Decoding the Ethics Code, Ch. 10 & 11

benisd

10_and_11.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >Decoding the Ethics Code, Ch. 10 & 11

CHAPTER 10

Standards on

Education and Training

7. Education and Training

7.01 Design of Education and Training Programs

Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure that the

programs are designed to provide the appropriate knowledge and proper experiences, and to meet the

requirements for licensure, certification, or other goals for which claims are made by the program. (See

also Standard 5.03, Descriptions of Workshops and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs.)

Psychologists responsible for education and training programs have an obligation

to establish relationships of loyalty and trust with their institutions, students,

and members of society who rely on academic institutions to provide the knowledge,

skills, and career opportunities claimed by the specific degree program

(Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility). Psychologists responsible for administering

academic programs must ensure that course requirements meet recognized

standards in the relevant field.

􀀵 Department chairs and other faculty responsible for undergraduate curricula development

need to ensure that course requirements expose undergraduate psychology

majors, minors, and individuals taking survey courses to the knowledge and skills

considered fundamental to the discipline.

􀀵 Chairs or directors of doctoral programs claiming to produce graduates competent to

conduct psychological research need to ensure that students receive education and

training in research ethics and the theoretical, methodological, and statistical skills

required to competently conduct psychological science in the specific fields emphasized

by the program (Fisher, Fried, & Feldman, 2009).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

206——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Need to Know:

Online Distance Education

Discussion of teaching ethics for online psychology curricula and distance learning programs

has not kept pace with the rapid evolution and availability of online education.

Distance learning using information technology raises complex questions regarding the

adequacy of psychology programs to meet education and training requirements for a

diverse student body from different countries and states across the United States.

Psychologists administering online distance education might consider the following questions

(Anderson & Simpson, 2007; Brey, 2006):

Can the use of information technology ensure that the appropriate knowledge can

be transmitted to students and that student acquisition of such knowledge can be

appropriately evaluated?

To what extent does the program meet accreditation, certification, licensure, or

other requirements across different localities? Is the program description clear

regarding the states or countries in which it meets such requirements (see also

Standard 7.02, Descriptions of Education and Training Programs)?

Does the use of web-based or Internet-mediated technology in higher education

foster or undermine student diversity?

Are the program admissions criteria and educational materials appropriate for the

diversity of students who will apply for and be admitted into the program?

Can experiential requirements be adequately provided, supervised, monitored, and

evaluated at a distance through informational technology?

Can the ethical values of the discipline be successfully transmitted and student

ethical behavior adequately monitored through electronic media?

Are faculty adequately trained in the use of online distance learning?

The term reasonable steps reflects recognition that despite a program administrator’s

best efforts, there may be periods during which curriculum adjustments

must be made in reaction to changes in faculty composition, departmental reorganizations,

institutional demands, modifications in accreditation or licensure regulations,

or evolving disciplinary standards.

􀀵 Psychologists responsible for professional degree programs need to ensure that

course requirements and field experiences meet those required by potential

employers, relevant state or professional organizations for program accreditation,

internship placements where relevant, and applicable individual licensure and

credentialing bodies.

􀀵 Psychologists administering internship programs must ensure that supervisory and

training experiences meet the standards of the specific areas of psychological practice

claimed, appropriate state and professional accreditation criteria, and state licensing

board requirements.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——207

7.02 Descriptions of Education

and Training Programs

Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure

that there is a current and accurate description of the program content (including participation in

required course- or program-related counseling, psychotherapy, experiential groups, consulting

projects, or community service), training goals and objectives, stipends and benefits, and requirements

that must be met for satisfactory completion of the program. This information must be

made readily available to all interested parties.

Department and program chairs and psychologists responsible for internship

training programs must also ensure that prospective and current students have an

accurate description of the nature of the academic and training programs to which

they may apply or have been admitted. This standard of the APA Ethics Code (APA,

2002b) requires psychologists responsible for these programs to keep program

descriptions up-to-date regarding (a) the required coursework and field experiences,

(b) the educational and career objectives supported by the program, (c) the

current faculty or supervisory staff, (d) the currently offered courses, and (e) the

dollar amount of available student stipends and benefits, the process of applying for

these, and the obligations incurred by students, interns, or postdoctoral fellows

who receive stipends or benefits.

Standard 7.02 specifically obligates teaching psychologists to ensure that prospective

and current students, externs, or interns are aware of program requirements

to participate in personal psychotherapy or counseling, experiential

groups, or any other courses or activities that require them to reveal personal

thoughts or feelings. Many program descriptions now appear on university or

institutional websites. Psychologists need to ensure to the extent possible that

these websites are appropriately updated. The term reasonable steps recognizes

that efforts to ensure up-to-date information may be constrained by publication

schedules for course catalogues, webmasters not directly under the auspices of

the department or program, and other institutional functions over which psychologists

may have limited control.

􀀴 A psychology graduate department described itself as offering an industrial–

organizational track that included paid summer placements at companies in the city

in which the university is located. The required curriculum included only one class

in industrial–organizational psychology taught by an adjunct professor. Other

required courses for the industrial–organizational track consisted of traditional

intelligence and personality test administration classes, test construction, and statistics

courses offered by faculty in the department’s clinical and psychometric

programs. For the past 2 years, the department had been able to place only one or

two students in paid summer internships.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

208——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Need to Know: Language

Matching Training Experiences

The increasing language diversity of client/patient populations in the United States sometimes

leads to matching bilingual graduate students with externship and internship populations

for which their language skills are considered an advantage. Limiting bilingual

trainees to work experiences with non-English-speaking clients or to one cultural–language

group may deprive students of the broad educational training opportunities promised by

the graduate or training program (Fields, 2010; see also Standard 3.08, Exploitative

Relationships). Such assignments may also implicitly lead to misconceptions by bilingual

and other students in the program that language competence is equivalent to multicultural

treatment competence (A. Schwartz, Rodríguez, Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, & Field, 2010).

Faculty advisors and supervisors should actively assess bilingual students’ training needs as

well as their comfort and desire to work with same-language populations to ensure these

students are afforded the same quality of education, respect, and autonomy that other

trainees enjoy (A. Schwartz et al., 2010). English-only-speaking supervisors who rely on a

trainee’s language translations of sessions should also be aware that they may be providing

feedback on clients that they cannot actually work with themselves (Standard 2.01b,

Boundaries of Competence), and in some states, this lack of “proper” supervision might

mean that the trainee is perceived to be practicing “independently” without a license

(A. Schwartz et al., 2010).

7.03 Accuracy in Teaching

(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that course syllabi are accurate regarding the

subject matter to be covered, bases for evaluating progress, and the nature of course experiences.

This standard does not preclude an instructor from modifying course content or requirements

when the instructor considers it pedagogically necessary or desirable, so long as students are

made aware of these modifications in a manner that enables them to fulfill course requirements.

(See also Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.)

Standard 7.03a requires that teaching psychologists provide students with accurate

and timely information regarding course content; required and recommended

readings; exams, required papers, or other forms of evaluation; and extra-classroom

experiences if required. Psychologists who provide their syllabi via the Internet or

who require students to use web-based references need to keep these websites accurate

and appropriately updated.

Modifying Course Content or Requirements

This standard also recognizes that syllabi may sometimes include an unintentional

error, required readings may become unavailable, changes in institutional scheduling

may create conflicts in dates set for exams, and many times, psychologists have valid

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——209

pedagogical reasons for changing course content or requirements at the beginning or

middle of a semester. For example, a professor may find that assigned readings are too

difficult or not sufficiently advanced for the academic level of students in the class. In

such instances, it would be appropriate for professors to modify course reading

requirements as long as materials are available to students, and they are given sufficient

time to obtain and read them. Similarly, in response to constraints imposed by

publishers, bookstores, other professors, or the institution, psychologists may rightly

need to modify required texts or exam schedules.

Modifications to course content or requirements do not violate this standard as

long as students are made aware of such modifications in a clear and timely manner

that enables them to fulfill course requirements without undue hardship. However,

a professor who has neither discussed nor specified how students will be evaluated

until the last week of class or one who fails to update an old syllabus that does not

reflect the current content of the course would be in violation of this standard.

􀀵 In his first year of teaching, an assistant professor prepared a syllabus for an undergraduate

developmental psychology course that drew largely on required readings

from books by well-known developmental theorists. He carefully planned weekly

quizzes, a midterm exam, and a term paper requiring a critique of several journal

articles. Students performed very poorly on the first two quizzes and did not seem to

be involved in class discussions. The professor learned that for reasons unknown to

the department chair, the dean’s office had assigned this class as a “non-major” section.

The students were therefore not as prepared as had been anticipated because,

unlike psychology majors, most had not taken an introductory psychology course. The

psychologist decided to modify the curriculum to ensure that students received a basic

foundation in developmental psychology. He rush-ordered a basic developmental

psychology text, extended the date of the midterm, and changed the topic of the term

paper to a review of sections of the originally assigned books. He distributed a revised

syllabus detailing the changes and gave the students the option of using the first two

quizzes as extra credit.

(b) When engaged in teaching or training, psychologists present psychological information accurately.

(See also Standard 2.03, Maintaining Competence.)

Standards prescribing the nature of information that teachers should provide raise

legitimate concerns about academic freedom. At the same time, in many ways, teaching

is a “process of persuasion” where instructors are in the unique socially sanctioned and

desired role of systematically influencing the knowledge base and belief systems of students

(Friedrich & Douglass, 1998). Standard 7.03b reflects the pedagogical obligation

of psychologists to share with students their scholarly judgment and expertise along

with the right of students to receive an accurate representation of the subject matter

enabling them to evaluate where a professor’s views fit within the larger discipline.

The narrowness or breadth of information required to fulfill this standard will

depend on the nature of the course. For example, a psychologist who presented

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

210——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

readings and lectures only on psychodynamic theories of personality would be

presenting accurate information in a course by that name but inaccurate information

if teaching a general survey course on theories of personality. A professor who

was teaching the same material for 20 years when such material was considered

obsolete in terms of recognized standards of the discipline would be providing

students inaccurate information about the current state of the subject matter.

7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal Information

Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course- or

program-related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual history, history of abuse

and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant

others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly identified this requirement

in its admissions and program materials or (2) the information is necessary to evaluate or obtain

assistance for students whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing

them from performing their training- or professionally related activities in a competent manner or

posing a threat to the students or others.

This standard requires psychologists to respect the privacy rights of students and

supervisees. In many instances, information about students’ or supervisees’ sexual history,

personal experience of abuse or neglect, whether they have or are currently receiving

psychotherapy, and their relationships with relatives, friends, or significant others

is outside the legitimate boundaries of academic or supervisory program inquiry.

With two exceptions, Standard 7.04 prohibits psychologists from requiring students

or supervisees to disclose such information:

Clear Identification of Requirements

Teaching and supervisory psychologists may require disclosure of information

about sexual experiences, history of abuse, psychological treatment, or relationships

with significant others only if the admissions and program materials have

clearly identified that students or supervisees will be expected to reveal such information

if admitted into the program. The requirement for advance notification

includes programs that explore countertransference reactions during supervisory

sessions if questions about such reactions will tap into any of the categories listed

above. Clear and advance notification about the types of disclosures that programs

require will allow potential students to elect not to apply to a program if they find

such a requirement intrusive or otherwise discomforting.

Interference With Academic Performance

or Self-Harm or Other Harm

The standard also recognizes that there are times when students’ personal problems

may interfere with their ability to competently perform professionally related

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——211

activities or pose a threat of self-harm or harm to others. In such instances, psychologists

are permitted to require students or supervisees to disclose the personal

information necessary to help evaluate the nature of the problem, to obtain assistance

for the student or supervisee, or to protect others’ welfare.

􀀵 A psychologist supervising a third-year clinical student’s work at the university counseling

center was growing increasingly concerned about the sexual nature of verbal

exchanges the student reported having with one of her undergraduate clients. The psychologist

also suspected from one of the student’s comments that she had been meeting

with the client outside of the counseling sessions. Concerned that the student might be

in violation of Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships, or 10.05, Sexual Intimacies With

Current Therapy Clients/Patients, the supervisor asked the student whether she had been

seeing the client socially. When she responded yes, the psychologist probed further to

find out if she was having a romantic relationship with the client.

􀀴 A student came to see a professor during office hours to discuss his poor grade on the

midterm exam in a graduate course on human sexuality. The professor asked the student

if he might be doing poorly in the course because of anxieties about his own sexuality.

Need to Know: Should Trainees Be

Required to Disclose Disabilities to

Prospective Clients/Patients?

The field of rehabilitation psychology is increasing the discipline’s familiarity with reasonable

accommodations and training requirements for students with disabilities (Americans

with Disabilities Act, 1990; Falender, Collins, & Shafranske, 2009). The nascent status of the

field leaves unexplored potentially prejudicial beliefs held by supervisors that may unintentionally

lead to inequities and inadequacies in the training experiences of graduate

students with disabilities enrolled in psychology practitioner programs. Taube and Olkin

(2011) address this in their in-depth ethical, legal, and professional analysis of one such

area: Is it good practice for a supervisor to require a practicum or internship trainee with

a visible disability (e.g., legal blindness) to disclose the disability to potential clients before

the first meeting so that the client has the freedom to request another therapist? Their

review concludes that there is no legal requirement or empirical evidence to support such

mandated disclosure, that it is not in the client’s best interest, and that it can have deleterious

consequences for the trainee and fellow students.

First, Taube and Olkin (2011) note that neither law nor the APA Ethics Code requires

a practitioner to disclose personal attributes that are not directly relevant to treatment

outcomes. Second, in many instances, the assumption that a trainee with disabilities is

unable to perform an essential function as a psychologist is unsupported. The authors

point out that it is a misconception to assume that a legally blind supervisee cannot detect

client changes in demeanor and that a review of empirical studies did not demonstrate a

disadvantage for practitioner disability on the therapeutic alliance. Third, clients may have

a priori preferences for or against many practitioner attributes, such as race/ethnicity,

gender, or religion, that if adhered to in assignment of trainees would be discriminatory,

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

212——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

7.05 Mandatory Individual or Group Therapy

(a) When individual or group therapy is a program or course requirement, psychologists responsible

for that program allow students in undergraduate and graduate programs the option of

selecting such therapy from practitioners unaffiliated with the program. (See also Standard 7.02,

Descriptions of Education and Training Programs.)

Standard 7.05a addresses the privacy rights of psychology students enrolled in programs

that require individual or group psychotherapy. During the commenting period

for the revision of the current APA Ethics Code, a number of graduate students raised

concerns about revealing personal information (a) in the presence of other students in

required group therapy or experiential courses and (b) to therapists in required individual

psychotherapy if the therapist was closely affiliated with their graduate program.

In response to these concerns, this standard requires programs that have such

requirements to allow students to select a therapist unaffiliated with the program.

Standard 7.05a does not prevent programs from instituting a screening and

approval process for practitioners outside the program whom students may see for

required psychotherapy. It is sound policy for programs to ensure that required

individual or group therapy is conducted by a qualified mental health professional.

In addition, in some programs, the therapeutic experience may be seen as one facet

of training about a particular form of psychotherapy, and the program is entitled

to require students to select a private therapist who conducts treatment consistent

with the program’s training goals.

Postdoctoral Training

This standard does not apply to postdoctoral programs, such as postgraduate

psychoanalytic programs, that require a training analysis with a member of the faculty.

These advanced programs are optional for individuals who seek specialized

training beyond a doctoral degree in psychology, and unlike such requirements at the

graduate level, a decision not to enroll in such programs because of therapy requirements

does not restrict opportunities to pursue a career in professional psychology.

(b) Faculty who are or are likely to be responsible for evaluating students’ academic performance

do not themselves provide that therapy. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)

This standard is designed to protect the integrity and fairness of evaluations of student

academic performance. Whereas Standard 7.05a protects a student’s right to keep

have practical limitations, and deprive clients of a potentially valuable therapeutic experience.

Finally, according to the authors, requiring trainees to disclose a visible disability to

clients prior to an initial session fosters a one-size-fits-all mentality that deprives supervisors

and trainees the valuable opportunity to develop a clinical rationale for or against

disclosure specific to each client.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——213

personal information private from program-affiliated practitioners, Standard 7.05b

protects the student from grading or performance evaluation biases that might arise if

a faculty member who serves as the student’s psychotherapist is also involved in judging

his or her academic performance. This standard pertains not only to faculty who might

teach a course in which a student who is in therapy with them might enroll, but also to

faculty who may be involved in decisions regarding passing or failing of comprehensive

exams, advancement from master’s-level to doctoral-level status, training supervision,

and dissertation committees. As indicated by the cross-reference to Standard 3.05,

Multiple Relationships, serving in the dual roles of therapist and academic evaluator can

impair the therapist’s objectivity when knowledge gained from one role is applied to the

other, or it can undermine treatment effectiveness when students are afraid to reveal

personal information that might negatively affect their academic evaluations.

