Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Ethical Considerations of School-Based Psychological Assessments

Kelly DeCoste
University of Calgary

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

The main ethical obligation of school psychology practitioners is the protection of the
children they work with (CPA, 2000, Principle I Values Statement; Jacob & Taton, 2005). As
assessments make up the majority of many clinicians time (Reschly & Wilson, 1995), and have
lasting implications for the students involved, being able to recognize and balance the myriad of
ethical issues involved, while ensuring that the rights and wellbeing of the student remain
protected and promoted, is of the utmost importance.
In the context of school-based psychological assessments, issues frequently arise in the
areas of informed consent, parental involvement, differing needs of the individuals involved
(child, parents, teacher, school system), projective personality testing, developments in
assessment-related technology, and ensuring culturally-sensitive testing practices (Helton & Ray,
2005; Knauss, 2001). For the purposes of this paper, the issues of informed consent, privacy,
assessment-related technology and culturally-sensitive assessment practices will be explored in
depth.
Informed consent must be obtained prior to providing psychological services (CPA, 2000;
Knauss, 2001). This requires understanding of (at a minimum): the purpose and nature of the
activity; mutual responsibilities; confidentiality protections and limitations; likely benefits and
risks; alternatives; the likely consequences of non-action; the option to refuse or withdraw at any
time, without prejudice; over what period of time the consent applies; and, how to rescind
consent if desired (CPA, 2000, Standard I.24). It is the psychologists duty to ensure that this
information is presented to parents/guardians (or the mature minor) in a manner that they can
understand (i.e. in their native language and using appropriate terms).
All of the information required to obtain informed consent is important. However, in the
context of school-based psychological assessments, the period of time the consent applies is of

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

particular importance - in providing consent for the psychological services to take place, the
results (in the form of the psychologists report) will be placed in the students cumulative file for
the duration of the students schooling, and can thus be accessed by future teachers, relevant
school staff, as well as the parents/guardians and the student themselves. Thus, while the
psychologists services take place over a relatively brief period of time, a written record of this
work is much longer lasting.
Clinicians must be aware of the impact their written report can have on their clients
privacy, in their current and future academic career. Though the psychologist shares the report
with the parents, relevant school personnel, and possibly the student themselves, future teachers
and relevant school staff have access to this report without the explanation and discussion that
accompanied it. Thus, the clinician must ensure that the report is clear and succinct and contains
only information germane to the referral question.
The students privacy, and that of their family, must also be considered when selecting
tests for inclusion in the assessment process. Though projective personality tests can yield
valuable information in the description of personality characteristics (which can influence
learning style; Knauss, 2001), the clinician must consider if the administration of a test of this
nature can provide unique information to answer the referral question. As these tests contain
indirect questions, their administration may result in the student revealing information that would
not have been brought forward through the direct questions contained in achievement or
intelligence tests. This is of direct relevance as the information recorded can be released for use
in legal proceedings, even if it is not included in the report (CPA, 2000, Standard II.30).
Practitioners are bound by the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists to ensure that
they provide the best possible service to their clients (CPA, 2000, Standard II.21). When

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

determining which tests are to be included in a psychological assessment, proper selection must
consider the context and individual factors of the client, given the circumstances and referral
question(s) involved. Providing the best possible service requires the clinician to be
knowledgeable of the information that can be gained by the administration of selected tests as
well as in the integration of the resulting data. Cates (1999) recommends answering two
questions in selecting suitable assessment instruments: What principle(s) guide the selection of
instruments for an assessment? Further, by the combination of these instruments, what data can
be obtained or clarified that would otherwise be missing or vague? (p. 633). Answering these
questions in justification of choices made helps ensure ethically based decisions.
Given the degree of individual differences of referred students (e.g., age, gender, race,
ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, geographic region, history), one of the most
challenging aspects for a clinician may be ensuring the proper selection of standardized tests so
that findings can be compared to the norm group. One cannot assume an appropriate choice of
assessment measures based on one factor (such as ethnicity or race) alone. Assuming that one
shared cultural variable (e.g., ethnicity, age, gender) results in homogeneous needs (Arthur and
Stewart, 2001) would be ignoring the considerable variability that exists within ethnic groups
(Pederson, 2001) and risks stereotyping (Arthur and Stewart, 2001).
Canada is an increasingly multi-cultural society, and school-based practitioners must be
competent in providing culturally-sensitive assessments to the growing diversity of the student
population (Rogers et al., 1999). This requires knowledge of the client as a cultural being
(Dana, 1996, p. 474) prior to the selection of assessment procedures and test instruments so that
they are carried out in a non-discriminatory manner. Being knowledgeable of possible cultural
effects on test performance (e.g., effect of timed responses) and in interactions with the

