Code Standards 3 and 4 Flashcards
Question ID #12096: Dr. Cecelia Cooper, a licensed psychologist, is planning a longitudinal study to identify environmental contributors to drug abuse. Her study will involve interviewing drug and non-drug users and their families several times over a five-year period and will require that she maintain participants’ names, addresses, and phone numbers in her files. Dr. Cooper is concerned about the confidentiality of her participants, especially if she is ever called to testify about any of them in court. Dr. Cooper:
Select one:
A.
need not be concerned about confidentiality since it will be both legal and ethical for her to refuse to testify about the participants in court.
B.
should not be concerned about confidentiality since the participants’ privilege will be waived in this situation.
C.
should inform her participants of the possible limits of confidentiality as part of the informed consent process.
D.
should always obtain an informed consent from a participant prior to testifying about him/her in court.
The correct answer is C.
Confidentiality of research participants is addressed by Standard 8.02 of the APA’s Ethics Code and Principle I.24 of the Canadian Code of Ethics. This answer is most consistent with the provisions of Standard 8.02(a) of the Ethics Code and Principle I.24 of the Canadian Code of Ethics, which stress the importance of informing research participants of potential limits to confidentiality during the informed consent process.
Answers A and B: This is not true. Dr. Cooper should be concerned as she is ethically obligated to inform her participants of possible limitations to confidentiality.
Answer D: This answer is incorrect because it refers to an informed consent rather than to a waiver (release) of confidentiality. In addition, a waiver may not be necessary if the situation is one in which privilege is waived.
Question ID #12119: Dr. Everett, a licensed psychologist, has recently started a practice in a small town. He learns from a mutual friend that Dr. Cohen (also a psychologist) has been revealing confidential information about some of her clients to members of the community. Dr. Everett should __________.
Select one:
A.
contact the clients to let them know what he has heard.
B.
obtain consents from the clients and file a complaint with the Ethics Committee.
C.
consult with a colleague about the situation.
D.
do nothing since the information about Dr. Cohen is hearsay.
The correct answer is C.
Ethical guidelines require psychologists to take some action in situations in which a fellow professional is believed to have acted unethically. However, a psychologist can choose from several alternatives when doing so. Of the answers given, this is the best one. If Dr. Everett felt comfortable with discussing the issue with Dr. Cohen, that would probably be the best course of action. Since this is not given as an alternative, consulting with a colleague is the best answer.
Answer A: Contacting the clients wouldn’t be appropriate.
Answer B: Filing a complaint is always an option, but given the way that Dr. Everett found out about the problem, this would probably not be the best course of action. It also wouldn’t be appropriate to contact Dr. Cohen’s clients.
Answer D: It is because the information is “hearsay” that consulting with a fellow professional might be the best initial course of action.
Question ID #12674: The term “privilege” is:
Select one:
A.
a general term referring to the right to privacy.
B.
an ethical term referring to an obligation not to reveal confidential information.
C.
the legal equivalent of the ethical concept of confidentiality.
D.
a legal term referring to the protection of confidential information in legal proceedings.
The correct answer is D.
For the exam, you want to be familiar with the terms “privilege” and “holder of the privilege.” These are discussed in the chapter on ethics and professional issues in the written study materials.
Answer A: Privilege is a legal concept.
Answer B: Privilege is not an ethical concept; it is a legal concept.
Answer C: This is not true. Privilege is a legal concept that protects a client’s confidentiality in the context of a legal proceeding.
Question ID #12675: While treating a client, you decide that you want to consult with a colleague to discuss a specific aspect of the case that is giving you trouble. According to the Ethics Code:
Select one:
A.
you must obtain a release from the client before talking to a consultant.
B.
you must obtain a release from the client only if you will be revealing the client’s identity to the consultant.
C.
you do not have to obtain a release from the client as long as he/she has already signed a general waiver of confidentiality.
D.
you do not have to obtain a release from the client under any circumstances since the consultant is “clearly connected” with the case.
The correct answer is B.
This issue is addressed in Standard 4.06 of the Ethics Code. Standard 4.06 states that, “when consulting with colleagues … psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient … unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person.” It is not, however, necessary to obtain consent when the client’s identity will not be revealed.
Answer A: Consent is not necessary if the client’s identity is protected.
Answer C: There is no such thing as a “general waiver of confidentiality.”
Answer D: This is not true. Consent is needed if the client’s identity will be revealed.
Question ID #12676: In most situations, the “holder of the privilege” is the:
Select one:
A.
client.
B.
therapist.
C.
client and therapist jointly.
D.
court.
The correct answer is A.
Privilege is a legal requirement that prohibits (with some exceptions) confidential client information from being disclosed in legal proceedings. In most circumstances, the client is the holder of the privilege, which means that only the client can determine when confidential information may be disclosed in court, a deposition, or other legal proceeding. See the Ethics and Professional Issues chapter in the written study materials for additional information on privilege.
Answers B, C, and D: The client is generally the holder of privilege.
Question ID #12677: Which of the following accurately describes the requirements of the APA’s Ethics Code with regard to informed consents?
Select one:
A.
An informed consent must be in writing.
B.
An informed consent must be in writing and signed by the client.
C.
A written or oral consent must be documented.
D.
An oral consent is never acceptable.
The correct answer is C.
Informed consent is addressed in Standards 3.10, 8.02, 9.03, and 10.01 of the Ethics Code. Additional information about informed consents is provided in the discussion of Standard 3.10 in the Ethics and Professional Issues chapter of the written study materials. Standard 3.10(d) states that “psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent.”