􀀴 A clinical psychology program that required first-year graduate students to receive

1 year of individual psychotherapy had a referral list of 20 “approved” independent

practitioners in the area that students could select as their therapist. The program

often drew on these same practitioners to teach required courses as adjunct professors

when regular faculty were on sabbatical.

7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance

(a) In academic and supervisory relationships, psychologists establish a timely and specific process

for providing feedback to students and supervisees. Information regarding the process is

provided to the student at the beginning of supervision.

Psychologists establish academic and supervisory relationships of trust with

students and supervisees based on fair processes of evaluation that provide students

and supervisees with the opportunity to learn from positive and negative feedback

of their work (Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility). Under Standard 7.06a, psychologists

must inform students and supervisees (a) when and how often they will

be evaluated, (b) the basis for evaluation (e.g., performance in exams, attendance,

implementation of various phases of research, summaries of client/patient sessions,

and administration and interpretation of psychological assessments), and (c) the

timing and manner in which feedback will be provided.

􀀴 A psychology professor teaching a graduate course in statistics used a midterm and

final exam to evaluate students. The professor delayed returning the midterm, telling

the students they should not worry because most of them would do very well. When

she returned the graded midterms during the last week of class, students were

shocked to discover that most had received Cs and Ds on the exam. Many felt the

delay caused them to miss opportunities to learn what aspects of course material they

had misunderstood and to adequately prepare for the final.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

214——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Providing specific information about student evaluation at the beginning of the

process is especially important for the supervision of clinical work, psychological

assessment, or research because these supervisory activities are often less uniformly

structured than classroom teaching.

􀀴 A student in a Ph.D. program in school psychology had a second-year externship in a

residential school for students with severe emotional disorders. The school psychologist

serving as her on-site supervisor relied on “countertransference” techniques to

train his externs. Each time the student asked her supervisor for specific information

on how her work with student clients would be evaluated, the supervisor would shift

the discussion to how the extern’s personal reactions to her clients was causing her

anxiety about the evaluation of her performance. The extern felt increasingly frustrated

and anxious about the lack of specific feedback. At the end of the year, the

supervisor gave her a poor evaluation, stating that the student’s anxieties interfered

with her ability to take direction.

􀀴 A research psychologist who agreed to mentor a graduate student’s doctoral research

consistently postponed or missed meetings with the student resulting in the student

missing the departmental deadline for dissertation proposals. The mentor gave the

student an incomplete for the semester, which resulted in the student having to pay

additional tuition to propose the following semester.

Military Supervision

W. B. Johnson and Kennedy (2010) eloquently describe the unique responsibilities

of military psychologists supervising trainees in American combat theaters and

the need to provide timely and constructive feedback under intense and fast-paced

conditions. Military supervisors are often torn between a duty to help trainees meet

their active duty responsibilities and concerns that some trainees may not be adequately

prepared during the initially agreed-upon time frame. According to the

authors, military supervisors need enhanced competencies to address the unique

nature of trainee stress produced by almost continuous exposure to life-threatening

combat conditions and deceased and severely injured and traumatized service

members (Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence). They recommend that for

each trainee soon to be deployed, supervisors develop “the best mix of training and

supervision in psychotherapy, battlefield triage, combat-related psychopathology,

treatments for trauma-related disorders, neuropsychology, and ethical decision

making” (p. 300) and make sure the trainee is clear about the training components

and expectations of the supervised experience, including the physical dangers and

stresses of performing their roles in combat situations.

(b) Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on

relevant and established program requirements.

Fairness and justice require that academic and supervisory evaluations

should never be based on student personal characteristics that have not been

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——215

observed to affect their performance or that are outside the established bounds

of program requirements.

􀀴 A psychologist learned from a member of the clinic staff that one of her supervisees

had expressed harsh, racially prejudiced attitudes at a staff party. Over the course of

the supervisory period, there was no evidence that the supervisee treated clients in a

racially biased manner. However, in the final written evaluation, the psychologist

reported that the supervisee appeared to have difficulty working with clients from

other racial backgrounds.

􀀴 During a health psychology class discussion, an undergraduate student often made

disparaging remarks about individuals with mental disorders. Although the student

had met all course requirements and his grade point average entitled him to a grade

of B, the psychologist gave him a C+ because she felt his class comments indicated

he had not really digested the material.

Additional discussion regarding psychologists’ ethical responsibilities during

supervision can be found in the Hot Topic, “Ethical Supervision of Trainees,” at the

end of this chapter.

7.07 Sexual Relationships With

Students and Supervisees

Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees who are in their

department, agency, or training center or over whom psychologists have or are likely to have

evaluative authority. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)

Having sexual relationships with students or supervisees is specifically prohibited

by Standard 7.07. The student–professor/supervisor role is inherently asymmetrical

in terms of power. Teachers and supervisors have the power to affect

student careers through grading, research and professional opportunities, letters of

recommendation, scholarships and stipends, and reputation among other faculty

or staff. Using this power to coerce or otherwise unduly influence a student to enter

a sexual relationship is exploitative (Standard 3.08, Exploitative Relationships). The

prohibition against sex with students and supervisees applies not only to those over

whom the psychologist has evaluative or direct authority but also to anyone who is

a student or supervisee in the psychologist’s department, agency, or training center

or over whom they might be likely to have evaluative authority while the student is

in the program or supervised setting.

Sexual relationships with students and supervisees are a specific example of an

unethical multiple relationship (Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships). When

psychologists enter into a sexual relationship with a student or supervisee, their

ability to judge the student’s/supervisee’s academic, professional, or scientific performance

objectively is impaired. In addition, when other students learn about

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

216——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

such relationships, it can jeopardize the psychologist’s ability to maintain an

impression of professional impartiality, and it provides students with a model of

unethical conduct that jeopardizes the psychologist’s effectiveness as a teacher or

supervisor. Such relationships also risk compromising psychologists’ ability to

exert appropriate authority or evaluations regarding the student/supervisee and

others with whom they work if the sexual partner can manipulate the psychologist

through threats of exposure or complaints of misconduct.

In many psychology programs, graduate students serve as teaching or research

assistants charged with evaluating undergraduate or graduate students’ academic

performance or supervising their research projects. Standard 7.07 applies to sexual

relationships between graduate assistants and students when assistants are either

student members of the American Psychology Association or their department has

adopted the APA Ethics Code in its policies and procedures.

HOT TOPIC

Ethical Supervision of Trainees in

Professional Psychology Programs

Supervision is a primary means by which students in professional psychology programs acquire and develop

skills needed to provide effective and ethical mental health services (Shallcross, Johnson, & Lincoln, 2010).

Competent and ethical supervision provides a foundation for the attitudes, skills, and commitment supervisees

will need to know what is right and the motivation for self-evaluation and lifelong learning necessary to do

what is right throughout their careers (see Chapter 3).

Supervisors have a fiduciary obligation to their supervisees, the clients/patients under the supervisees’ care,

and the public (Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility). They must (a) nurture the supervisees’ professional

skills and attitudes, (b) ensure that supervisees’ clients/patients are provided appropriate mental health treatment,

and (c) serve as gatekeepers who take appropriate actions to prevent supervisees not able to demonstrate

the needed professional competence from entering the profession and practicing independently

(Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence; Barnett et al., 2007; Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Supervision

should be marked by mutual respect, with supervisor and supervisee both contributing to the process of establishing

goals and role responsibilities (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity; Pettifor, McCarron,

Schoepp, Stark, & Stewart, 2011). The goal of this Hot Topic is to describe the competencies needed to provide

effective and ethical supervision, desired outcomes on which to fairly evaluate supervisee performance, and

how trainees can contribute to their supervisory experience.

Competencies for Effective Supervision

Efforts to provide faculty with the skills necessary for competent supervision has not kept pace with psychology’s

growing commitment to a culture of competence in training and supervision (Standard 2.01, Boundaries

of Competence; DeMers, Van Horne, & Rodolfa, 2008). Competencies for effective supervision include professional

knowledge and expertise and the interpersonal skills necessary to create a trusting supervisory alliance

(Falender et al., 2004). A competence-based approach to supervision also requires techniques for successfully

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 10 Standards on Education and Training——217

monitoring, assessing, and providing feedback to trainees and an emphasis on self-reflection and self-assessment

on the part of supervisor and trainee (N. J. Kaslow, Falender, & Grus, 2012).

Professional Knowledge and Expertise. Supervisors must have the necessary clinical knowledge and expertise

to identify client mental health needs within a diversity-sensitive context, guide supervisees in clientappropriate

treatment techniques, and recognize when clients are not responding to supervisee interventions

(Accurso, Taylor, & Garland, 2011). They must also be familiar with academic credit or credentialing supervision

requirements, on-site institutional policies, and relevant laws as well as appropriate risk management strategies.

Finally, supervisors must fully integrate into the supervisory process the profession’s ethical values and

standards (Barnett et al., 2007; Gottlieb et al., 2007). This includes the following:

Discussion of informed consent, confidentiality and disclosure decisions, avoidance of harmful multiple

relationships, attention to personal problems, or biases that may interfere with treatment efficacy

Consistent monitoring of and feedback on supervisee ethical practices

Preparing students for orderly and appropriate resolution of client responsibility when the training rotation

ends

Maintaining appropriate boundaries and avoiding exploitative or harmful multiple relationships

Preparing students for orderly and appropriate resolution of client responsibility when the training rotation

ends

Maintaining appropriate boundaries and avoiding exploitative or harmful multiple relationships

Interpersonal Competencies. The supervisory context should encourage open discussion of treatment challenges

and attempt to try new strategies by providing constructive feedback in a manner that minimizes

trainee anxiety and decreased feelings of self-efficacy (Barnett et al., 2007; J. A. Daniels & Larson, 2001). At

the same time, supervisors cannot shy away from providing negative feedback when it is necessary to ensure

that clients are receiving adequate care and that their evaluations of supervisee clinical acumen is objective

and in accord with the standards of the profession.

Structuring the Supervisory Process

Structuring the supervisory process requires the ability to tailor training to the supervisee’s level of competence,

identify appropriate outcome measures for evaluation, and present clear standards for assessment.

Identifying Supervisee’s Competencies. The goals and desired outcomes of a training experience need to

be tailored to the supervisee’s current competencies in relation to client needs and institutional requirements.

To meet obligations to trainees and the trainees’ clients, supervisors need to evaluate each supervisee’s developing

competence and the clinical responsibilities with which he or she can be entrusted (Falender &

Shafranske, 2007; Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others).

Identifying Appropriate Training Outcomes. Evaluations must be based on the supervisee’s actual performance

on relevant and established requirements (Standard 7.06, Assessing Student and Supervisee

Performance). Falender and Shafranske (2007) identified the following abilities by which the trainee’s professional

growth can be evaluated:

Apply clinical knowledge and skills in a consistent fashion and incorporate new knowledge into existing

competencies.

Deal with increased confusions and varied situational aspects that shape clinical work.

Respond to constructive feedback.

Carry out recommendations to ensure adequate client care.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

218——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Use problem-solving and clinical reasoning skills appropriate to specific clinical tasks and ethical challenges.

Master technical and facilitative variables appropriate to the students’ stage of training.

Feedback and Evaluation. Standard 7.06 also requires that supervisors establish a timely and specific process

for providing feedback to supervisees and explain the process to trainees at the beginning of supervision.

This includes delineating setting-specific competencies the supervisee must attain for successful completion of

the supervised interval (Falender & Shafranske, 2007).

Meaningful evaluations, scheduled at predetermined intervals, provide trainees with adequate time to

improve their skills and the supervisor with opportunity to evaluate the trainee’s responsiveness to constructive

feedback. When supervisees are unresponsive, fail to demonstrate needed competence, or exhibit impaired

professional competence as a result of personal problems, these issues should be addressed in supervision and

the trainee should be provided reasonable opportunities for remediation or intervention. When necessary, the

supervisor must act to prevent inappropriate actions resulting in poor-quality client care, violation of ethical

standards, or harm to the institution through the supervisee’s violation of policy or law. When appropriate,

supervisors should inform their institution or the students’ academic program and provide a written report

documenting the reasons for their concerns (see Gizara & Forest, 2004).

Enhancing the Supervisory Experience

The quality of clinical supervision will significantly affect students’ development as competent and ethical

practitioners.

Externships and internships in professional psychology programs are often off-site and supervised by nonfaculty

members. When applying for training at these sites, students should obtain the following information:

Has the graduate program and externship training site entered into a formal relationship that includes

articulation of specific training goals and standards, open communication between program faculty and

on-site supervisors, and a system of formalized feedback from students regarding the quality of the

training experience?

Who in their graduate program or externship or internship site can students go to if they have a problem

with an off-site supervisor? Is there a formal complaint process?

If a supervisor is providing inadequate training, will the department or training site assist the student

in obtaining the necessary clinical experience and supervision?

Competent practice in professional psychology requires an understanding of and adherence to ethical

standards, institutional policy, and law. Supervisees should be provided copies of the relevant agency policies

and procedural manuals, including mandatory and discretionary reporting policies and steps to be taken in

case of an emergency. Supervisees should also be made aware of the nature of routine institutional intake

procedures and their own responsibilities regarding obtaining informed consent and communicating to clients/

patients information regarding HIPAA policies, confidentiality policies, the fact that they are in training, and

the name and contact information of their supervisor (10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy).

Self-reflection and the motivation to improve one’s clinical knowledge and skills are fundamental to good

practice. Supervisees should take an active role in constructing a meaningful learning experience. To help their

supervisors in establishing appropriate training experiences and evaluation criteria, supervisees should be

encouraged to be frank when asked to discuss their current level of clinical competence and training goals and

to continue throughout the training experience to ask for additional or more focused training in a specific area

of clinical concern, including asking the supervisor about APA Ethics Code requirements and how they relate

to current treatment issues.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

219

CHAPTER 11

Standards on

Research and Publication

8. Research and Publication

8.01 Institutional Approval

When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their

research proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the

research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

The Nuremberg Code (1949), the first international document establishing

participant rights in research was created in response to the notorious involvement

of German Nazi doctors in medical research on concentration camp prisoners

without their consent. In the United States, however, regulations protecting the

rights of human research participants did not emerge until the late 1970s, following

the 1972 public disclosure of the government-sponsored Tuskegee Syphilis

Study. In this 30-year study, 399 African American rural men were left untreated

for diagnosed syphilis even after effective antibiotics became available (J. H. Jones,

1993). Over time, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45–Part 46 Protection

of Human Subjects (DHHS, 2009) has undergone a number of additions and now

includes a general section on research protections (Subpart A, known as the

Common Rule) and subsections specifically detailing special protections for

pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates (Subpart B), prisoners (Subpart C), and

children (Subpart D).

Under these regulations, IRBs are charged with ensuring that investigators protect

the rights and welfare of research participants. Specific IRB requirements

reflect three general moral principles proposed in the landmark Belmont Report

written by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of

Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NIH, 1979): beneficence, justice, and respect.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

220——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

These principles are also incorporated into the APA Ethics Code (see

Principles A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, D: Justice, and E: Respect for

People’s Rights and Dignity). The ideals reflected in the principle of beneficence

require IRBs to ensure that research is designed to maximize benefits for science,

humanity, and research participants and to avoid or minimize risk or harm.

Applied to the research context, the moral principle of justice means that IRBs

must ensure that investigators equitably select participants and that the potential

benefits and burdens of research participation are fairly distributed among

persons and diverse groups. The moral principle of respect for personhood

requires IRBs to ensure that informed consent and confidentiality procedures

protect the autonomy and privacy rights of participants.

Four Requirements of Standard 8.01

Standard 8.01 of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2010c) has four basic requirements.

First, psychologists must know if and from whom institutional approval is required.

All institutions receiving federal funding for biomedical or behavioral research are

required to establish IRBs to protect the rights and safety of research participants.

Institutions must also follow federal, state, and local laws requiring the review and

regulation of research involving animal subjects. In addition, many social welfare

agencies, health care facilities, schools, correctional facilities, businesses, and other

public and private organizations have their own internal review requirements for

research.

