;
B. a representative of the insurance company, which is contesting the claim for
reimbursement that the psychologist submitted; and
C. an attorney representing the family who is suing the psychologist for malpractice
because they do not agree with the results of the assessment.
Each of the requests asks for a formal report, original assessment data, and copies of the
instruments that were administered. To which of these people is the psychologist
ethically obliged to divulge information and exactly what information is the psychologist
required to disclose? Which requests require the boy's written consent before
information can be released?
4. Child Protective Services refers a refugee woman to a psychologist for an assessment of
her mental abilities and possible therapy. She is suspected of earning money for
domestic services that she is not reporting. Neighbors have reported that her children
appear to be neglected. She is petrified of the police. A psychologist working for the
military dictatorship in her homeland tortured her husband, and her brother disappeared
while held captive. She does not speak Romanian and there are no assessment materials
available in her native language. Through an interpreter, she stated that she would

23
prefer to speak with her communitys religious leader, who is a shaman. Should the
psychologist accept this referral?
Ethics in Forensic Assessment
Forensic psychology entails a variety of professional activities that contribute to the
enforcement of criminal and civil law and to legal decisions (European Federation of
Psychologists Associations, n.d.; Knapp & VandeCreek, 2001; Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006).
Psychologists conduct psychological assessments to determine competency to stand trail or to
evaluate the state of mind of a plaintiff alleged to have committed a heinous crime. Plaintiffs or
defendants may engage psychologists to conduct psychological assessments and to testify in
court; such testimony informs judges and juries about the circumstances of the case, and can
influence the outcome of trials. Psychologists may also specialize in other forensic assessment
activities, such as conducting psychological evaluations in family court, the findings of which
are introduced as evidence in child-custody hearings.
Because of the nature of the law enforcement and criminal justice systems in which some
psychologists work, they may find themselves in ethical dilemmas that pit the interests of the
individual who they have agreed to assess against the institutional interests of society. The
fundamental ethical values of autonomy and overarching ethical concerns about the right to
privacy and confidentiality can be threatened or compromised in forensic work, which poses an
extra burden of responsibility on psychologists who perform psychological assessments.
Psychologists who conduct forensic assessments are obliged to weigh the relevant fundamental
ethical values and ethical standards of conduct against competing perspectives and interests, and
to strive toward a resolution of ethical conflict by determining which of these has priority. For
example, the fundamental ethical value of justice bears on child-custody evaluations.

24
Psychologists should prioritize the interests of the child because children are less capable of
exerting self-determination. Clearly, working within law enforcement and criminal justice
systems requires that psychologists be sensitive to legal decisions that potentially restrict
freedoms, remain diligent in maintaining the highest level of professional competence and
integrity, and ground psychological assessments on empirically supported and contextually
informed practices.
Pope et al. (2006) offer sage advice for psychologists in eth ethical conduct of forensic
assessments. In reviewing the points below, consider how easily each could be overlooked given
the complexities and adversarial nature of litigation. Bear in mind when reviewing these points
that there are many acceptable approaches for psychologists to adopt in collaborating with the
police and attorneys, in determining how best to conduct a forensic assessment, and in the
sources that could invalidate the assessment. Therefore, the advice below can and probably
should be tailored to the preferences of the psychologist and the distinctive features of each case:

Reach a written agreement with the attorney or court on the purpose and scope of the
psychological assessment and on matters of confidentiality and privacy, including any
mandated disclosures of assessment results.

Eliminate conflicts of interest that could undermine the validity of the assessment. If on
retainer, remain vigilant to financial bias in the course of gathering, interpreting, and
presenting assessment data.

Determine that the assessment methods and materials have adequate psychometric
properties and are appropriate for a plaintiff or defendant that fits a certain
sociodemographic profile.

Have adequate training in the proposed assessment method and materials.

25

Obtain written informed consent to conduct a psychological assessment.

Determine whether there are any cultural, linguistic (e.g., limited ability in reading
comprehension and verbal expression), medical (e.g., blindness), and psychological (e.g.,
depression) conditions that could adverse effect the assessment.

Identify factors that may have influenced the validity of the assessment in written report
and oral testimony.

Set aside preconceptions and avoid premature cognitive commitment by deliberately

seeking data that do not fit hypotheses and generate alternative explanations for the data.

Review legislation, case law, and professional guidelines that pertain to adequate
documentation and the security of assessment materials, data, and reports.