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

psychologist (e.g., length of responses) is required to ensure the accuracy of results and
interpretations and may require a combination of formal and informal strategies to be utilized to
ensure valid findings.
While translations of tests are often done in an attempt to compensate for linguistic
differences, the integrity of the meaning of test items can be diminished in this process, as can
their context and standardization (Geisinger, 1994). Questions of how well the test was
translated, who made the translation, and where, are also significant in determining the
appropriateness of a test given regional differences (Naglieri et al., 2004). When opting to use an
adaptation of a standardized test, it is not sufficient to assume a linguistic adaptation results in an
appropriate test, nor is it appropriate to assume psychological constructs are constant across
languages or cultures (Rogers et al., 1999). It is also important to note that even in cases where
the language does not differ, adaptations of assessment instruments may be necessary as a result
of differing cultural or life experiences (Geisinger, 1994). These differences highlight just some
of the multitude of factors that must be considered in test selection.
Inherent in being competent to provide culturally-sensitive services is ensuring that one is
properly trained in the incorporation of translators services in psychological assessments, when
required. For standardization to be maintained in this collaboration, the competence of the
clinician and the translator is required. Findings by Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza and Guillemard
(1996), indicated that among school psychologists who had prior experience with bilingual
psycho-educational assessments, only 7% of the over 400 cases involved psychologists and
interpreters who both possessed necessary training. This can present a serious problem for the
generalizability of findings, as the standardization may not have been maintained.
In cases where new versions of psychological tests exist, best practice may require the

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

use of an older version when research with appropriate norm groups is not yet be available.
Proper selection of test instruments has serious consequences for the validity and reliability of
inferences made in comparison to norm groups (Bush, 2010) and though clinicians have an
ethical duty to ensure they are not using obsolete measures (CPA, 2000, Standard II.9), it may be
unethical to use newer measures if supporting research is lacking.
In all cases where divergence from standard conditions occur (e.g., use of a translator,
testing of limits), this specific information must be noted and given due consideration when
interpreting the results. The reliability and validity of findings may now be called into question,
and clinicians must rely on their training, expertise and informed decision-making skills to
ensure they reach accurate conclusions.
The rapid growth of technology today has changed the way of life for millions of people
around the world (Naglieri et al., 2004) and has serious implications for the delivery and
interpretation of psychological assessments. Computer programs now exist that can administer,
score, and interpret psychological tests, and can also be used to store data or integrate
information from a test battery (Naglieri et al., 2004). This creates a serious ethical issue in that
human contact is not required in this process. However, it is vital to differentiate between
psychological testing and psychological assessment when considering the potential consequences
of these technological developments. In providing a psychological test, a chosen instrument is
administered and scores yielded. This process does not require the subjectivity of the clinician
and thus is often considered less complex than a psychological assessment, where the scores are
considered by the practitioner in the context of the personal situation of the client (e.g., referral
question, history, behavioural information and observations). Psychological assessments require
the clinicians expertise to integrate this information to form meaningful descriptions of a

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

person (Cates, 1999, p. 638). They go beyond description and into interpretation (Cates, 1999,
p. 638), and this a computer program is not designed to do. Computerized reports do not contain
information based on the behavioural information gained through personal interactions in the
assessment process, and thus will not be as individualized as a report written by a clinician. The
clinician is required to explore any discrepancies between their observations and the
computerized report to ensure accuracy of their findings.
The speed of advances in assessment-related technology are not adequately mirrored in
graduate training in this area, and, in fact, it is often limited (Schulenberg & Yutrzenka, 2004).
Consequently, many clinicians are not competent to utilize this new technology, as they do not
possess the necessary skills and training (CPA, 2000, Standard II.6). As a profession,
psychologists have a duty to society (CPA, 2000, Standards IV.10, IV. 11) to ensure the
maintenance of the highest standards of the discipline. Developments in assessment-related
technology must always be used in conjunction with the sound judgment of a skilled and trained
professional.
Though computerized psychological testing may possess its benefits (increased
accessibility, speed, precision of delivery, decreased cost and convenience; Naglieri et al., 2004),
serious ethical issues surrounding test reliability, validity, administration, item security, and testtaker confidentiality can arise (Naglieri et al., 2004), and the question of whether new norms
need to be established for instruments administered via the internet versus face-to-face
administrations (Naglieri et al., 2004) needs to be addressed. The appropriate release of test
information and data is also made more complex by these advances. When tests and the personal
information and results of clients are stored on a computer, a different set of measures needs to
be taken to ensure they are not accessible to others. Maintaining the integrity of the test by