The remaining three requirements within the standard are that applications for

institutional review must be accurate, approval must be obtained before the

research is conducted, and research procedures must follow the approved protocol.

Failure to meet any of these conditions violates this standard. It is not unusual for

methods to be modified during different phases of research. Any changes in participant

informed consent language or procedures, compensation, confidentiality

protections, or methods that increase human or animal participant risk or safety

should be resubmitted for institutional approval prior to implementation.

Psychologists should consult the appropriate IRB about the need to provide an

informative memo or to resubmit proposals for minor changes unrelated to participant

protections or welfare.

Implications of HIPAA

Investigators conducting program evaluation or archival research involving protected

health information (PHI) as defined under HIPAA (45 CFR 160–164) should

be aware that institutions, health plans, or providers who have obtained the information

in many instances must have a waiver from either an IRB or a “privacy

board” before they may provide such information to an investigator without specific

written patient authorization (see also “A Word About HIPAA” in the Preface

to this book).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——221

8.02 Informed Consent to Research

(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists

inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures;

(2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation

Need to Know: Submitting

Successful IRB Proposals

The diversity of expertise and wide latitude in decision making given to individual IRBs

under federal regulations can be intimidating to psychologists new to the process. As a

first step, psychologists should familiarize themselves with federal regulations and the

Office for Human Research Protection’s “Frequently Asked Questions” site (http://www

.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/index.html). Additional ways to make the IRB submission process

less daunting and increase the probability of successful review include the following:

Provide a scientific justification for the research. A common error in IRB submissions

is omitting explanation of the scientific justification for the study based on

the erroneous assumption that IRBs are not responsible for evaluating scientific

merit. Although IRBs should never take on the role of a scientific peer-review panel,

they are obligated to consider scientific validity in order to evaluate the potential

research benefits to participant risks.

Monetary or other compensation is not a research benefit. When describing

research benefits be aware that the Office for Human Research Protections

(http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/index.html) has interpreted federal regulations

as prohibiting investigators from describing participant compensation as a

benefit when obtaining informed consent (see Standard 8.06, Offering Inducements

for Research Participation).

Justify requests for expedited review. Under “expedited” review procedures, protocol

evaluation may be carried out by the IRB chairperson or designee in lieu of full

board review if the research involves no more than “minimal risk” or consists of

only minor changes to previously approved research (45 CFR 46.102i; 46.110).

Psychologists should be familiar with the federal definition of “minimal risk” and

provide IRBs with documentation supporting the minimal risk designation for their

research design and population (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/

anprm2011page.html). Helpful guidance on examples of research meeting “minimal

risk requirements” include the following: Part (C) of the “Categories of Research

That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Through Expedited

Review” (63 FR 60364–60367, November 9, 1998); Protecting Participants and

Facilitating Social and Behavioral Sciences Research (NRC, 2003); and the DHHS

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (www.hhs

.gov/ohrp/sachrp/; Fisher, Kornetsky, & Prentice, 2007).

Obtain IRB approval for “exempt” research. Federal guidelines list activities that are

exempt from institutional review; however, the exempt status of any specific project

must be approved by an institution’s IRB (DHHS, 2009). Depending on institutional

policy, psychology laboratory course experiments may not require review.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

222——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable

factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential

risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality;

(7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research

and research participants’ rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask

questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording

Voices and Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07,

Deception in Research.)

Ensuring Consent Is Informed,

Rational, and Voluntary

Within the context of research, informed consent requirements reflect

Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity by ensuring that individuals’

decision to participate is informed, voluntary, and rational. To comply with

this standard, psychologists must obtain and document written or oral consent

in the manner set forth in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent. The informed

component of consent requires that individuals are provided all the pertinent

information needed to make a reasoned choice about whether they wish to

participate in a study. This includes providing information in a language and at

a language level understood by prospective participants and, where applicable,

their legally authorized representative. When obtaining guardian permission

and participant assent for research involving populations that do not speak

English or for whom English is a second language, psychologists should be alert

to the possibility that prospective participants and their legal guardians may

have different language preferences and proficiencies (APA, 2003; Council of

National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority

Interests, 2000; Fisher et al., 2002). Psychologists employing research assistants

to translate consent forms or obtain informed consent from non-Englishspeaking

participants are responsible for ensuring that employees are sufficiently

trained to adequately protect participants’ rights (Standard 2.05, Delegation of

Work to Others).

􀀵 A psychologist sought to conduct a study on perceived racial/ethnic discrimination

among graduate students at a university with a large number of students who had

emigrated from Vietnam. While courses at the university were given in English, the

psychologist knew that there was great diversity in English proficiency among the

Vietnamese students. She created consent forms written in English on one side and

Vietnamese on the other side. The psychologist met frequently with the language

expert hired for the Vietnamese translation to ensure that the expert understood the

elements of informed consent that needed to be communicated to prospective

participants.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——223

Describing the Nature of Participation

Prospective participants and, when appropriate, their legal guardians must be

given information and the opportunity to ask questions about the purpose, duration,

procedures, foreseeable risks, potential benefits, and compensation involved in

participation that is sufficient to make an informed decision.

Compensation

Prospective participants must also be informed about the conditions under

which they will qualify for partial or full compensation for participation; or continuation

of experimental interventions if they withdraw from the study (see

Standard 8.06, Offering Inducements for Research Participation).

􀀵 A health psychologist was conducting a study on nutritional knowledge and food

resources on eating habits in economically marginalized communities. The study required

participants to maintain weekly food diaries as well as meet for weekly interviews

over a 5-week period. During informed consent, the researcher carefully explained

that participants would receive $20 dollars for each of the 5 weekly diaries submitted

and $20 for each weekly interview they attended. The investigator emphasized that

payment for the diaries and interview would be considered separately (i.e., if they did

not keep a diary for the week but attended an interview they would be paid $20 for

the interview) and if they missed a week, they could continue in the study. This information

was repeated each time participants came in for their interviews.

The Right to Decline or Withdraw Participation

Consent procedures must directly inform participants that they will not be penalized

for declining or withdrawing from participation, especially when the prospective

participant has reason to believe that dissent may result in adverse consequences (see

Standards 8.02b, Informed Consent to Research, and 8.04, Client/Patient, Student, and

Subordinate Research Participants). Institutional populations are particularly vulnerable

to involuntary participation in research. Prisoners and youth held for brief periods

in detention centers, for example, are highly vulnerable because of their restricted

autonomy and liberty, often compounded by their low socioeconomic status, poor

education, and poor health (Gostin, 2007). Incarcerated persons have few expectations

regarding privacy protections and may view research participation as a means of seeking

favor with or avoiding punishment from prison or detention guards or officials

(see also Standard 3.08, Exploitative Relationships; DHHS, 2009, Subpart C).

Confidentiality

Disclosure of confidential information can result in criminal or civil liability

or financial or social damage to participants. Informed consent procedures must

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

224——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

provide a clear explanation of the extent and limits of confidentiality, including

(a) whether investigators must comply with reporting requirements such as mandated

child abuse reporting, elder abuse, or duty-to-warn laws; (b) the investigator’s

confidentiality and disclosure policy for responses, indicating that a

participant or another person is in immediate danger or otherwise at a high level

of risk; or (c) if the method of data collection itself may limit the extent of confidentiality

protections, as may be the case when research is conducted via the

Internet (see discussions of confidentiality in research in Chapter 7 under

Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality; 4.02, Discussing the Limits of

Confidentiality; and 4.05, Disclosures). Readers may also wish to refer to the Hot

Topic, “Informational Risk and Disclosure of Genetic Information to Research

Participants,” at the end of this chapter.

􀀴 A psychologist began conducting a survey study on marital conflict over the Internet.

She posted an explanation of the study on a university website. Those who wished to

participate were asked to copy and then paste the questions and answers into an

e-mail response back to the psychologist. The website claimed that participant

responses were anonymous, and thus, there were no risks to confidentiality. However,

this was not true since the responses were embedded in the e-mail and thus linked to

respondents’ identifying e-mail addresses. The psychologist did not realize her error

until she discovered that her research assistants had identified a faculty member as

one of the respondents as they were coding the data.

Investigators conducting research in schools or studies involving children or

adults with questionable consent capacities should familiarize themselves with

evolving federal and state laws governing guardians’ rights of access to health- or

school-related records created, used, or disclosed by a researcher (e.g., HIPAA,

FERPA) and disclose such information to guardians and children during informed

consent (see also Standard 3.10b, Informed Consent).

The Certificate of Confidentiality

The Public Health Service Act of 1946 permits investigators to apply for a

Certificate of Confidentiality issued by NIH and other DHHS agencies. The certificate

protects investigators from being forced or compelled by law enforcement

or subpoena to disclose personally identifiable research information that could

place participants in legal jeopardy or damage their financial standing, employability,

insurability, or reputation (see http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/certconf.html).

The certificate does not protect investigators from being compelled by law to release

confidential information related to suspected child abuse or preclude investigators

from voluntarily disclosing confidential information. If investigators who have

acquired a certificate intend to make certain voluntary disclosures to protect the

research participant or others from harm (see Standard 4.05, Disclosures), the consent

form should detail both the certificate protections and the investigator’s disclosure

of legal and ethical responsibilities.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——225

Adults With Questionable Capacity to Consent

The rational component of informed consent requires that prospective participants

are able to understand the information presented. Psychologists often conduct

research involving adult populations with questionable consent capacity. The rational

decision-making capacity of active drug users, for example, will vary with their

state of intoxication or withdrawal (Fisher, 2004; Jeste & Saks, 2006). The consent

capacity of adults with schizophrenia and related disorders is often transient

depending on whether they are in an acute stage, remission, or responding positively

or negatively to medication. Elder adults or individuals with Alzheimer’s may also

have fluctuating or decreasing ability to understand consent information. General

requirements for informed consent detailed in Standard 3.10b, Informed Consent,

require that psychologists provide appropriate explanations and obtain assent for

research participation from persons legally incapable of informed consent and,

when required or permissible, obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized

person. When consent capacity of a participant population is known to be

questionable, psychologists should use available assessment techniques to determine

the ability of prospective participants to understand the nature of and their rights in

research and when possible implement procedures to enhance their understanding

(see, e.g., APA, 2012b; Appelbaum & Grisso, 2001; Carpenter et al., 2000; Fisher, 2010;

Fisher et al., 2006; Hot Topic, “Goodness-of-Fit Ethics for Informed Consent

Involving Adults With Impaired Decisional Capacity,” Chapter 6).

􀀴 The consent form used by a psychologist conducting a year-long community-based

study on membership in urban gangs included a statement that a Certificate of

Confidentiality had been obtained that protected the psychologist from being compelled

by law enforcement to reveal information regarding illegal drug activities of

participants. The consent form did not specify that the psychologist would voluntarily

disclose confidential information to protect participants or others from harm. During

the course of the study, the psychologist informed local police when he learned during

an interview that several participants were planning to set fire to a school playground

over the weekend. While some participants were grateful the fire was prevented, they

all felt that the psychologist had violated the informed consent agreement and

refused to continue participation in the study.

Need to Know: NIH Points to Consider

for Research Involving Adults With

Cognitive Impairments

At present, no specific federal regulations govern research involving adults with schizophrenia,

developmental disabilities, dementia, or other disorders characterized by permanent or

transient cognitive impairments. However, the NIH has developed an interim list of points

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

226——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Parental Permission and Child Assent

to Pediatric Clinical Trials

Designing appropriate parental permission and child assent procedures is an

ongoing challenge for psychologists conducting clinical trials for children’s mental

health disorders. Consent procedures require sensitivity to family stress associated

with the child’s cognitive and emotional maturity and treatment needs, the parent–

child relationship, and potential parent–child disputes regarding participation

(Joffe et al., 2006). Under U.S. Federal Regulations, the assent requirement may be

waived when the child’s age, maturity, psychological state, or health status indicates

an inability to provide informed or rational assent, or when the research offers a

benefit to the health of the child, which cannot be obtained through treatment

outside the context of research (DHHS, 2009, 45 CFR 46.408). In the latter condition,

guardian permission overrides child dissent to participate. Consequently,

children should never be asked to assent or dissent to participation if their choice

will not be respected. In such situations, when it is in the child’s best interest, he or

to consider (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.htm). To facilitate IRB

review, psychologists should show evidence that their consent procedures are

consistent with legal, psychological, and ethical criteria for determining consent

capacity;

sensitive to differing and fluctuating levels of capacity;

tailored to the specific research context;

timed to avoid periods of heightened vulnerability;

include information when relevant on when and from whom surrogate consent will

be sought; and

repeat when studies are longitudinal or when cognitive status has changed.

􀀵 A psychologist was conducting a study on language skills involving adults with mild

levels of mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MR/DD) living in community

group residences. Some of the prospective participants had a parent or sibling

who was their legal guardian. The psychologist obtained signed permission from all

legal guardians followed by the signed assent of individuals who wished to participate.

Other prospective participants had maintained the legal right to consent to

decisions affecting their lives, but such decisions were often made in collaboration

with residence staff and family. The psychologist obtained signed consent from all

adults with MR/DD who had the legal right to consent. Letters describing the study

also were sent in advance to the family members with whom these individuals relied

on for decision making. In all situations, the psychologist did not attempt to obtain

consent from a prospective participant until after a resident staff member had confirmed

that the individual wanted to be approached.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——227

she may have his or her opinions sought and considered and made aware that the

parents make the final decision (Masty & Fisher, 2008).

The decision to obtain child assent for pediatric clinical trials requires careful

reflection on the goodness-of-fit between the research design and children’s assent

capacity as well as a balancing of respect for the child’s developing autonomy and

parents’ duty and responsibility to make decisions in their child’s best interest

(Fisher, 2005a; Fisher & Masty, 2006; Masty & Fisher, 2008).

When deciding whether it is ethically appropriate to obtain child assent in pediatric

clinical trials, psychologists should consider the following:

To what extent does the complexity of the research design fit the child’s current

experience and cognitive capacity to understand information essential to

a participation decision? Can the language level and content of the assent be

sufficiently modified to enhance this understanding?

What is the child’s current understanding and appreciation of his or her mental

health status and treatment needs, and how would this affect his or her

reaction to information provided during assent?

Which aspects of the research setting (e.g., a hospital) or nature of the research

(e.g., use of a placebo or treatment as usual control group) may create participant

stress or affect the child’s or parent’s understanding of the voluntary

nature of participation and the distinction between research and treatment?

What is the family’s history of shared decision making for the child’s healthrelated

matters, and how might this affect the child’s emotional readiness and

willingness to make a participation decision?

How might the child’s behavioral problems that brought the family to the research

yield different parent and child reactions to information about the study, especially

when the disorder to be treated has been associated with family conflict?

Does the research offer a benefit to the health of the child that cannot be

obtained through treatment outside the context of research?

Research Involving U.S. Tribal Nations

or International Research

Research Involving U.S. American Indian and Alaskan Native Tribes

When conducting research involving American Indian and Alaskan Native communities,

tribal law and traditions sometimes require investigators to obtain permission

from tribal leaders (Lakes et al., 2012; Mohatt & Thomas, 2006; Noe et al.,

2006) or village council before they can approach individual tribal or community

members. Obtaining tribal leaders’ permission to recruit individuals for research

participation should not be confused with or compromise individual consent. After

gaining tribal permission, investigators should approach each individual member

and implement consent procedures that ensure that agreement to participate is

informed, rational, and voluntary.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

228——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

International Research

In some developing nations, an investigator may be required to obtain permission

from a woman’s husband, father, or other male relative before she can

be approached for research participation. In such situations, similar protections

must be put in place to ensure that the woman’s consent is informed and voluntary

(NBAC, 2001; Pratt & Loff, 2011). Research should never be conducted

in communities where the political structure or power imbalances based on

gender compromise the voluntary requirement of consent by placing pressure

on individuals to participate or when such procedures will justify or defend the

violation of human rights (Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and

Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority; 3.08, Exploitative

Relationships).

In international mental health research, the investigator and participant community

may differ in their concepts of physical, informational, and decisional

privacy (Goldman & Choy, 2001). In some communities with living arrangements

and cultural values emphasizing community openness and family interdependence,

participants may question the motives of an investigator who

attempts to protect privacy by conducting research interviews in a secluded area

and in the absence of family members (Monshi & Zieglmayer, 2004). In crosscultural

research, therefore, it is important to determine how the participant

population defines and values privacy, design confidentiality procedures to

reflect these values, and clarify during informed consent how confidentiality

safeguards have been selected to respect community values and fulfill investigators’

ethical responsibilities.