Forensic Vignettes
As before, the following vignettes (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2001) are intentionally vague,
but suggest that the forensic psychologist has approached or crossed an ethical standard,
violating professional norms regarding psychological assessment . In thinking about the core
ethical dilemma in these vignettes, apply the relevant ethical standards on psychological
assessment found in the Romanian Deontological Code, fundamental ethical values (i.e.,
autonomy, beneficence, integrity, nonmaleficence, and justice), and the first steps in an ethical
decision-making model (i.e., identify the dilemma, generate possible courses of action, and
evaluate the potential consequences of all options).
1. A psychologist was hired by a mother to do a custody evaluation. The father did not
agree to the evaluation and did not participate. During the course of the evaluation, the
children made several credible critical comments about their fathers approach to
discipline. In his final report, the psychologist wrote that the father had authoritarian

26
tendencies and could benefit from participating in remedial parenting classes.
2. A 15-year-old boy was given an MMPI as part of an evaluation following a claim by his
sister that he had sexually abused her. Both he boy and his sister were adopted children
who came from troubled backgrounds. The boy denied the allegations, which arose after
he had put his sister to bed early as punishment for misbehavior while babysitting. The
boy was not available to come to the psychologists office to complete the MMPI, so the
psychologist called him and read him the items over the telephone. The MMPI was then
compute- scored using adult norms. The interpretation by the psychologist was that the
MMPI showed that the boy had significant problems with anger management,
interpersonal relations, impulsivity, unpredictability, and sexual acting-out. The
psychologist concluded that the boy had sexually abused his sister, and recommended
that he be placed in a program for adolescent perpetrators. However, when adolescent
norms for the boy's MMPI were used, the only elevation was on Scale 3, indicating a
need for affirmation.
3. A psychologist conducted a court-ordered evaluation of a prisoner. Before the interview
began the psychologist briefly informed the prisoner of the purpose of the evaluation and
explained that the information would be shared with the court. The psychologist
provided and discussed a form for the appropriate release of information obtained
through the evaluation findings and a detailed informed consent document, copies of
which the psychologist gave to the prisoner. During the trial, the prisoner expressed
genuine surprise when the psychologist appeared in court and repeated the content of
their interviews.
Ethics in Work/Organizational Psychology

27
Work/organizational psychologists apply psychological theory and research to stabilize
and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of businesses and industries in such areas as
administration, management, marketing, personnel, and sales. In doing so, work/organizational
psychologists engage in professional activities that range from employee screening to
performance evaluation. Lowman (2006) and Prieto, Chacon, and Marin (2012) identify the
functions of work/organizational psychologists, a subset of which involves psychological
assessment. Work/organizational psychologists must be able to assess jobs and work,
performance, and people. To assess jobs and work, knowledge of diverse methods for defining
jobs and the qualities needed to perform those jobs is essential. Familiarity with subjective and
objective assessment methods is required to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of job
performance. To assess prospective and current employees, work/organizational psychologists
must be trained in the various procedures used in individualized psychological assessment,
including standardized instruments, (auto)biographical narratives, structured interviews,
prototypic work samples, assessment centers, and surveys, along with computer-based and online
assessment procedures. Assessment-related activities include determining the qualification for
work through job analyses in order to devise procedures for personnel selection; assessing the
work-related knowledge, skill, and performance of employees for the purpose of identifying
training needs; and assessing individual differences in order to place prospective or current
employees into jobs and to facilitate their career development (International Organization for
Standards, 2011).
Although there is a growing interest in the relationship between ethics and
work/organizational psychology, as demonstrated by the recent appearance of casebooks and
journal articles, the topic is not a priority. Ethics codes are promulgated by psychology

28
organizations, such as the College of Romanian Psychologists. These ethics codes attempt to
address the leading ethical dilemmas encountered by psychologists working in or consulting with
businesses and industries that reflect conflict between the rights of employees and demands
imposed by formal and implicit expectations and regulations of organizations. However, there
are historically loose ties between work/organizational psychologists and psychology
organizations (Prieto et al. 2012). As a consequence, work/organizational psychologists have
been less obliged to abide by professional ethical standards; instead, they tend to observe a less
formalized code of conduct that mirrors their area of specialization and, of course, applicable
laws and court rulings (Lowman, 2006). It follows, then, that relatively few allegations of
ethical impropriety by work/organizational have been filed with the ethics committees of
psychology organizations. These allegations have a prominent theme: interference by
management in the ethical obligations of work/organizational psychologists to preserve the
confidential assessment data produced by employees.
The typical ethical conflict for work/organizational psychologists, then, is to manage the
competing roles and attendant conflict between safeguarding the rights of employees against
fulfilling the contractual commitments and corporate standards of conduct. For example, while
the Romanian Deontological Code stipulates that respondents are entitled to receive a copy of
their assessment results, many organizations not only do not share assessment outcomes with
applicants and employees, but also neglect to inform them of their rights in advance of the
assessment. Organizational culture can influence the degree to which fundamental ethical values
and ethical standards are followed when addressing ethical dilemmas. The likelihood that
conflicts between work/organizational psychologists and corporate managers arise appears
proportionate to the extent to which (a) corporate policies and regulations match the foundational