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

ensuring the security of the test questions is vital, but more importantly, the protection of the
public (in terms of clients privacy) must be upheld. It is the ethical duty of psychologists to
ensure they possess the necessary skills and training to uphold the integrity of psychological
assessments in the context of these technological advances.
The lasting implications for students involved in school-based psychological assessments
is but one of the multitude of considerations facing school psychologists in their practice.
Informed consent, privacy, technological advances and culturally-sensitive assessment practices
are just a few of the ethical considerations to ensure the promotion of the clients wellbeing. The
following vignette (fromKnauss,2001)exemplifies some of the issues beyond the scope of this
paper that can face school psychologists:
Aschoolpsychologyintern,underthesupervisionofacertifiedschoolpsychologist,has
onlygivenalimitednumberofpsychoeducationaltestbatteriesandrequiressupervision
ofhistestinterpretationsandhisreportwritings.Hissupervisorhasindicatedthatthereis
asignificantbacklogofreferralsforchildrenwhoneedpsychologicaltesting.So,tosave
time,hesuggeststhattheinternadministertheselectedmeasures,afterwhichheshould
enterthedataintoacomputerprogramtoscore,summarizeandinterpretthedata,and
printanarrativereport.Thesupervisoralsosuggeststhathesigntheuneditedreportand
enteritintothestudentspermanentrecord.
Thisscenarioraisesseveralethicalconcernsinvolvingsupervisorypressuretoactinanunethical
manner(i.e.,practicingoutsideboundsofcompetenceinusingacomputerprogramin
replacementofasupervisor,signinganuneditedreport).Thediscussionwithhissupervisor
(whichisthenecessaryfirststeptoresolvetheseconcerns)placesthisinterninadifficult
position,inparticularasaresultoffeelinginapositionofvulnerabilitywithrespecttohis
supervisor.Whilepracticaandinternshipscanbevaluabletimestoworkthroughtheethical
decisionmakingprocessinasupervisedsetting(JacobTimm,1999),whentheseissuesdirectly
relatetosupervisorypressureasinthisscenario,thisisunfortunatelynotthecase.

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Itistheopinionoftheauthorthatviolationsinvolvingpressurefromotherstoact
unethicallyareoftenthemostdifficulttoaddress,especiallywhenthepressureisperceivedas
stemmingfromwhatisconsideredtobeinthebestinterestsoftheclient.However,theethical
dutiesofpsychologistsmustbemaintainedregardlessofpersonaldiscomfort.Consultationwith
theCanadianCodeofEthicsforPsychologists(CPA,2000)willhelpclarifytheissuesinvolved
anddirecttheindividualastothepointsthatneedtobeincludedintheconversationwiththe
supervisortoworktowardsaresolution.Thoughtheseconversationsareuncomfortabletobea
partof,theyarenecessarytoensurethatthewellbeingoftheclientisprotectedandpromoted
(CPA,2000,PrincipleI)aswellasensuringthedisciplinesresponsibilitytosocietyisbeing
upheld(CPA,2000,PrincipleIV).
Thisinternrecognizesthelimitationsofhisknowledgeandmustbegintoresolvethis
dilemmawithanopendiscussionwithhissupervisor.Inremindinghimofthelimitationsofhis
knowledge,andhisneedforsupervisiontoensurethequalityofhisassessmentsandreports,he
isensuringhisparticipationintheassessmentsisinaccordancewithhiscodeofethics.Itis
hopedthatthesupervisorwouldrecognizetheerrorsinherentinhisrequestsandchooseto
performhisnecessaryduties(withrespecttotheclientsandhissupervisee).However,ifa
resolutionisnotreachedafterthisconversation,theinternmustinformhissupervisorthatheis
notabletoparticipateinassessmentsthatgoagainsthiscodeofethics,andthatitishisdutyto
bringforththeunethicalactionsofhissupervisortotheattentionoftheappropriateauthoritiesin
hisdistrict.
Regardless of the specific instruments chosen for the assessment, the clinician must
ensure competency in the use of these tests or refer the client to someone who is (CPA, 2000,
Standards II.6, II.8, II.9). In this scenario, if the intern is not able to convince his supervisor to