Community Consultation

Community consultation is an essential step in identifying and avoiding

potential ethical pitfalls of informed consent when the research population will

be selected on the basis of health, social, economic, legal, or other vulnerabilities.

Community can refer to individuals from a common geographic area,

economic status, ethnic group, or religion (Weijer & Emanuel, 2000). However,

within these larger definitions of communities there are subgroups who share

similar mental health disorders or are confronting similar barriers to employment,

education, housing, or quality health care. When these subgroups are the

focus of research, their interests may not be congruent with the larger community

(Macklin, 1999; Fisher et al., 2002). Principle D: Justice, requires that the

design of informed consent information adequately reflect the research risks

and benefits of participants who are marginalized within their communities.

Seeking community consultation and establishing community advisory boards

(CABs), thus requires an understanding of the social structures and relationships

that define the particular community and identification of persons who can best

represent participants’ research-relevant concerns (E. E. Anderson et al., 2012;

DuBois et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2002).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——229

Informed Consent for Qualitative Research

The open-ended nature of ethnographic, phenomenological, and participant

observation studies can make it difficult to anticipate the exact nature of information

that may be gained through participant–investigator interactions. The focus

on discovering emergent themes in qualitative research means that investigators do

not always know beforehand privacy and confidentiality issues that may emerge

during the course of research (Fisher, 2004). Investigators should alert the prospective

participant to this possibility during informed consent, monitor verbal or

behavioral information during the course of the study, and remind the participant

about confidentiality protections and limitations when unexpected subjects arise

(Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality). If a new direction of

inquiry emerges that might be in conflict with participants’ confidentiality expectations,

this should be identified and the participant given the opportunity to reconsent.

In observational field studies involving drug use or other illegal behaviors,

an agreement can be reached during informed consent about which activities will

and will not be asked or witnessed (Singer et al., 2000).

Implications of HIPAA

Authorization to Use PHI for Research

HIPAA requires that in order for a covered entity to create, use, or disclose PHI

for research purposes, the covered entity must receive a signed authorization from

the prospective participant or a legal guardian limited to the specific research project

(45 CFR 164.508[c]). Readers should refer to “A Word About HIPAA” in the

Preface to this book for a definition of terms and comprehensive list of information

that must be included in a valid authorization (45 CFR 164.508[b][4][i]).

HIPAA permits covered entities to transmit PHI to researchers who are conducting

nontherapeutic research if (a) a patient signs an authorization to release information

that is project specific (not a general authorization for use of PHI for future

unspecified research); (b) an IRB or privacy board approves in writing a waiver of

􀀴 Researchers interested in testing an after-school assertiveness training program for

fifth- and sixth-grade victims of school bullying convened a CAB composed of school

administrators, school counselors, and teachers. The CAB did not have a parent member.

The CAB strongly supported the goals of the research and suggested that to reach

as many children as possible, parental permission and assent forms be distributed to

all fifth and sixth graders. Less than 5% of permission forms were returned. The investigators

later learned that their recruitment strategy had failed because parents of the

children were afraid that since all students knew the purpose of the after-school

program, it would increase stigmatization and bullying by those not in the program.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

230——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

the requirement for such authorization, and the investigator provides the covered

entity with written assurances that HIPAA-compliant procedures are in place to

protect confidentiality; or (c) the records are de-identified, as specifically defined

by HIPAA regulations.

Additional HIPAA requirements specific to research include the following:

Research is one of the few activities for which HIPAA permits authorization

for the use or disclosure of PHI to be combined with informed consent information

and other types of written permission for the same research (45 CFR

164.508[b][3][i]).

There are exceptions to the right to revocation (e.g., if the PHI already has

been obtained and used on the basis of the original authorization, the investigator

may maintain data analyses based on the information, although no

additional information may be used or disclosed following revocation).

There will be consequences to the individual of a refusal to sign the authorization.

Research is one of the few conditions in which HIPAA permits treatment

to be conditioned upon authorization.

Health Records Research

HIPAA is also relevant for research psychologists conducting record review or

archival research on PHI collected by social services agencies, hospitals, or other

health care or service provider institutions. With some exceptions, covered entities

can allow investigators access to PHI only if the covered entity obtains authorization

by the client/patient or a legally authorized representative to release PHI for

the specific research purpose and to the specific investigator or investigative team.

Whenever a covered entity releases PHI to an investigator, the covered entity is

required to disclose only the “minimum necessary” to reasonably achieve the purpose

of the disclosure (45 CFR 164.514[3]; see also Standard 4.04, Minimizing

Intrusions on Privacy).

Implications of Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment

for U.S. Department of Education–Funded Research

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) of 2004 (http://www2.ed

.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ppra/index.html) seeks to ensure that certain instructional

materials used in connection with the U.S. Department of Education–funded

survey, analysis, or evaluation of students are available for inspection by parents and

that written parental permission is obtained before minor students participate in

such research. The types of materials to which PPRA applies include the following:

Political affiliations

Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student

and his or her family

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——231

Sexual behaviors and attitudes

Illegal, antisocial, self-incriminating, and demeaning behaviors

Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close

family relationships

Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of

lawyers, physicians, and ministers

Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation

in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such

programs)

(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments

clarify to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of

the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if

appropriate; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be

made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the

research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for or monetary

costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant

or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed Consent to

Research.)

This standard governs research on behavioral, psychosocial, biomedical, psychopharmacological,

or other interventions involving individuals, families, groups, or

communities.

Explanation About Control Groups and

Methods of Assignment to Treatment Conditions

The principles of good scientific design often require investigators to

(a) assign some participants to control group conditions as a point of comparison

for the experimental treatment (between-group designs) or (b) vary the

treatment and control conditions for individual participants (within-group

designs). Control conditions may consist of participants receiving different levels

of the investigational intervention, a treatment of documented effectiveness,

currently available services (treatment as usual), a placebo, or no treatment.

Provisions 2 and 3 of Standard 8.02b require that informed consent adequately

describe the nature, potential risks, and probable benefits of control group

assignment, as well as how assignment to experimental group and control group

conditions will be made. When appropriate, the nature of random assignment

should be explained in language that can be understood by individuals unfamiliar

with the scientific method. Informed consent for studies using single- or

double-blind procedures should describe the extent to which participants and

members of the treatment and research teams will know which group the participant

has been assigned to and steps that will be taken to determine if and

how the blind will be broken.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

232——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Addressing the “Therapeutic Misconception”

Appelbaum, Roth, and Lidz (1982) coined the term therapeutic misconception to

describe two common but incorrect beliefs held by participants regarding intervention

research that randomizes participants to experimental treatment and control

groups: (1) that their individualized needs will be taken into account in condition

assignment and (b) that there is a high probability that they will benefit from research

participation (see also Appelbaum, Lidz, & Grisso, 2004). These misconceptions may

be compounded by therapeutic mistrust in underserved or marginalized populations

(Fisher et al., 2008).

Standard 8.02b requires that psychologists address such potential misconceptions

during informed consent. The first provision, clarifying the experimental

nature of the treatment, requires that informed consent procedures address the

general misconception that “experimental” treatment means “better” treatment

with known direct benefits for participants. The primary goal of intervention

research is to provide generalizable information on whether a particular type of

intervention is successful. Depending on the stage of research, an untested experimental

treatment may place participants at greater risk than a no-treatment or

treatment-as-usual condition. Most important, psychologists must take reasonable

steps to communicate to prospective participants that the purpose of conducting

treatment research is to determine whether a treatment works or how it works in

comparison to another treatment (Fried & Fisher, 2008).

This standard does not prevent psychologists from describing direct benefits

that may be derived from participation, such as (a) access to new experimental

treatments not yet available for general use, (b) receipt of the experimental treatment

if it proves effective during or following the conclusion of the study, (c) comprehensive

psychological assessment and monitoring, (d) treatment referrals, or

(e) upon participant-signed authorization, forwarding a summary of the participant’s

response to the treatment conditions to a qualified mental health professional.

􀀵 A new medication approved for obsessive–compulsive disorder was associated with

uncomfortable side effects that led some patients to discontinue the treatment. To reduce

the severity of these side effects, prescribing psychologists designed a study to evaluate

the efficacy of different dosing levels. The within-subjects design required that participants

who would ordinarily meet criteria for taking the medication would be given

2 weeks of each of four experimental conditions (placebo and three different dosages of

the medication). In addition, all participants would receive weekly medical examinations,

behavioral assessments, and mental health counseling. The informed consent explained

how the order of these conditions would be randomly assigned for each participant and

that neither the participant nor the mental health providers who saw the participants

weekly would know which treatment condition the participant was receiving during any

2-week period. The consent form further explained that the mental health staff would be

carefully monitoring participants’ mental health status, and if there was evidence of significant

deterioration in mental health status, the “blind” for that participant would be

broken, the participant withdrawn from the study, and appropriate treatment provided.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——233

Therapeutic Misconception in Translational

and Community-Engaged Research

In 2006, NIH instituted a new emphasis on research focused on the translation

of evidence-based practices (EBPs) into practical applications that improve human

health. Engagement of community members as partners in different stages of the

study has increasingly become an essential component of community-based translational

research protocols. Friedman Ross et al. (2010) have offered intriguing

insight into the potential for therapeutic misconception in community-engaged

research. They point out that often community support for a translational research

project is based on the perceived benefits of increased access of its members to

health services they assume will be beneficial, irrespective of whether the practical

efficacy of the program is still being debated. While optimism regarding the potential

benefits of participation in a treatment study is not the same as an unjustified

belief that the investigators know the treatment to be effective, it is imperative that

􀀵 A team of developmental psychologists designed an innovative prevention study to

determine whether integrating readings on alcohol use and abuse into 11th-grade

English and biology classes would more effectively reduce use of alcohol than the

2-week section on substance abuse currently taught in the 10th-grade health course.

The district superintendent gave the investigators permission to randomly assign the

10 district schools to either the new or existing curriculum condition. Students in both

conditions whose parents gave signed permission and who assented would be surveyed

through 12th grade to compare the short- and long-term effectiveness of the

programs on student alcohol attitudes and use. Prior to initiating the study, discussions

with parent groups indicated concern that students in the control schools would

be deprived of an effective intervention. On the basis of this information, the investigators

worked with parent groups to ensure that the language of the parental permission

and assent forms clarified that the study was being conducted because at this

time it was unknown whether one curriculum-based approach would be more effective

than the other in reducing high school drinking. In addition, the psychologists

agreed to offer a yearly talk about adolescent drinking to each school’s parent organization

and provide a report on the results of the study to both school administrators

and parents (see also Standard 8.08, Debriefing).

􀀵 Prescribing psychologists at a medical school received IRB approval to assess the

treatment efficacy of a medication for dual diagnosed children with developmental

disabilities and aggressive behavioral disorder. The medication was approved by FDA

for treatment with developmentally disabled adults but had not been tested with

children. Only children who had failed to respond to currently prescribed pediatric

medications were to be recruited. To avoid inadvertently implying to these parents

that the effectiveness of the drug for adults meant it was a powerfully effective drug

for their children, the consent form (a) described differences between child and adult

physiological reactions to medication and (b) clarified that the study was being conducted

because there was as yet no empirical evidence indicating that the medication

would be more effective than currently used medications for children with this dual

diagnosis (adapted from Fisher, Hoagwood, & Jensen, 1996).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

234——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

community consultation and individual informed consent for such studies clarify

the degree to which the extent of benefits is still unknown.

The Right to Refuse Participation Without Penalty

Provision 4 of Standard 8.02b addresses the need to ensure that research participation

is voluntary. Individuals who apply for or who already receive nonexperimental

services at the study site may fear that failure to participate will result in

deterioration or removal of existing services (see also Standard 8.04, Client/Patient,

Student, and Subordinate Research Participants). Informed consent procedures

must ensure participants currently receiving services that dissent will not disrupt

their ongoing treatment and inform individuals new to the treatment facility of

available alternative services. This standard does not require psychologists to

describe or provide treatment alternatives when they are not otherwise available.

Costs and Compensation

The cost of treatments provided in intervention research may be provided at no

cost to the participant through federal or private funding of the research, charged

to the participant, or billed through a participant’s health plan. Understanding the

financial costs and the extent to which third-party payors will be aware of diagnoses

and services received during a research study is essential for informed decision

making. In some cases, participants may be provided monetary compensation for

participation. Provision 5 requires that prospective participants are given sufficient

information about the nature of such financial arrangements to make an informed

decision about participation (see also Standards 6.04, Fees and Financial

Arrangements, and 8.06, Offering Inducements for Research Participation).

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording

Voices and Images in Research

Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices

or images for data collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in

public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could

cause personal identification or harm, or (2) the research design includes deception, and consent

for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in

Research.)

New recording technologies are providing researchers with powerful ways of

collecting, storing, archiving, and disseminating data for current and future studies,

professional presentations, training, and teaching (Derry et al., 2010). Psychologists

must obtain informed consent to electronically record research participation before

beginning data collection. Stored auditory and visual records pose a greater risk of

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——235

personal identification over time than other data formats, and therefore, consent

procedures must allow persons to evaluate the personal consequences of such

risks prior to research participation. Restricting data access to the research team

best protects personal identification. In some instances (e.g., recordings used for

training purposes or presentation at professional meetings), participants can be

informed about confidentiality protections such as image scrambling, transcripts,

voice distortion, or other identity-masking techniques (see also Standards 4.02,

Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, and 4.07, Use of Confidential Information

for Didactic or Other Purposes). This option is becoming less feasible with the

increase in multisite and multinational research, requirements for data sharing by

NIH (although video data may be exempt), the creation of digital archives for

future research, teleconferencing, and online training and teaching modules. In

other instances, these identity protection measures may compromise the validity of

future social science data analyses that require attention, for example, to facial or

vocal expressions. If identifiable data are to be shared with other investigators,

informed consent must provide participants with information regarding who will

have access to and the nature of the questions addressed by the data.

The inclusion of the phrase “prior to recording their voices or images for data

collection” allows investigators to record the consent procedure itself for documentation

or other legitimate purposes as long as participant permission is obtained in

advance and recording ceases if the individual refuses participation.

􀀵 A research team was conducting a study on neurological functioning in HIV-positive

adults living in homeless shelters or other types of marginalized housing. The researchers

planned to screen for sobriety prior to obtaining informed consent, and as part of

street recruitment, individuals were informed that participation required them to be

sober when they arrived at the testing site. The investigators realized that some consent-

relevant cognitive impairments might be detected only by neurological tests

administered as part of the study. With approval from the IRB, the investigators decided

to tape-record the informed consent procedures so that they could incorporate the

neurological test results in an analysis of participants’ consent understanding with the goal

of developing ways of improving the consent process for this population. At the beginning

of the consent conference, investigators explained to each prospective participant

that they were going to describe the study so the individual could decide if he or she

wanted to participate and ask the participants questions to make sure they understood

the consent information. They then asked for permission to tape-record responses to

the consent procedure, underscoring that participants who refused to have the consent

conference recorded would still be eligible for participation in the study. Only the consent

conferences of individuals who gave permission were recorded.

Exceptions

Investigators may record the voices and images of persons without their consent

if (a) observations occur in a public setting in which one would have no

reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, a public park, a hotel lobby, or a

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

236——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

street corner; (b) procedures do not disturb or manipulate the natural surroundings;

and (c) protections are in place to guard against personal identification and

harm, especially when the behaviors observed place participants at legal or social

risk, for example, vandalism. Investigators conducting deception research that

meets the requirements of Standard 8.07, Deception in Research, can receive

approval from their IRB to waive the requirement to obtain consent for recording

prior to data collection, but they must seek permission to use recordings for data

analysis from participants during debriefing. Recordings must be destroyed if the

participant declines permission.

Need to Know: Consent to Digital Archives

When voices and images are archived for future use, the original investigator may not

know who will access the data or the purpose of future studies. Derry et al. (2010) suggest

a two-stage process for archived recorded data in which participants have the option of

(a) consenting to only the “collection” of data and confidentiality protections for the current

study or (b) also consenting to the “use” of the data for archival and emergent

research purposes. Depending on the nature of the data, the “use” consent protocol can

encompass a narrow or broad range of researchable topics, and the use limits must be

accessible and adhered to by future investigators.

The storage of biological materials in databanks raise similar issues for informed consent.