Answer A: Documentation of oral consent is acceptable.
Answer B: Client signature is not required.
Answer D: Documented oral consent is acceptable.
Question ID #12685: Your new clients are a family that consist of a husband, wife, and two adolescent girls. They began therapy because one of the girls has started using drugs and the other has signs of an eating disorder. You realize during the first session that you and the parents belong to the same country club. You should:
Select one:
A.
terminate therapy with this family and provide them with referrals.
B.
ask the parents to decide if they want to continue therapy with you.
C.
consider the situation, consulting if necessary, to determine if you can maintain your objectivity with this family.
D.
continue seeing the family and join a different country club.
The correct answer is C.
Multiple relationships are addressed in several standards of the Ethics Code, including Standard 3.05, which prohibits multiple relationships that “could be reasonably expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness … otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person.” In this case, you would want to determine if the parents’ membership in the country club is likely to have an adverse effect on your effectiveness before proceeding with treatment.
Answer A: This is an option but not the best answer as you would want to consider all available options, consulting as necessary, prior to making a decision.
Answer B: This is not the best answer. While it would be important to discuss the implications of a dual relationship with the family; ethical decision-making should not be displaced to the family. It is the clinician’s responsibility to make ethical choices in treatment.
Answer D: This is an option that would be fully ethical; however, it is not the best answer as you would want to consider all available options and consult as necessary prior to making a choice.
Question ID #12686: Which of the following is an example of a psychologist’s obligations with regard to the Tarasoff decision?
Select one:
A.
A psychologist has a duty to warn or protect a therapy client’s neighbor when the client says he is planning to murder the neighbor.
B.
A psychologist has a duty to protect a therapy client when the client says he is planning to kill himself and has a plan for doing so.
C.
A psychologist has a duty to protect a therapy client when the client says his wife has been threatening to kill him and he thinks her last threat was “really serious.”
D.
A psychologist has a duty to inform the authorities when a therapy client says he “put someone in the hospital” in a physical fight at a local bar last weekend.
The correct answer is A.
For the exam, you want to be familiar with the history and implications of the Tarasoff ruling. This case is described in the Ethics and Professional Issues chapter of the written study materials. The Tarasoff decision established a psychologist’s duty to warn or protect an identifiable third party who is at risk for serious injury from a therapy client.
Answer B: This statement is true but unrelated to Tarasoff (duty to warn).
Answer C: Tarasoff’s duty to warn is limited to protecting a client’s identified victim(s).
Answer D: Tarasoff does not pertain to past actions.
Question ID #12721: Sandy S. is considering filing a claim of sexual harassment against her boss, Bertrand B., because he frequently comments on her physical appearance by telling her how “great she looks” and often tells her that, “if I weren’t your boss, I’d be chasing after you.” Sandy decides to tell Bertrand that she finds his comments offensive and, when she does so, he apologizes and says he’ll stop if that’s what she wants. This situation:
Select one:
A.
does not represent a legal claim for sexual harassment because Bertrand’s comments are not sufficiently severe to be considered abusive.
B.
does not represent a legal claim for sexual harassment as long as Bertrand actually stops making offensive comments.
C.
represents a legal claim for sexual harassment because Sandy found Bertrand’s behavior to be offensive.
D.
represents a legal claim for sexual harassment because a “reasonable woman” would find Bertrand’s behavior to be offensive.
The correct answer is B.
Sexual harassment laws and policies vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but Bertrand’s comments are likely to be grounds for a sexual harassment suit if he continues to make them. If the comments are not severe and the harasser stops when asked to do so, it is unlikely that they would be found sufficient for a legal claim of sexual harassment. For additional information, see the discussion on sexual harassment in the Ethics and Professional Issues chapter of the written study materials.
Answer A: Sexual comments do not have to be “sufficiently severe to be considered abusive” for a claim of sexual harassment.
Answer C: Although Bertrand’s comments are likely to be considered offensive, it is unlikely that Sandy would have grounds for a legal claim against him if he stops making those comments when asked to do so.
Answer D: If Bertrand does not stop making offensive comments when asked to do so, the court might use the “reasonable woman” standard to determine if the comments represent sexual harassment.
Question ID #12722: You have been seeing Sal Smythe in individual therapy for several months, and the work-related issues he originally sought therapy for are nearly resolved. During your current session with Sal, he mentions that his 14-year-old son has been getting into trouble in school lately and asks if you would be willing to see the boy in individual therapy. You should:
Select one:
A.
agree to see his son in therapy if you have experience working with adolescents.
B.
agree to see his son in therapy only after discussing issues related to confidentiality with Sal and his son.
C.
agree to see his son in therapy only after determining that the boy’s problems are unrelated to Sal’s issues.
D.
tell Sal that you cannot see his son in therapy and provide him with several referrals.
The correct answer is D.
Seeing your client’s son in therapy would constitute a multiple relationship unless doing so is for the purpose of continuing to work with Sal on his issues. In most circumstances, you would want to avoid seeing the family members of a client you are seeing in individual therapy since doing so would represent a multiple relationship. No information is given in this question or the answers to suggest that this situation represents an exception to this general rule.
Answer A: This does not eliminate the issue of there being a dual relationship.
Answer B: This would not resolve the ethical issue.
Answer C: This would not ensure that your objectivity would not be impaired.