29
ethical values and ethical standards of conduct in psychology and (b) the integrity of
work/organizational psychologists matches that of management at different levels of the
organization. Organizations that turn a blind eye toward or actively support unethical conduct
either via unfair policies or intense pressure for high performance are settings in which even the
most ethically conscious work/organizational psychologists are at risk to disengage behaviorally
from ethical standards.
The International Organization for Standardization (2011) has developed standards in all
industrial and service sectors as they exist in well over one hundred countries, including
Romania. Of particular relevance for work/organizational psychologists are methods to assess
applicants and employees in work and organizational settings. Although these standards have no
legal status, their goal is to establish more uniform standards of quality in psychological
assessments used in business and industry. These standards subsume all aspects of assessment
from the development of a formal assessment contact, to determining a viable and appropriate
methodology for assessment, to the ethical use of the assessment findings. The standards are
applicable for the psychological assessment of individuals (e.g., selection, training), groups (e.g.,
work-team climate and cohesion), and entire organization (e.g., company culture, satisfaction).
The description of the ethical responsibilities of work/organizational psychologists who provide
psychological assessments includes the tasks they are expected to undertake throughout the
assessment process, that is, before, during, and after. The standards also includes specific
guidelines for the ethical practice of psychological assessment in organizations, which are:

Identify the need and rationale for psychological assessments.

Identify the conditions under which the results of psychological assessments will be used.

30

Formulate strategies and decisions about the assessment approach as well as how the
assessment methods will be implemented and evaluated.

Determine the required competencies and training of company employees who will be
involved in the assessment process.

Anticipate and clarify issues related to the access, use, and storage of assessment
materials, data, and reports.

Work/Organizational Vignettes
Once again, the following vignettes (Gavassi, n.d.; Lowman, 2006) are intentionally
vague, but suggest that the work/organizational has approached or crossed an ethical standard,
violating professional norm regarding psychological assessment. In thinking about the core
ethical dilemma in these vignettes, apply the relevant ethical standards on psychological
assessment found in the Romanian Deontological Code, fundamental ethical values (i.e.,
autonomy, beneficence, integrity, nonmaleficence, and justice), and the first steps in an ethical
decision-making model (i.e., identify the dilemma, generate possible courses of action, and
evaluate the potential consequences of all options).
1. To reduce costs and increase productivity, Henri Coanda International Airport designed
a multi-faceted wellness program for employees. The program includes seminars on
stress management, health-related newsletters, outdoor activity days for employees and
their families, and discounts at fitness centers. To determine the effectiveness of the
program, work/organizational psychologists hired by the airport collected data and
found that absenteeism dropped from 4.0% to 2.5%. The work-organizational
psychologists concluded that the wellness program was a success, and have since
marketed the program to other airports and industries.

31
2. A work/organizational psychologist has conducted pre-ordination evaluations for a
religious institution for many years. The purpose of these evaluations is to identify
candidates who manifest psychopathology or other dysfunctional characteristics that
would disqualify them performing their religious duties. One day, the psychologist
receives a phone call from the religious institution. The institution requests that the
psychologist screen candidates for homosexual tendencies because, according to
religious doctrine, such individuals are not eligible to become clergy. The psychologist
feels comfortable about this request. Homosexuality has not been considered a mental
illness since the 1970s. At the same time, the religious institution is adamant about this
requirement.
3. Work/organizational psychologists hired by a healthcare organization have developed a
plan to evaluate treatment outcomes. The plan would require the participation of all
those seeking mental health services. Clients would be told by their therapists to
complete a form at the outset of treatment and periodically thereafter, otherwise their
out-of-pocket expenses for mental health services would double. The completed forms
would then be transmitted electronically for scoring and data storage. The therapists
would be told that they would not receive feedback based on the outcome data. Items on
the form would inquire, among other things, about sexual orientation, family income,
religion, and detailed usage patterns for alcohol and illegal substances, like marijuana
and methamphetamines. Other questions would ask about arrest records and
incarceration histories.
The Risk of Moral Disengagement