Readers may wish to refer to the Hot Topic on “Informational Risk and Disclosure of

Genetic Information to Research Participants” at the end of this chapter.

8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and

Subordinate Research Participants

(a) When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants,

psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences

of declining or withdrawing from participation.

Clients/patients, students, employees, prisoners, or other institutionalized persons

may not feel free to decline or withdraw participation in a study conducted

by a psychologist serving as their treatment provider, professor, supervisor,

employer, or member of the institutional staff. Standard 8.04a requires psychologists

to take specific steps to ensure that (a) refusal to participate does not result

in a reduction in the amount or quality of services, lowered grades, poor job performance

evaluations, or loss of institutional privileges, and (b) prospective participants

are aware of these protections during recruitment and throughout the

course of research (see 8.02, Informed Consent to Research). When power differentials

inherent in an existing professional relationship are apparent (e.g., when

the investigator is also the student’s professor or a participant’s service provider),

psychologists should refrain from conducting the informed consent process and

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——237

any research procedures involving direct contact with the individual (see also

Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships). In some settings, it may be desirable to

appoint a participant advocate to (a) explain to prospective participants the purpose

of the study, the role of the investigator, and protections against adverse

consequences of nonparticipation; (b) determine if vulnerable persons wish to be

approached by the research team to give informed consent; and (c) monitor the

continued voluntariness of participation.

􀀵 A graduate student member of the APA received permission to collect data for her

doctoral dissertation at her internship site. The methodology included individual interviews

with patients at the veterans hospital where she interned. The graduate student

restricted her recruitment to hospital patients who were not in the section in which

she worked. In addition, she hired and trained a research assistant to recruit participants

and obtain informed consent.

(b) When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the

prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

In many colleges and universities, psychology instructors require or give extra

course credit for undergraduate student participation in research. The pedagogical

rationale for required research participation is to provide direct experience with the

process of research. Yet the requirement can be coercive to students who do not

want to be involved in experimental procedures. In addition, psychology faculty

and graduate students conducting research at the university benefit from a yearly

“subject pool” of prospective participants, creating the potential for student exploitation

(Standards 3.06, Conflict of Interest, and 3.08, Exploitative Relationships).

Standard 8.04b addresses these concerns by requiring that psychologists offer students

pedagogical alternatives equivalent in time and effort to research participation,

such as watching a video on a research topic, summarizing an article on

research techniques, or assisting with the conduct of an experiment.

􀀴 A psychology department instituted a 2-hour research participation requirement for

all students enrolled in introductory psychology classes. Students who did not wish to

participate in the research had to set up a meeting to explain their objection to the

instructor and write a 10-page paper on a research topic approved by the professor.

In anonymous course evaluations, many students said they had participated in the

required research because they were afraid they would get a bad grade in the course

if the professor knew they did not want to participate in the subject pool or because

they believed it would take more than 2 hours to complete a 10-page paper.

􀀵 A psychology department offered introductory students who did not wish to participate

in the course research participation requirement the alternative to view a video

on research methods.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

238——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

8.05 Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research

Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably

be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices,

curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous

questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of

responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial

standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors

related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there

is no risk to participants’ employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise

permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.

This standard restricts dispensing with informed consent for research to three

well-defined conditions—all of which are predicated on the condition that the

research will not create distress or harm. Criteria (a) and (b) of the standard is

consistent with the criteria for research that is exempt from IRB review under federal

regulations 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(1). Psychologists should remember that the

determination of whether a study meets the criteria for dispensing with informed

consent or exempt status is the responsibility of the IRB and not the individual

investigator. This is particularly true for the still controversial status of quality

improvement/quality assurance research (F. G. Miller & Emanuel, 2008). Therefore,

when working in an institution with an IRB, investigators designing research that

meets the criteria of Standard 8.05 must still obtain appropriate institutional

approval for such waivers (Standard 8.01, Institutional Approval).

Research Conducted in Schools

Ethical justification for waiving the informed consent requirement for specific

types of research conducted in educational settings is predicated on the right and

responsibility of educational institutions to evaluate their own programs, practices,

and policies to improve services as long as the research procedures themselves do

not create distress or harm. Studies of normal educational practices that do not

require informed consent include comparisons of different instructional methods

for academic topics (e.g., reading math) and classroom management techniques or

evaluation of educational placements.

In elementary and secondary school settings, dispensing with informed consent is a

waiver of guardian permission for research involving persons who are legally incapable

of consent. Irrespective of whether the type of research conducted meets the criteria for

waiving parental permission under this standard, psychologists should consider state

and federal laws and parental expectations regarding parental involvement in children’s

participation in normal educational practices before deciding whether to dispense with

parental permission or student assent. Psychologists conducting program evaluation in

the schools should also be familiar with FERPA and other federal regulations that may

require parental access to their child’s school records irrespective of whether parental

permission for the evaluation was required or obtained.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——239

Permission to dispense with informed consent for research in educational settings

does not apply to studies designed to describe or test hypotheses regarding the relationship

between student personality traits or mental health disorders and school

performance (e.g., gender differences in internal and external disorders and its relationship

to scores on a math achievement test). The assessment of such personal

characteristics is not a part of normal educational practice and could constitute an

invasion of privacy. In addition, some investigator-initiated school-based programs,

such as drug prevention programs, may or may not be considered a normal educational

practice or part of the school curricula across different school districts.

Investigators conducting school-based studies not considered normal educational

practice must either follow the consent requirements outlined in Standards 3.10,

Informed Consent, and 8.02a, Informed Consent to Research, or obtain a waiver of

parental permission from their IRB in compliance with Part 2 of this standard.

􀀴 A developmental psychologist received permission from a local school district to design

and test a conflict resolution program for fifth and sixth graders. The school permitted

her to offer the program during regularly scheduled health classes. Half of the classes

served as controls. The success of the program was evaluated by comparing baseline and

post-program responses of children to questions about their conflicts with peers, siblings,

and parents. Without consulting with her IRB, the psychologist told the school

superintendent that the research was exempt from IRB review and that parental permission

would not be required for this type of research.

Anonymous, Naturalistic, or Archival Research

Informed consent is not required for investigations using anonymous questionnaires,

naturalistic observations, or archival research when (a) confidentiality is protected;

(b) disclosure of responses would not place participants at legal, financial, or

social risk; and (c) the research methods would not reasonably be expected to cause

distress or harm. The phrase “for which disclosure of responses would not place participants

at risk” refers to both the certitude that participants could never be identified

and the nature of data collected. Thus, unless anonymity can be ensured, psychologists

should avoid dispensing with informed consent when personal information

collected would create participant distress or involve criminal activity, substance

abuse, or other activities that, if known, would place the participant at risk.

When research is conducted through the mail or on the Internet and adequate

protections are put in place to ensure that participants’ responses are anonymous

(e.g., postmarks will not reveal participants’ home addresses, web-based responses

cannot be linked to identifying information), informed consent information must be

provided at the beginning of the survey, in the same detail required by Standards 3.10,

Informed Consent, and 8.02, Informed Consent to Research. However, documentation

of consent (e.g., name and signature confirming agreement) is not required

because (a) completing the survey, mailing it to the investigator, or submitting it via the

Internet is considered evidence of voluntary consent and (b) requiring identifying

documentation would compromise participant anonymity.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

240——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Unique or Small Communities

Investigators should also consider whether the uniqueness of the population studied

(e.g., individuals from small and geographically restricted ethnocultural communities;

persons with rare genetic, medical, or psychological disorders) increases the

probability that anonymous, naturalistic, or archival procedures may not be sufficient

to safeguard identification of participants or their immediate community (Fisher et al.,

2002). In such conditions, consent would be required (Fisher & Vacanti-Shova, 2012).

􀀵 An anonymous survey on attitudes toward caretaking of ill elderly household members

included (a) a brief questionnaire asking for general demographic information

such as gender, age, and ethnicity of household members and (b) health-related

information such as whether there was an ill elderly person living in the household,

which family member did or would take care of an elder family member if he or she

was ill, how the respondents rated the adequacy of their health insurance plan for

elder care, and several questions tapping who the respondent thought should be

most responsible for elder care, for example, spouses, adult children, private nursing

homes, or government-run hospitals. The survey was mailed to 10,000 randomly

selected households in a large metropolitan area where respondents could not reasonably

be expected to be identified by their answers or ZIP code. No names were

on the survey, and the mailed packet included a self-addressed stamped envelope.

The IRB agreed that signed informed consent was not required but that the investigators

should include a statement explaining the nature, purpose, anonymity and other

identity protections, and their contact information and a box that participants could

check indicating they had read the information.

􀀴 A health psychologist decided to conduct a naturalistic observation of the interactions

among health care providers and patients in the emergency room of a small hospital

in an isolated Appalachian town. He would sit in the back of the room on Saturday

nights when the emergency room was most crowded. He dressed in such a way as to

ensure that he would not be recognized from week to week. The psychologist took

detailed notes on how specific doctors responded to the patients. He published an

article highly critical of some of the interactions he had observed. Although the psychologist

used pseudonyms for the hospital and the doctors, the unique location of

the hospital, the medical events reported, and the detailed descriptions of the treatment

staff made them readily identifiable. Following the publication, several members

of the treatment staff were sued for malpractice.

Naturalistic Observation on the Internet

Studies of individual responses in chat rooms, blogs, and on listservs may be

considered naturalistic observation if the users have no reasonable expectation

of privacy, the investigator is a passive observer who does not manipulate the

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——241

discussion to test or elicit particular responses, individuals do not have expectations

of privacy, data are appropriately de-identified, and publication of results

will not cause distress or harm to those whose responses were used as data.

Under Standard 8.05, psychologists may dispense with informed consent when

these criteria are met. However, in the constantly changing modalities of online

expression and social conceptions of net privacy, meeting these criteria often

depends on the topic of online discussion, the expectations for group membership

and perceived level of privacy, and the vulnerability of the population to

identification or harm. For example, the Internet provides individuals and family

members confronting serious illness the opportunity to interact with others

who share their health challenges. While individuals are aware that they are

posting personal information on a publically accessible website, they may not be

aware that their online illness narratives may be used and disseminated by

researchers (Heilferty, 2011).

When informed consent is not obtained, publication of material may also raise

questions regarding ownership of data, website/blog propriety, copyright, representativeness

and validity of material, and participant exploitation (Standards 3.04,

Avoiding Harm, and 3.08, Exploitative Relationships; Heilferty, 2011). Investigators

planning observational studies on the Internet should consider either obtaining

informed consent or developing effective protections against participant identification

and harm when (a) quotes will be used verbatim; (b) group membership

requires registration, user names, or passwords; (c) the observed group is small and

unique with high probability of identification (e.g., a chat room for individuals

with a rare genetic disorder); or (d) the level of intimate details provided preclude

anonymity (Eysenbach & Till, 2001; Serfaty, 2004).

Studies of Job or Organization Effectiveness

Subpart 1c recognizes the right and responsibility of organizations to draw on

the research expertise of psychologists to investigate factors related to job or organization

effectiveness as long as (a) research participation does not pose a direct

risk to an individual’s current employment status, (b) confidentiality is adequately

protected, and (c) the research procedures themselves would not be

expected to create distress or harm. This standard is meant to apply to dispensing

with informed consent to research directly linked to a specific organization’s

needs and not to studies designed to test general hypotheses regarding organizational

effectiveness.

The phrase “not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm” highlights the

fact that in most circumstances, it would be ethically inappropriate to dispense with

informed consent for organizational effectiveness studies using measures of psychopathology

or biological data because assessment of mental health or physiological

responses without consent can violate an individual’s right to privacy of

information not directly related to job performance and be experienced as personally

intrusive and distressful.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

242——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Dispensing With Parental Permission

Standard 3.10b, Informed Consent, and federal regulation 45 CFR 46.408b

require guardian permission for research involving children, with exceptions for

research involving no more than minimal risk detailed in 45 CFR 46.402a and

46.408c. Requests to IRBs to waive guardian permission should refer to these standards

and when relevant describe the rationale for the relevant exceptions such as

(a) state laws on emancipated and mature minor status, (b) justification of minimal

risk status of research, (c) why guardian consent will not be in the child’s best interest

or is unavailable, and (d) how an independent participant advocate will be

appointed to verify youths’ understanding of procedures, support their participation

preferences, and assess reactions to planned procedures. Research psychologists

conducting longitudinal studies with minors should also consider re-consent

procedures appropriate to youths’ developing consent maturity.

􀀵 An industrial–organizational psychologist collected criterion-related validation data on

a test designed to help a company select future sales personnel by administering the

test to all job incumbents. The company told its incumbents that they were expected to

participate in the validation, and informed consent was not obtained. Nonetheless, the

psychologist informed the employees that their test performance would be kept confidential

and would not affect their employment status. To match the test data on

measures of job performance (sales volume and supervisor performance ratings), the

psychologist needed to collect identifying information on the test form. The psychologist

maintained several levels of security on the test materials and associated database.

As soon as the predictor test and performance criterion data were matched, all identifying

information was stripped from both the hard-copy test materials and electronic

database. No personally identifiable information collected for purposes of the validation

was released to anyone in the organization, and there were no consequences for

those incumbents who performed poorly on the experimental test.

􀀵 For a minimal risk ethnographic study of HIV risk attitudes and behaviors among gay

youth, investigators received approval from their IRB to waive parental permission for

16- to 17-year-olds to avoid selection biases present in recruiting only youth whose

parents are both aware of and comfortable with their sexual orientation (Bruce &

Harper, 2011). The investigators worked with staff from an advocacy center for LGBT

youth to ensure that the informed consent procedures were understood and viewed

as voluntary by youth recruited for participation.

Prohibition Against “Passive” Consent

Under federal regulations, passive consent procedures (sending guardians

forms asking for a response only if they do not wish their child to participate in

the research) are not an ethical substitute for guardian permission. Psychologists

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——243

who do not obtain the active affirmative permission of guardians violate this

standard except when the research meets the conditions for Standard 8.05,

Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research, or when an IRB waives the

requirement for guardian permission under federal regulation 45 CFR 46.116d

and 46.408c.

Where Otherwise Permitted by Law

or Federal or Institutional Regulations

Part 2 of this standard permits psychologists to dispense with informed consent

for reasons not included in Part 1 where consent waiver is permitted by law or federal

or institutional regulations. In such instances, researchers bear the burden of

demonstrating that such conditions are met.

HIPAA Requirements for Use of PHI for Research

Without Client/Patient Authorization

Under HIPAA, PHI may be used for research purposes without client/patient

authorization if the covered entity who is being asked to disclose the PHI receives

written documentation that waiver of patient authorization has been approved by

an IRB in conformance with federal guidelines, and if

the use or disclosure of PHI involves no more than minimal risk to the

individuals;

the alteration or waiver will not adversely affect the privacy rights and the

welfare of the individuals;

the research could not practicably be conducted without the alteration or

waiver;

the research could not practicably be conducted without access to and use of

the PHI;

the privacy risks to individuals whose PHI is to be used or disclosed are reasonable

in relation to the anticipated benefits, if any, to the individuals and the

importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result from

the research;

there is an adequate plan to protect the identifiers from improper use and

disclosure;

there is an adequate plan to destroy the identifiers at the earliest opportunity

consistent with conduct of the research, unless there is a health or research

justification for retaining the identifiers or such retention is otherwise

required by law; and

there are adequate written assurances that the PHI will not be reused or disclosed

to any other person or entity, except as required by law, for authorized

oversight of the research project or for other research for which the use or

disclosure of PHI would be permitted by the subpart (rules for research are

under 45 CFR 164.501, 164.508[f], 164.512[i]).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

244——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Covered entities may also waive the requirement for client/patient authorization

for the use and disclosure of their PHI for research under the following conditions

(45 CFR 164.512[i]):

Information is de-identified by the covered entity (de-identification has specific

requirements under HIPAA; see 45 CFR 164.514). If de-identified information

is later reidentified by the covered entity, a client/patient authorization

is required.

The researcher is reviewing the PHI for the sole purpose of preparing a

research protocol, or for similar purposes preparatory to research, the information

is necessary for the research purposes, and the PHI is not removed

from the covered entity’s premises.

Research is on decedent’s information, and the researcher provides the covered

entity with representation that the use or disclosure sought is solely for

research on the PHI of the decedents, the death is documented, and the PHI

is necessary for the research.

Disclosure is restricted to a limited data set (as specifically defined by HIPAA

45 CFR 164.513[e][2]), and the investigator enters into a “data use agreement”

with the covered entity.

The investigator signs a business associate contract with a covered entity

to use PHI to conduct data analysis or quality assurance or other activities

on behalf of the covered entity and to comply with all HIPAA regulations

(45 CFR 160.103 and 164.504[e][1]).

HIPAA also permits covered entities to allow researchers to use PHI without

patient authorization (a) for deceased patients; (b) for public health research;

protocol development, and the researcher conveys to the covered entity that such

access is essential and that the PHI will not be removed from the premises; or

(d) when research involves the use of a “limited data set” (a partially de-identified

data set specifically defined by HIPAA) and the investigator has signed a “data use

agreement” ensuring the covered entity that PHI will be safeguarded and used or

disclosed only for limited purposes (see 45 CFR 164.512[i]).

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation

(a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial

or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce

participation.

Selecting noncoercive compensation for research participation helps ensure that

participation is voluntary, that research burdens are not borne unequally by economically

disadvantaged populations, and that these populations are not deprived

(based on inability to afford to participate in the study) of knowledge generated by

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——245

research that can be applied to enhance their well-being (Principle D: Justice).

Compensation for effort, time, and inconvenience of research is permitted if

inducements do not encourage individuals to lie or conceal information that would

disqualify them from the research or lure them into procedures they would otherwise

choose to avoid. As noted in the discussion of Standard 8.02, Informed

Consent to Research, the Office for Human Subjects Protections (http://www.hhs

.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/mtg10-08/present/siiidrrec8doc2.html) has interpreted

federal regulations as prohibiting investigators from describing participant compensation

as a benefit when obtaining informed consent (see Standard 8.06,

Offering Inducements for Research Participation).

Standard 8.06 recognizes that some compensation is often necessary to ensure a

sufficiently large and representative sample and that it is possible for investigators

to distinguish between “due” and “undue” inducements (Dickert & Grady, 1999;

Macklin, 1981; VanderWalde & Kurzban, 2011). Some institutions adopt a standard

compensation rate for all research participation. Others have defined noncoercive

financial inducements as the amount of money a normal, healthy volunteer would

lose in work and travel time or by fair market value for the work involved. Different

economic and cultural circumstances may lead to varying perceptions of a cash

inducement as fair or coercive. At the same time, fairness and justice entitle all

persons to equal compensation for equal levels of participation in a particular

research project (Principle D: Justice). Consulting with members of the population

who will be recruited for research participation about different types of research

compensation can help investigators and their IRBs determine the extent to which

cash or nonmonetary compensation is fair or coercive (Fisher, 2003a; Oransky,

Fisher, Mahadevan, & Singer, 2009).

􀀵 A health psychologist was studying the relationship between asthma, discrimination

distress, and health knowledge and attitudes among African American students in a

large urban school district. Students who participated would spend an hour in focus

group discussion and 30 minutes responding to focus group questions. Prestudy interviews

with parents, teachers, and students indicated that compensation of $15 would

be considered fair and noncoercive for the time students would give to the study.

However, representatives from two schools in crime-ridden neighborhoods expressed

concern that cash payments would place students in danger as they left the study. The

psychologist and representatives agreed that offering a $15 popular school sweatshirt

instead of cash would be equitable and safety-sensitive compensation for research

participation in those schools.

􀀵 Community psychologists wanted to study the effectiveness of a needle exchange

program for injecting drug users. While the investigators’ preliminary community

interviews suggested that $30 was a fair and noncoercive compensation for research

participation, the psychologists were concerned that providing participants with cash

payment might be used by participants to purchase illegal drugs, encourage them to

maintain their drug habits, or distort the evaluation of drug use dangers. They

obtained IRB approval to compensate participants with $30 coupons to a local food

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

246——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

(b) When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists

clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also

Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/Patients.)

Providing psychological services as compensation for research participation is

ethical when participants are fully aware of (a) the nature and risks of services (e.g.,

the type of treatment, the type of provider, risks to confidentiality), (b) the personal

and financial obligations and time commitment involved in receiving the services,

and (3) limitations of the type and in the length of services provided (see also

Standards 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements; 6.05, Barter With Clients/Patients;

and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy). Linking involvement in nontherapeutic

research with treatment that immediately follows may encourage participants with

mental health problems to engage or continue in treatment. However, psychologists

should take special steps to ensure that offering such services does not compromise

the voluntary nature of research participation of individuals who do not have access

to adequate health care and social services (Fisher, 2004; Oransky et al., 2009).

market. The investigators were surprised to learn that many participants did not

usually purchase food at that market, were selling their coupons for less cash than

they were worth, and perceived the investigators’ efforts as paternalistic and disrespectful

of participant judgment and autonomy. The psychologists began to collect

data on the participants’ reactions to the coupons, which they then presented to the

IRB as justification to switch to cash payments. The IRB’s community representative

strongly supported the investigators’ request, and it received IRB approval (see

Oransky et al., 2009).

Need to Know: When Are Research

Inducements Coercive?

The APA Ethics Code and federal regulations require investigators to minimize the possibility

that incentives or compensation for research participation are coercive. However, neither

regulations nor professional standards provide a metric for determining what form of

research compensation is or is not coercive. This often leads investigators and their IRBs

to arrive at disparate and idiosyncratic conclusions about amount of monetary or healthrelated

services that are noncoercive; especially when the research population is economically

disadvantaged, lacks health insurance, or have addictions to drugs or alcohol.

When payments are too low, they may deprive economically disadvantaged groups the

opportunity to benefit from research knowledge (Phillips, 2011).

Ezekiel Emanuel (2005) has provided a useful decision-making tool for determining

undue inducements that includes the following four elements, all of which must be satisfied

for research compensation to be considered coercive:

1 The prospective participant perceives the inducement as valuable or desirable

2 The inducement is so large or in excess that it is irresistible in the context of the

participation request

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——247

8.07 Deception in Research

(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that

the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific, educational,

or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

Throughout the history of psychological science, deception studies have fostered

the most pronounced debates about the ethical conduct of social science research

(Baumrind, 1964; Benjamin & Simpson, 2009; Milgram, 1963). Deceptive techniques

intentionally withhold information or misinform participants about the

purpose of the study, the experimental procedures or equipment, or the roles of

research team members (Sieber, 1982). Under Principle C: Integrity, deception

should be avoided unless it is necessary to maximize benefits and minimize harms.

Deception research may produce benefits unavailable through alternative methods

by keeping participants naive about the purpose and procedures of a study, thereby

increasing methodological realism and spontaneous response to experimental

manipulation (Fisher & Vacanti-Shova, 2012). However, these advantages may not

be actualized if participants are predisposed to be suspicious of psychology experiments

or are actively engaged in hypotheses regarding an experiment’s true purpose

(Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994).

The “Consent Paradox”

By its very nature, informed consent for participation in a deception study creates

a moral paradox by compromising an individual’s ability to make a fully

informed decision about research participation (Fisher, 2005a; Principle E: Respect

for People’s Rights and Dignity). The ethical imperative for informed consent to

research participation arose following the revelation of Nazi medical science atrocities

revealed during the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg Code (1949) codified

the international community’s distrust in scientists’ motivation to make decisions

that would serve the best interests of participants, and informed consent of the

participant, rather than morally responsible decisions by scientists, came to be seen

as the primary means of protecting participant autonomy and welfare.

Informed consent to a deception study reflects the moral ambiguity continuing

to surround respect for participant autonomy inherent in professional ethics codes

and federal regulations. During the consent process, investigators conducting

3 The offer leads prospective participants to exercise poor judgment during

recruitment or informed consent that a reasonable person would not otherwise

do, and

4 The individual’s poor judgment leads to sufficiently high probability that the participation

decision will lead to a harmful experience that “seriously contravenes his

or her interests.” (p. 9)

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

248——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

deception research intentionally give participants false information about the purpose

and nature of the study. Individuals providing an affirmative response to participate

are therefore erroneously led to believe that they have autonomy to decide

about the type of experimental procedures they are willing to be exposed to, when

in fact, they do not and thus have no decisional control over these experiences or the

potential discomfort that may arise at the end of the study when they are debriefed

about the deception (Standards 8.07c, Deception in Research, and 8.08, Debriefing).

Fisher (2005a) has coined the term “consent paradox” to describe this ethical conundrum.

It is for these reasons that Standard 8.07 requires that deception research meet

more stringent criteria for implementation than nondeceptive studies.

Scientific and Social Justification

Under Standard 8.07a, deception studies are ethically justified only if psychologists

demonstrate that (a) prospective benefits to science or society significantly

outweigh violating participants’ right to determine whether they want to be

involved in the type of experimental procedures for which they are recruited and

(b) nondeceptive alternative procedures do not offer sufficient scientific controls to

test the hypothesis under investigation. Some alternative methodologies that can be

considered include naturalistic observation, field or game simulations, role-playing,

or experimental methods. Failure to use scientifically valid nondeceptive alternative

methods simply because of inconvenience or financial cost may be a violation of

this standard under some circumstances.

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably

expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

Even if deceptive techniques have significant scientific, educational, or social

value and effective nondeceptive alternatives are not feasible, thus meeting the criteria

of Standard 8.07a, Standard 8.07b prohibits withholding or misleading prospective

participants about procedures causing physical pain or severe emotional

distress. The prohibitions in this standard are absolute and do not depend on the

duration of physical pain or whether severe emotional harm can be alleviated during

debriefing procedures.

􀀴 Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, a social psychologist

at a university in New York City decided to study ways in which three types of warning

systems would positively or negatively affect crowd behavior in response to a perceived

terrorist attack. The psychologist had confederates enter nine classrooms and

use one of three types of warning systems instructing students in evacuation procedures

for a “suspected bomb that might be planted in the building by a terrorist

group.” Many students started crying or screaming, some called their parents on cell

phones to say goodbye, and two students fainted during the exercise.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——249

an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation,

but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw

their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing.)

When deception is used, individuals must be informed about a study’s deceptive

aspects as soon as possible, preferably at the end of their participation. This type of

debriefing procedure is often called dehoaxing. In some instances, participants may

find revelations about the deception and true purpose of the study to be educative;

in other cases, there may be transient or longer-term discomfort or distress arising

from perceptions of invasion of privacy or loss of self-esteem and negative reactions

to being observed or induced to commit what the participant may perceive as

embarrassing or reprehensible acts (Baumrind, 1985; Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994).

Oczak and Niedz´wien´ska (2007) have suggested that debriefing include an extended

educational procedure that enables participants to gain insight into the methodological

reasons for, to recognize, and to deal effectively with deceptive procedures

as a positive educational debriefing experience.

The design of dehoaxing procedures must be sensitive to individual differences in

participant reactions (see Standard 8.08, Debriefing). There may be situations in

which explaining the deception can compromise the methodological validity of the

research involving future participants, for example, if research is conducted in a small

university where students are likely to speak with one another about their experiences.

In such circumstances, dehoaxing may be delayed until data collection is completed.

Psychologists must also take reasonable steps to alleviate psychological harm

resulting from dehoaxing and may withhold information about deceptive procedures

to protect the participant from harm (see Standard 8.08b and c, Debriefing).

Data Withdrawal

Psychologists must permit participants to withdraw their data after learning

about the deception. Although the standard stops short of requiring psychologists to

ask participants if they want to withdraw their data, dehoaxing procedures should

not preclude participants from making such a request. Giving individuals an opportunity

to withdraw data should not be interpreted as implying their “deferred” consent

to the deception—informed consent can only be obtained prospectively (Office

for Protection From Research Risks, DHHS, & NIH, 1993). Pascual-Leone, Singh,

and Scoboria (2010) provide a helpful checklist for new researchers to facilitate the

development and review of ethically designed deception studies.

8.08 Debriefing

(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information

about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct

any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

250——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

To protect methodological validity, informed consent procedures often do not

include the hypothesis or other information about the research that would not be

expected to affect willingness to participate but might bias participant responding.

Debriefing procedures provide participants the opportunity to be informed about

such undisclosed information and to ask questions about the research. Standard 8.08a

requires that psychologists take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions about

the research of which they are aware. The use of the terms reasonable and aware in this

standard reflect the fact that despite the best efforts of a psychologist, some participants

may continue to hold misimpressions about the research or may not share these

misperceptions with the investigator. As part of debriefing, psychologists should make

a summary of the results of the research available to participants. Because data analysis

and interpretation of results typically occur after data collection is completed, psychologists

can make summaries available through mailings to participants, newsletters

to the site at which the research occurred, website postings, or other mechanisms that

do not incur unreasonable expense. Psychologists conducting descriptive studies are

not required to provide participants information on their individual results and

should never do so unless the data collected has demonstrated clinical value and utility

(for further discussion, see the Hot Topic “Informational Risk and Disclosure of

Genetic Information to Research Participants” at the end of this chapter).

Implications of HIPAA

When individuals participate in a treatment study, debriefing can include discussion

and written summary describing the participant’s responsiveness to experimental

or control conditions, opportunity for the participant to provide signed

HIPAA authorization that the summary be sent to his or her own health care provider

that would include the nature of the treatment conditions, observed behavioral

changes in reaction to the different experimental conditions, and any

recommendations for treatment that emerged. The research team member who

provides this type of debriefing should be skilled in mental health counseling

(Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence; 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others).

Investigators must follow HIPAA regulations for creation and maintenance of

records and authorization to share information with other professionals if assessment

results or summaries of treatment efficacy collected as part of a research study

is to be entered into a participant’s health records.

(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists

take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

There may be humane justification for withholding information about the

nature, results, and conclusions of research. For example, individuals participating

in deception research may experience loss of self-esteem or other negative psychological

reactions if told that they committed a social or moral breach of which they

were not aware or which they did not know others had observed. In other situations,

child participants may not have the recursive thinking skills to understand the

rationale behind the research and feel confused upon debriefing or, in the case of

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——251

deception research, may feel embarrassed or betrayed. In such circumstances, the

study should be explained to the children’s guardians.

􀀵 Investigators working with inpatient boys diagnosed with conduct disorder designed

an analog task that could distinguish between the children’s use of instrumental and

hostile aggression. The task was a computer game in which the boys played against

an unseen “boy” (in actuality, formatted responses programmed by the investigators)

in an adjacent room. According to the rules of the game, opponents could block each

other’s game (instrumental aggression) or send a noxious, but not harmful, noise

through the computer headsets (hostile aggression). The investigators believed that

these deceptive conditions were safer for the participants than alternative methodologies

that manipulated or observed aggression in actual competitive situations.

Parents thought the research was important but voiced concern that if the boys were

told about the deception, they would lose trust in the staff at the facility. The investigators

agreed. To minimize any distress that might emerge during the computer game,

the boys could not see their scores during the game, and when the game was over, all

boys were told that they had won (adapted from Fisher et al., 1996).

take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

Consistent with Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, psychologists must

try to alleviate psychological distress or harm that they are aware has arisen from

research participation. Psychologists may not always be able to anticipate participant

stress reactions in response to debriefing. In such cases, psychologists might alleviate

distress by explaining participant responses within the context of normative behavior

if appropriate. In other situations, such as research involving genetic screening for

predisposition for a serious medical or mental health disorder, psychologists may

anticipate postexperimental stress if debriefing includes information concerning

personal health vulnerabilities and should be prepared to provide referrals for appropriate

counseling services (see the Hot Topic on “Informational Risk and Disclosure

of Genetic Information to Research Participants” at the end of this chapter).

􀀵 In a study to examine psychosocial factors contributing to the spread of the HIV/AIDS

virus among persons who use injection drugs (PWIDs), participants (a) answered questions

about their drug use, needle sharing, sexual history, and sexual practices; (b) responded

to standardized psychological assessments; and (c) had their blood tested for the HIV

virus, hepatitis C, and other sexually transmitted diseases. The results of these blood

tests were provided to participants during debriefing. The investigators developed two

types of debriefing procedures. Aware that telling PWIDs that they had tested negative

for sexually transmitted diseases might lead them to falsely assume that they were

“AIDS safe,” debriefing for these participants included counseling on continued risk of

infection and risk reduction practices. Debriefing for participants who tested positive

for any of the diseases included counseling on availability of current treatments, risk

reduction practices, and referrals to appropriate health care providers.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

252——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

In 1981, police raided the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring,

Maryland, in response to a complaint from an animal rights group advocate about

unacceptable living conditions for macaque monkeys. The monkeys were part of a

research program conducted by Edward Taub, a psychologist, interested in using an

animal model to explore whether stroke victims and others who lost sensation in

their limbs could relearn how to use these limbs. The study involved cutting the

afferent ganglia that supplied sensation to the brain from the monkeys’ arms to

determine whether the brain could reorganize itself to use the limbs that the animal

could not feel (Matfield, 2002). The incident and court case that followed (in which

Taub was acquitted) rekindled a historical debate on the use of animals in research,

especially studies involving invasive procedures (Akins & Panicker, 2012; Dewsbury,

1990; Perry & Dess, 2012).