32
It is difficult to neatly summarize the best practices in ethical psychological assessment
across clinical, forensic, and work/organizational settings. However, there appear to be several
common practices that suggest core ethical themes of broad significance to psychological
assessment. These themes include competence in ethics and the law, competence in
psychological assessment, appreciation of the sociocultural context in which psychological
assessment is embedded, informed consent, maintaining confidentiality and security, and
determining the need for and purpose of psychological assessment at the outset.
In drawing this chapter on ethics in psychological assessment, to a close it is important to
remember the human temptation to sidestep ethical responsibilities. Although the large majority
of psychologists adhere to ethical principles and standards of conduct in their use of
psychological assessment, there are circumstances in which psychologists may find themselves
at greater risk of professional misconduct. These circumstances include conflict, confusion,
exhaustion, neediness, and stress. They tend to draw vulnerable psychologists into cognitive
distortions that operate to disengage them from fundamental ethical values and, ultimately, to
lapses in ethical behavior that can cause harm. Pope et al. (2006) describe a number of cognitive
maneuvers that transform otherwise unacceptable behavior into permissible behavior. The list
below contains a few such fallacies:

It must not be unethical if the ethics code never mentions the specific act.

It must not be unethical if a law has been broken.

It must not be unethical if other psychologists engage in the same behavior.

It must not be unethical if there was no intent to hurt anyone.

It must not be unethical if the action felt right.

It must not be unethical if unintended negative consequences did not occur.

33

It must not be unethical if no one has ever filed a complaint about the behavior.

It must not be unethical if the psychology organization seems tyrannical in enforcing

standards of conduct.

It is must not be unethical if an alternative approach is not available.

It must not be unethical if a respected source (published scholarship, renown consultant)

claims that it is acceptable conduct.
It is essential for psychologists to be aware, knowledgeable, and skilled with respect to

what ethics codes as well as legislation and case law have to say about the proper conduct of
psychological assessment in clinical, forensic, and organizational contexts. It is equally
important that psychologists heed the New Testament proverb, Physician, heal thyself.
Psychologists should cultivate a sensitivity to their distinct patterns of vulnerability and to the
cognitive distortions to which they are prone that can disrupt their efforts to identify ethical
solutions to complex and challenging issues that arise in conducting psychological assessments.

References
Ad Hoc Joint Committee (2008). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.
Retrieved from http://resources.iupsys.net/iupsys/index.php/ethics/declaration
College of Romanian Psychologists (n.d.). Romanian deontological code for the free licensed
psychologist profession. Retrieved from
http://www.copsi.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113&Itemid=71
Draguns, J. G., & Tanaka-Matsumi , J.(2003). Assessment of psychopathology across and within
cultures: Issues and findings. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 755-776.
doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00190-0

34
European Federation of Psychologists Associations (n.d.). The European psychologist in
forensic work and as expert witness: Recommendations for an ethical practice. Retrieved
from http://www.efpa.eu/download/14788d485c8429e1438dd5548c129d35
Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. (1996). A practitioners guide to ethical decision making.
Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/ethics
Gauthier, J., Pettifor, J., & Ferrero, A. (2010). The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles
for Psychologists: A culture-sensitive model for creating and reviewing a code of ethics.
Ethics and Behavior, 23(3-4), 176-196.
Gavassi, J. (n.d.). Ethics education and psychology: Vignette warehouse. Retrieved from
http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/p/vignette-warehouse.html
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.
International Organization for Standards (2011). Assessment service delivery: Procedures and
methods to assess people in work and organizational settings. Retrieved from
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10667
International Test Commission. (2001). International guidelines on test use. International
Journal of Testing, 1, 93114. doi:10.1207/S15327574IJT0102_1
International Test Commission (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and Internetdelivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143172.
Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2001). Ethical issues in personality assessment in forensic
psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 242-254.
doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7702_07

35
Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2013). What should I do?: 39 ethical dilemmas involving
confidentiality. Retrieved from
http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course049.php
Leach, M. M., Stevens, M. J., Lindsay, G., Ferrero, A., & Korkut, Y. (2012). The Oxford
handbook of international psychological ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindsay, G. (2012). Ethical decision making. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A.
Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international of psychological
ethics (pp. 74-89). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lowman, R. L. (2006). Ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11386-000
Pope, K. S. (1992). Responsibilities in providing psychological test feedback to clients.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 268-271. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.3.268
Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (Eds.). (2006). The MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A in
court: A practical guide for expert witnesses and attorneys. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Pope, K. S., Sonne, J. J., & Greene, B. (2006). What therapists dont talk about and why:
Understanding taboos that hurt us and our clients. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11413-000
Prieto, J. M., Chacon, P., & Marin, C. (2012). Ethical/deontological issues in work and
organizational psychology. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y.
Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international of psychological ethics (pp. 243267). New York: Oxford University Press.

36
Reamer, F. G. (2009). Ethics in mental health practice. Retrieved from
http://www.behavioralhealthce.com/index.php/component/courses/?task=view&cid=64
Woody, B. (2008). A note on the ethics of assessment, with possible guidelines for
consideration. Florida Psychologist, 58(3), 28-29, 42.