The goal of animal research can be to understand and improve the lives of the

species studied. More frequently, however, the use of animals in psychological

research is aimed at increased understanding of the human condition. This raises

ethically complex questions, especially when methods will cause animals discomfort

or pain. Society has yet to reach consensus on whether animals have the right

not to be harmed by virtue of the fact that they have inherent (not just conditional)

value, whether humans as moral agents have an obligation to treat all life with dignity,

or what role animals’ relative lack of self-awareness and limited cognitive

capacities to anticipate pain and distress or consequences makes them more or less

vulnerable to research participation (Perry & Dess, 2012).

The use of animals in research enables the control and manipulation of environmental,

biological, and genetic factors leading to scientific discoveries producing

tangible benefits for humans and animals not possible otherwise.

However, drawing on Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, the benefits

of animal research never justify inhumane treatment. Psychologists conducting

research involving animal subjects have a moral obligation to protect

the animal subjects’ welfare. The inclusion of the phrase “humane care” in the

title chosen for Standard 8.09 reflects the fact that Standard 8.09a to g represent

conditions that must be met to ensure that care and use of animals in research

is humane.

(a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal,

state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

The federal government, through the Health Research Extension Act of 1985

(Public Law 99-158), regulates the humane care and protection of animals used in

research. The NIH, through the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, administers

programs and provides guidance to institutions that must comply with the policy.

Among the regulations is the requirement that all institutions covered by the act

have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to approve and

monitor the ethical acquisition, care, use, and disposal of animals in research. The

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——253

U.S. Department of Agriculture requires the planned and unscheduled inspections

of animal research facilities twice a year to ensure that animal housing and research

procedures are safe, sanitary, and appropriate for the particular environmental and

nutritional needs of the species. In addition, animals not bred in the psychologist’s

laboratory must be acquired lawfully and with appropriate permits. State and local

governments also have regulations regarding housing standards, veterinary care

and inspection, research procedures, and disposal.

Animal research practices must also be in compliance with the Guidelines for

Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals developed by the APA CARE

(1996; see www.apa.org/science/anguide.html). Other organizations such as the

American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, the American Association for

the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, and the National Association for

Biomedical Research have comprehensive rules for the conduct of animal research.

Psychologists conducting research with animals must adhere to all relevant regulations

and guidelines. The APA requires members working outside the United States

to follow all applicable laws and regulations of the country in which the research is

conducted.

(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals

supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration

of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

This standard requires that psychologists conducting animal research have

appropriate training and carefully supervise all personnel involved in the acquisition,

care, research procedures, and disposal of animal subjects. Competencies

include education, training, or experience with relevant animal research models;

behavioral and surgical techniques; and knowledge of species-specific behavioral,

social, and medical requirements. Psychologists conducting animal field research

should have sufficient knowledge of the ecosystems that they will observe to minimize

harm to the natural behaviors and environment of the animal population

under investigation and other plant and animal life.

received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species

being used, to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of

Work to Others.)

Psychologists must ensure that all personnel involved in the housing, care,

experimental methods, or disposal of animal research subjects are competent to

fulfill these duties in a way that ensures that animals are treated humanely and

appropriately (see also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others). A wide range

of animal species is used in research, and each species has its own unique housing,

nutrition, medical, and psychological needs. Psychologists must make sure that

individuals to whom animal care is delegated are sufficiently knowledgeable about

the species and the duties they must perform through prior education, training by

the psychologist, or close supervision.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

254——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain

of animal subjects.

Species-appropriate housing, sanitary conditions, feeding, regular veterinary

checkups, and development and monitoring of safety conditions during active experimentation

should be implemented to protect the health and welfare of animal research

subjects. Psychologists and their staff should be alert and competent to detect signs of

illness or injury in animal subjects and be able to obtain the immediate and appropriate

treatment. When alternative experimental procedures are available, psychologists

should select the one that will produce the minimum amount of animal discomfort.

The APA Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals (http://www

.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx) also recommends that, whenever

possible, psychologists should try to provide care and housing that can enrich the

psychological well-being of the animal subject.

􀀴 A psychologist who conducted research on aggressive behavior in male rats hired a

research assistant to clean each animal’s housing. Rather than provide direct supervision,

the psychologist told the assistant to begin work and to feel free to ask the

psychologists any questions that arose. To facilitate cleaning, the assistant decided to

take three of the animals out of their separate housings and place them in a larger

empty glass enclosure. The animals immediately began to fight with each other, incurring

several injuries.

􀀵 A psychologist studying cognition in pigeons presented various landmarks and

observed the pigeons’ use of these cues. During initial testing, the psychologist unexpectedly

found that some arrangements caused confusion, resulting in minor injuries

when several pigeons flew into the landmarks. The psychologist modified these

arrangements to protect the animals’ safety.

(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an

alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational,

or applied value.

Exposing animals to experimentally induced pain or suffering is not ethically

justified unless the psychologist can demonstrate that the knowledge produced

from experimentation has the clear potential to substantially contribute to science,

to teaching about animal behavior or research techniques, or to benefit other animals

or humans. Animals should never be subjected to pain, physical or psychological

stress, or food deprivation if alternative procedures have equal pedagogical

value or can adequately test the research question. When aversive procedures cannot

be avoided, psychologists must select the minimal level of pain, stress, or privation

necessary to achieve the goals of the research.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——255

(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques

to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.

Research requiring surgery must be conducted by appropriately trained psychologists

or other competent personnel using methods that minimize risks of infection

and pain. Unless there is a legitimate scientific or medical reason to do otherwise,

animals must be anesthetized throughout the surgical procedure. Psychologists are

responsible for monitoring postoperative care of research animals using appropriate

medications to minimize discomfort and avoid infection. Exposing animals to multiple

surgeries as a matter of convenience or to minimize cost is unethical.

􀀴 An introductory psychology laboratory instructor decided to demonstrate to the class

how the phenomenon of learned helplessness is experimentally tested. Although

educational videos on the procedure were available, the demonstration included placing

laboratory rats in a cage with an electrified grid and preventing them from escaping

when a painful shock was distributed through the grid.

􀀵 Researchers designed a study with rhesus monkeys to test the reinforcing effects of

three commonly abused drugs. To enable the animals to reinforce their behavior with

the drugs, a catheter was implanted in a jugular vein. The procedure was conducted

under effective anesthesia and aseptic conditions. Monkeys were treated postoperatively

with antibiotics for 10 days and with an analgesic for 3 days. Testing was not

begun until it was determined that the monkey was in good postoperative health. The

investigators also determined that using a within-subjects design could minimize the

number of monkeys needed to adequately test the reinforcing properties of the drugs.

After the experiment, the catheters were removed under the same careful anesthesia

and aseptic conditions, and each monkey was given appropriate postoperative care.

(g) When it is appropriate that an animal’s life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with

an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

Humane or scientific considerations may necessitate terminating the life of animal

research subjects when experimental procedures create chronic pain or discomfort

that cannot be alleviated through medication or other remedies. Participation

sometimes renders an animal unsuitable for future research and returning it to the

wild or giving it a home outside the laboratory is not safe or possible. Other times,

autopsies are necessary to validate the efficacy of the surgical technique or to understand

physiological processes and structures related to the psychological phenomenon

under investigation. When termination is necessary, psychologists must use

procedures that are humane, immediate, and appropriate for the species. According

to the APA Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals, termination

procedures should be in accordance with procedures of the latest version of the

American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia (2007), and disposal

of euthanized animals should be consistent with law.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

256——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

8.10 Reporting Research Results

(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive

Statements.)

Principle C: Integrity, underscores the centrality of accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness

in the conduct of science. Fraud in research is one of the most serious forms

of scientific misconduct because it disrupts the scientific process, dilutes community

confidence in the integrity of science, and can lead to misinformed interventions

and policies. Psychologists do not falsify, make up, alter, or distort the

responses of human participants or animal subjects or the results of data analysis.

This standard is not limited to published reports and applies to the fabrication of

data in journal entries or intentional manipulation of the data collection process

itself that would lead to a false report. See Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False or

Deceptive Statements, for additional prohibitions against publishing or presenting

research findings psychologists know are false.

􀀴 After conducting planned statistical analyses of the data, a psychologist realized that

if the data from just 4 of the 30 participants were eliminated, the statistical analyses

would yield significance. The characteristics of these four participants met all the

original inclusion criteria for the study, and there was no deviation in the administration

of testing procedures for these individuals. Reasoning that there must be some

undetected characteristic responsible for these participants’ outlier responses, the

psychologist decided to eliminate their data from the analysis. Because there were no

criteria other than their responses on which to exclude them, the psychologist decided

not to report their elimination in a manuscript submitted for publication.

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps

to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

The research design, measurement tools, and analytic strategies selected by an

investigator may lead to erroneous conclusions based on honest differences in

interpretation, chance responding, or extraneous influences that are revealed only

when new techniques are used to examine the hypothesis tested. Erroneous conclusions

about natural phenomena based on methodologically sound research designs

are themselves a natural part of the scientific process and are not unethical. A cornerstone

of scientific progress is the process of self-correction in which the validity

of results obtained in a single experiment can be confirmed or refuted following

replication by others within the scientific community. Accurate reporting of

research is essential to this process because it enables others to critique, replicate,

dispute, and expand on the methods and interpretations reported.

The purpose of this standard is to safeguard the self-correction process by

requiring that psychologists take steps to correct errors in published reports that

compromise the readers’ ability to replicate the research design or interpret the

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——257

results because the methodology, data, or statistical analysis was incorrectly

described. Informing the journal editor or publisher about the error and requesting

a published correction can comply with this standard. The use of the term reasonable

steps recognizes that investigators have limited control over editors or publishers

who refuse to publish corrections.

􀀵 Following the publication of an article, a psychologist realized that the F values and

probability levels in one of the tables had been wrongly transcribed. The psychologist

wrote to the editor of the journal requesting that an addendum be published briefly

describing the error and informing readers that they can obtain the corrected table

from the author. The psychologist also placed an addendum page onto all reprints

distributed to other investigators.

􀀴 In a manuscript submitted for publication, a psychologist used the organization, heading

formats, and arguments presented by authors in an article published in an obscure

journal. The psychologist cited the original article once in the opening paragraph of

the manuscript. Two paragraphs duplicated word-for-word sentences in the original

article—and many of the original article’s paragraphs were paraphrased. The psychologist

added five new references that appeared after the original plagiarized article

was published.

8.11 Plagiarism

Psychologists do not present portions of another’s work or data as their own, even if the other

work or data source is cited occasionally.

Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s ideas or words without appropriate

credit. Plagiarism is inconsistent with Principle C: Integrity, since it deceives

readers into believing that the words and ideas of others are original to the author. A

common misconception is that plagiarism is limited to word-for-word replication or

paraphrasing of another’s written work without appropriate citation. Whereas this

form of plagiarism is clearly prohibited, violation of this standard also occurs when a

psychologist knowingly presents throughout a publication or formal report another’s

ideas as his or her own, citing the work from which it was drawn in a manner

intended to obscure the original author’s contribution. (See Standard 5.01, Avoidance

of False or Deceptive Statements, for situations in which a psychologist may be in

violation of the Ethics Code for appropriating the work of others outside the research

or publication context.)

8.12 Publication Credit

(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they

have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b,

Publication Credit.)

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

258——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

This standard prohibits psychologists from taking credit for research they did

not directly perform or for which they did not make a substantial intellectual contribution.

Substantial intellectual contributions include formulating the hypothesis,

developing the experimental design, selecting the analytic procedures,

interpreting the data, writing the first draft of the article, or providing important

intellectual revisions to the manuscript content (APA, 2001). According to this

standard, any psychologist listed as an author must take responsibility for the content

of the publication. This means that all coauthors must review the final draft of

a manuscript before it is submitted for publication. In recent years, many scientific

journals have required that all authors of a submitted manuscript sign a statement

confirming that they contributed to the research and reviewed the written content

of the paper.

􀀴 A junior faculty member asked a nationally recognized senior research psychologist to

collaborate on an article based on data that the junior faculty member had collected.

The junior member thought that including the accomplished researcher as an author

would improve the chances of the manuscript being accepted for publication. The

senior psychologist agreed to have his name included and told the junior faculty

member that after hearing a description of the writing plan, he would not have to

read the manuscript before it was submitted for publication.

􀀴 A research psychologist agreed to conduct a study funded by a pharmaceutical firm to

test the comparative efficacy of two psychoactive drugs. The psychologist sent the collected

data to the sponsor for statistical analyses. After the data were analyzed, the

sponsor offered to ghostwrite the article. The psychologist agreed and submitted it to a

journal as sole author (see also Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest; Pachter et al., 2007).

(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or

professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere

possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship

credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged

appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

Principal authorship must reflect the extent to which each individual contributed

to the origination of the research problem, the research design, interpretation of

results, and drafting of the manuscript. In addition to underscoring the importance

of the relative contribution as the determining factor for authorship credit, the

wording of this standard is intended to protect students and junior faculty or

research associates from exploitation by professors, supervisors, or senior administrators

who might demand principal authorship based simply on the status of their

position (McCarthy, 2012). The standard also requires that minor contributions not

constituting authorship be acknowledged. Minor contributions include supportive

functions such as designing or building the apparatus, suggesting or advising about

the statistical analysis, collecting or entering the data, modifying or structuring a

computer program, and recruiting participants or obtaining animals (APA, 2001).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——259

multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student’s doctoral dissertation.

Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout

the research and publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication

Credit.)

This standard recognizes that doctoral work is expected to represent an independent

and original contribution devised and conducted largely by the student.

Consequently, doctoral students should receive principal authorship on publications

substantially based on their dissertation. The rare exception to this standard

might occur when a student’s doctoral dissertation is published in monograph

form as part of a collection of studies by other researchers that cumulatively substantiates

a phenomenon or supports or refutes a hypothesis.

Whether students merit principal authorship on master’s-level or other predoctoral

research will depend on their specific contributions to the research.

When a student makes the primary contribution to a study, Standard 8.12b

requires that she or he should be listed as the first author. Some students conducting

master’s and undergraduate honors research theses choose to work

within an apprenticeship model distinctly different from the independent work

model of the dissertation (Fine & Kurdek, 1993; Fisher & Younggren, 1997). For

students who are only beginning to acquire the theoretical, methodological,

statistical, and writing skills necessary to make a primary scientific contribution,

the apprenticeship model provides the opportunity to learn these skills through

collaboration on a faculty-originated project. In such cases, authorship should

be determined by the relative contributions of student and faculty member to

the project.

Standard 8.12c affords additional student protections by requiring that faculty

advisers discuss publication credit with students as early as is feasible to provide

students an opportunity to evaluate their skills and select the best mentoring

experience (apprenticeship vs. independent scholar model) to meet their training

needs and expectations for publication credit. Recognizing that research collaboration

is a dynamic process in which relative contribution can change over time,

research mentors should discuss with students any such changes they observe or

anticipate that would affect publication credit at the point at which they emerge.

For all student–faculty research collaborations, assignment of principal authorship

must follow the rule of relative scientific contribution established in

Standard 8.12b.

􀀵 A psychologist was the director of a large research center where postdoctoral students

were encouraged to apply for young investigator awards listing the director as

mentor. The psychologist always commented on drafts of manuscripts that the highly

competent postdoctoral students submitted for publication but had a policy of being

included as an author only if she directly contributed to the design, implementation,

analysis, data interpretation, or writing.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

260——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data

Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does

not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

Scientific knowledge is based on cumulative evidence of the reliability of observations

and relationships among variables tested over time and in different experimental

contexts. When psychologists present the same data in different publications

without proper acknowledgment, they jeopardize the evolution of scientific knowledge

by giving the erroneous impression that replication of results has occurred

(see Principles B: Fidelity and Responsibility and C: Integrity). Duplicate publication

of data without appropriate citation can jeopardize the validity of meta-analyses

that shed light on a problem through a statistical synthesis of the data from a set of

independent but comparable studies examining the problem. Publishing original

data in more than one source without proper attribution also misrepresents the

amount of experimental work the author has actually conducted and, in some

instances, may result in violation of copyright law. Standard 8.13 does not prohibit

psychologists from publishing the same data in different journals for the purpose

of reaching different audiences as long as proper citations of the original publication

source are provided, and psychologists have confirmed that such publication

does not violate the original publisher’s copyright.

The extent to which posting a manuscript on a psychologist’s or his or her

employer’s website in manuscript form submitted, accepted, or published by a

journal will depend on the journal’s policy for such posting and whether the relationship

of the posted document to prepublished or published materials is clearly

posted along with the manuscript. For example, APA Publications frequently

updates its Internet posting policies at http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/posting

.aspx. The most recent policy (APA, 2006) is as follows:

Authors can post unpublished papers on a website prior to submission as long

as they are clearly labeled as unpublished.

Editors are advised of the website posting when the manuscript is submitted

for review.

Manuscripts of accepted articles can be posted in word-processing form, provided

they carry an APA copyright notice and link to the journal home page,

as well as include the following statement: “This article may not exactly replicate

the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.”

The manuscript cannot be archived with any non-APA repositories.

The APA-published version does not appear in a scanned or otherwise copyrighted

form.

Publishing multiple or piecemeal reports of different aspects of a single research

project may be unethical without a reasonable theoretical, methodological, or practical

justification for doing so. In such cases, investigators should inform the editor

of the publication where the manuscript was submitted about their plans for

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——261

publishing different parts of the study. Usually, Standard 8.13 does not preclude

publication of full-length reports of materials published as conference abstracts or

manuscripts with limited circulation (e.g., U.S. dissertations or internal agency

reports; see APA, 2006). Exceptions occur when conference proceedings are published

as full-length presentations in a volume that has an International Standard

Book Number (ISBN).

The NIH Public Access Policy

The NIH Public Access Policy, implementing Division G, Title II, Section 218 of

PL 110–161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008), was developed to ensure that

published results based on NIH-funded research are available to the public (http://

publicaccess.nih.gov/index.htm). It requires that as of April 7, 2008, investigators

submit the accepted version of a peer-reviewed manuscript arising from NIH funds

to PubMed Central (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/). To comply with the policy,

investigators must do the following:

Make sure that any copyright transfer allows the final peer-reviewed manuscripts

to be submitted to NIH in accordance with the policy. Journals that

have agreed to do this automatically are listed at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

submit_process_journals.htm. For those journals not listed, the author must

inform the journal that the final peer-reviewed manuscript is subject to the

Public Access Policy when submitting it for publication.

Submit the final draft of the accepted peer-reviewed manuscript to NIH.

When citing their NIH-funded papers in NIH applications, proposals, or

progress reports, include the PubMed Central reference number for each

article (effective May 25, 2008).

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification

(a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their

conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive

claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that

the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary

data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such

individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.

The self-correcting nature of science requires investigators to share research data

for the purpose of replication and reanalysis. Such openness protects the integrity

of science through independent validation of data coding, analysis, and interpretation

and reflects awareness of their responsibilities to the scientific community and

the public (Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility).

Psychologists should follow appropriate guidelines for retention of data (see also

Standard 6.01, Documentation of Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

262——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

of Records). For example, authors of articles published in APA journals are

required to have their raw data available for at least 5 years after the date of publication

(APA, 2001).

The term competent professionals as used in this standard, limits the obligation

to provide data to individuals competent in the research methods and data-analytic

techniques necessary to substantiate claims through reanalysis. Psychologists are

not required to share data with individuals for purposes of developing and testing

new theories or other goals beyond reanalysis and verification of data. The standard

recognizes that there may be legitimate ethical, legal, and financial barriers to data

sharing. In some instances, it may be impossible to de-identify data to adequately

protect the confidentiality rights of those who participated in the research

(Standard 4.01 Maintaining Confidentiality). In other instances, a third party who

is not a psychologist may own the proprietary rights to the data. To avoid subjecting

investigators to financial hardship or harassment, the standard permits psychologists

to require that costs of the exchange be borne by the requesting party.

(b) Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims

through reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists

obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of the data.

This standard protects the intellectual property rights of the owner of the data

by prohibiting the requesting psychologist from piggybacking on the work of

another by using the data for any purpose other than reanalysis or to verify substantive

claims. The data cannot be used to test related or peripheral hypotheses or to

develop new research or analytic techniques unless the psychologist obtains prior

written agreement.

􀀴 On the basis of a written request, a psychologist received data from another psychologist

to verify through inspection of the data and reanalysis the interpretation of

findings stated in a recent publication. After receiving the data, the psychologist realized

that there were several additional hypotheses that could be tested with the data

set. The psychologist quickly developed an analytic plan and got together a team of

graduate students to implement the plan in time to submit the analysis of new

hypotheses for presentation at an upcoming professional meeting.

8.15 Reviewers

Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research

proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of

those who submitted it.

Research psychologists have an obligation to establish relationships of trust and

are aware of their responsibilities to other investigators and the scientific community

(Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility). Psychologists are prohibited from

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——263

using privileged and proprietary information obtained through confidential review

of research materials, including the review of grant applications and papers submitted

for publication or presentation at professional meetings. This standard protects

the intellectual property rights of individuals who describe their theories, research

designs, and data in unpublished materials from use by others who obtain this

information during the peer-review process. If for reasons of expertise or training

reviewers wish to have a colleague or graduate student review the material, they

must first obtain prior permission of the grants program officer, journal editor, or

meeting chair. Reviewed materials should be returned or destroyed following

completion of the review. Psychologists should also guard against potential conflicts

of interest when they are reviewing articles that support, conflict, or compete

with their own published or current research endeavors (see Standard 3.06, Conflict

of Interest; Greenwald, 2009).

􀀴 A research psychologist on an NIH special emphasis panel was primary reviewer on

an R01 grant application addressing a conceptual problem that the psychologist had

been tackling in her own lab. The psychologist wrote a critical review of the proposal

and argued strongly for a score in the unfundable range. Several months later, the

principal investigator of the R01 application was distressed to learn that the psychologist

had begun a series of studies almost identical to those in the rejected proposal

(see also Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest).

HOT TOPIC

Informational Risk and Disclosure of

Genetic Information to Research Participants

The Human Genome Project and rapid technological advances in genomics have begun to enrich psychological

science’s contributions to understanding the role of genetic factors in normative cognitive and emotional

functioning and in the etiology, onset, and escalation of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other mental

health disorders (Kremen et al., 2011; A. L. Singh et al., 2011; Tarbox & Pogue-Geile, 2011; Zavos, Gregory, &

Eley, 2012). Advanced genomic technology has also illuminated distinct and intersecting influences of genetics

and psychosocial and environmental stressors on a range of psychosocial behaviors (for example, parenting

style, political orientation, gender values) and psychopathology (for example, conduct disorder, adult antisocial

behavior, binge eating) (Beach et al., 2012; Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Kandler, Bleidorn, & Reimann, 2012; Meier,

Slutske, Heath, & Martin, 2012; Racine, Burt, Iacono, McGue, & Klump, 2011). Psychosocial research on the

intervention responsivity of children with specific genetic susceptibilities for behavioral problems has just

begun to attract psychological scientists (Brody, Chen, Beach, Philibert, & Kogan, 2009). However, advances in

the integration of genomic science into psychological research have also illuminated significant limitations in

the translation of research findings to the prediction, identification, or treatment of psychological disorders.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

264——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Attention to the risks and benefits of disclosing personal genetic information to research participants has

not kept pace with the techniques, data, and limitations produced in this rapidly evolving field. At this early

stage of the science, the ethical challenges for research involving the study of genetic variants are “informational”

in nature (Beskow & Burke, 2009) affecting the extent and limits of personal data that should be

disclosed to participants (Standard 8.08, Debriefing) and providing information on those limitations during

informed consent (Standard 8.02, Informed Consent to Research). This Hot Topic section identifies key questions

to consider in determining ethical justification for disclosing personal genetic information with

research participants (for expanded discussion of these issues, see Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press).

The Probabilistic Nature of

Gene–Environment Influences on Behavior

Most psychological disorders do not emerge from single gene–environment interactions. Rather, research

suggests that mental health risks and outcomes involve the interplay of multiple genetic and nongenetic

factors, that different gene variants can influence similar psychological disorders, and that even when specific

gene–environment effects on behavior have been identified, the actual emergence of the behavior is only

probabilistic (Plomin & Davis, 2009). At this early stage of the science, the relatively small sample size of

available study populations at genetic risk for specific mental health disorders, variability in the life contexts

interacting with genetic factors, the variability of prevention and intervention strategies, and lack of replication

limit the generalizability and individual relevance of research results (Henderson, 2008). Moreover, while

the identification of gene markers can help elucidate the factors placing certain individuals at increased risk

for disorder development, many studies will lack clinical or personal relevance to individual study participants

(Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press). Disclosure of personal data from research results linking genetic

factors to the development of psychological disorders can thus lead to the over- or underestimation of mental

health risk for individual participants.

Informational Risk

Personal genetic information influences our own identity and the identities we are assigned by others (Ossorio &

Duster, 2005; Svendsen & Koch, 2006). Sharing individual research results with participants can demonstrate

respect for their right to determine the utility of personal information and to acquire health information that can

help them make life plans (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity). However, investigators also have

a responsibility to promote accuracy and truthfulness in science and accept appropriate responsibility for acknowledging

limitations of research results that have yet to meet criteria for validity and reliability (Principle B: Fidelity

and Responsibility, Principle C: Integrity). While scientists recognize that single genetic variants have limited predictive

power, individuals often adopt a genetic essentialism that perceives genetic markers to be more deterministic

than other risk factors in their potential to predict future disorders (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011; Kendler, 2005).

Thus, decisions to share research-derived personal genetic information with participants require a consideration

of informational benefits and harms that may result (Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence).

Informational risk is often related to the initial phase of a new line of research exploring genetic correlates

of mental health. During this phase, data are not collected with the aim of generating health information relevant

to prediction of individual risk but with testing hypotheses about gene–environment–behavior relationships

targeted to the understanding of probabilistic differences among groups sharing similar characteristics

(Bioethics Advisory Committee, 2005). Providing participants with personal genetic information within the

context of data on yet to be replicated group differences may lead to over- or underestimation of personal risk,

which in turn may negatively influence future health decisions.

Investigators may find other ethical challenges associated with informational risk. Although psychologists may

implement appropriate confidentiality protections for genetic data (Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality,

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 11 Standards on Research and Publication——265

and 6.02 Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Professional and Scientific Work),

providing participants with personal genetic information with empirically unreliable implications for health may be

a form of “inflicted insight” that carries its own burdens of disclosure. For example, healthy adults informed that

they possess a gene marker that may or may not be predictive of a mental health disorder may struggle with

whether this incurs an obligation to report this vulnerability to family members, future employers, or health insurance

companies (Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press. Preliminary clinical trials for established mental disorders

that explore the association of gene variants with treatment outcomes can also influence future employment and

health insurance options if genetic data collected solely for research purposes are included in participants’ health

records (see “A Word About HIPAA,” in the Preface of this book).

Scientific Validity

The weaker the scientific foundation for a hypothesized relationship between genetic factors and psychosocial

or behavioral risk, the weaker the ethical argument for disclosure (Fisher, 2006). Given the diversity and complexity

of gene–environment prevention studies, a singular approach to disclosure of personal genetic information

to participants is inadequate protection against informational harm (Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific

and Professional Judgments). Several investigators have suggested that ethical decisions regarding whether to

report personal genetic information to research participants must be based on the accuracy, reliability, and

replicability of laboratory-based genetic testing and its relationship to measures of mental health (Fisher &

Harrington McCarthy, in press; Grandjean & Sorsa, 1996; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009; Ravitsky & Wilfond,

2006). Based on this work, psychologists should consider the following questions when determining disclosure

policies:

Is there a body of empirical evidence clearly demonstrating an association between a genetic marker

and a specific mental health risk for individuals with other relevant personal and environmental characteristics

in common with the participant?

Is there a low probability of false positives?

What proportion of risk is attributed to heritability versus environmental factors?

Is the magnitude of the gene–disorder association sufficiently large and disorder sufficiently severe to

justify informational risks associated with under- or overestimation of risk?

Severity of Disorder and Treatment Options

The extent to which participants have a right to personal data collected solely for research purposes will vary

depending on the direct relevance of the information to their current or future health (Principle E: Respect for

People’s Rights and Dignity). The more serious the disorder, the stronger is the ethical argument for disclosure

(Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press. When making ethical decisions to share personal genetic information

with participants, psychologists must weigh the degree of scientific certainty regarding gene–environment–

behavior associations against the informational value of disclosure (Grandjean & Sorsa, 1996; Ravitsky &

Wilfond, 2006). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2003) addressed this problem for information gained from

genetic databases setting criteria for individual disclosure based on whether (a) the data can be instrumental in

identifying a clear clinical benefit to identifiable individuals and (b) disclosure to relevant individuals will avert

or minimize harm to those individuals. These perspectives provide a framework for evaluating personal and

clinical utility of providing participants with individual research results within the framework of scientific validity:

Is there sufficient quality and quantity of empirical evidence of the association between the genetic

characteristic and manifestation of the disorder?

Is there a low probability of false-positive genetic test results?

Does the disorder present a major risk to participants’ future health?

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

266——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS

Are there accessible, safe, and effective preventive interventions or treatments available to participants

following disclosure of individual results?

If not, to what extent may knowledge of one’s personal genotype positively or negatively affect participants’

well-being and influence future health decisions?

Ethically Appropriate Disclosure Procedures

When the balance between scientific validity and personal utility meet criteria for individual disclosure, investigators

must also demonstrate capacity to communicate results to participants in a clinically competent

manner (Knoppers, Joly, Simard, & Durocher, 2006; Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence). This

can include working with genetic counselors to assist in appropriate disclosure and referral procedures

(WHO, 2003).

An additional disclosure consideration is participant’s preference for or against disclosure (Fisher &

Harrington McCarthy, in press; Murphy et al., 2008). Under current federal regulations and international guidelines,

participants have a right to decide whether or not to be informed about the results of genetic testing,

especially in cases in which early treatment is not available (DHHS, 2009; United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization, 1997). If criteria for individual disclosure are met, psychologists should consider the

following:

How can the benefits and limitations of disclosure be adequately communicated during informed

consent? The more complex the gene–risk association, the greater the ethical responsibility to provide

genetic literacy education to participants during the consent process, so that they can make an informed

choice about their preference for disclosure (Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press; readers might also

wish to refer to the general principles of goodness-of-fit ethics for informed consent described in the

Hot Topic for Chapter 6).

Does the investigator or members of his or her research team possess the necessary knowledge and skills

for communicating genetic test results to participants (Standard 2.01, Boundaries of Competence)?

If a genetic counselor is employed to carry out disclosure of test results, has the investigator developed an

appropriate monitoring procedure for ensuring the competency of the counselor’s work (Standard 2.05,

Delegation of Work to Others)?

Has the investigator identified appropriate referral sources for preventive intervention or treatment to

which participants can be referred following disclosure (Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm)?

Social Responsibility

The current expansion of genetics as a major explanatory framework for mental health disorders and treatment

responsivity has the potential to increase society’s genetic literacy and improve public health. At the

same time, misunderstanding and misuse of genetic research results can perpetrate social inequities by ignoring

more powerful and enduring social and political inequities that sustain mental health disparities among

marginalized populations (Fisher et al., 2012). When a genetic influence on risk is reported, a new “genetized”

disease may be created in the public’s mind (Lippman, 1991), irrespective of the probabilistic and

multifactorial nature of gene influences on mental health. Public responses to population-based genetics

research can also stigmatize an entire community as being predisposed to specific diseases, simultaneously

affecting members’ public and personal identities; especially in research involving racial/ethnic minorities

(Fisher & Harrington McCarthy, in press). Psychologists’ ethical awareness of the potential informational

goods and harms of genetic research and heightened sensitivity to the social and political realities in which

participants live will yield scientific data that minimizes informational risk, optimizes participant informed

choice, and advances public health.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

267

CHAPTER 12

Standards on Assessment

9. Assessment

9.01 Bases for Assessments

(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic

or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient

to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and

Professional Judgments.)

Psychological assessment serves the public good by providing information to

guide decisions affecting the well-being of individuals, families, groups, organizations,

and institutions. Psychologists who draw their conclusions on information

and techniques based on the scientific