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

10

participate appropriately in the assessment process, he cannot participate in the assessment

process - he does not possess the necessary skills to independently select and administer the
necessary tests, or interpret the results, and must find someone who is.
Thoughusingacomputerprogramcanbeusedtoscoreandinterpretthefindingsof
assessments,itisunethicalfortheinterntodosointhisscenarioasprogramssuchasthisone
cannotreplacetheroleofasupervisororbeusedtoextendtheboundsofonescompetence
(CPA,2000,StandardII.6).Psychologistsareresponsiblefortheservicestheyprovide,
regardlessoftheuseofcomputerized scoring and interpretation of results. This intern does not
yet possess the competence to administer tests or interpret their results without supervision, and
without this knowledge he is not be able to review the computer-generated report or results to
verify their compatibility with his observations. Thus, if he chooses to follow the suggestions of
his supervisor, and enter an un-edited report into the students permanent file, he will be in
violation of the Code and can be held responsible, ethically and legally. Regardless of his choice
though, in delegating activities to someone not competent to carry them out, his supervisor is in
violation of Standard II.7 (CPA, 2000).
Once the intern has resolved the dilemma with respect to supervisory pressures to act
unethically, he can then focus his attention on ensuring that his professional involvement in these
assessments will be consistent with his code of ethics. Issues and considerations related to
school-based psychological assessments most closely relate to Principle I of the Canadian Code
of Ethics for Psychologists (Respect for the Dignity of Persons; CPA, 2000), specifically
concerning informed consent, privacy and non-discriminatory practices as explored in this paper.
From the authors personal perspective, the permanence of a psychological assessment
report in a childs cumulative file creates an area of personal conflict. Though I believe that

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

11

knowledge is power (particularly when considering the information that a psychological

assessment can provide in helping educators meet the unique learning needs of a child), I believe
that, depending on the findings of the assessment process, there are some cases where future
teachers (especially those involved many years after the assessment) need not know of this
assessment, and it might be useful to have the report sealed and removed from the file in cases
where the information is no longer relevant.
A psychological report may result in a bias against the student by a teacher (intentional or
otherwise) by its mere presence in the childs file. The fact that no discussion occurs between the
assessing psychologist and future teachers also troubles me as there is no way to ensure that the
report has been read and understood in full. Private psycho-educational assessments are
expensive, and so a familys only option to have their questions answered is via a school-based
assessment, which then means consenting to the results being placed in their childs permanent
file.
Psychological assessments present many ethical considerations for school-based
practitioners, and clinicians must ensure their focus remains on their obligation to protect and
promote the welfare of the children they work with. As they are frequently encountered in
assessment practices, issues in the areas of informed consent, privacy, developments in
assessment-related technology, and non-discriminatory practices were explored in detail.

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

12

References
Bryan,P.E.(1989).PsychologicalassessmentofblackAmericans.PsychotherapyinPrivate
Practice,7,141154.
Bush, S. S. (2010). Determining whether or when to adopt new versions of psychological and
neuropsychological tests: Ethical and professional considerations. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 24, 7-16. DOI: 10.1080/13854040903313589.
Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (3rd.
ed.). Ottawa, ON: Author.
Cates, J. A. (1999). The art of assessment in psychology: Ethics, expertise, and validity. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 55, 631-641.
Cichetti,D.V.(1994).Guidelines,criteria,andrulesofthumbforevaluatingnormedand
standardizedassessmentinstrumentsinpsychology.PsychologicalAssessment,6,284
290.
Dana,R.H.(1996).CulturallycompetentassessmentpracticeintheUnitedStates.Journalof
PersonalityAssessment,66,472487.
Geisinger,K.F.(1994).Crossculturalnormativeassessment:Translationandadaptationissues
influencingthenormativeinterpretationofassessmentinstruments.Psychological
Assessment,6,304312.
Jacob,S.,&Taton,J.(2005).Ethicalissuesinschoolpsychology.InS.W.Lee(Ed.),
EncyclopediaofSchoolPsychology,(pp.191195).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage
Publications.
JacobTimm,S.(1999).Ethicallychallengingsituationsencounteredbyschoolpsychologists.

Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

13

PsychologyintheSchools,36,205217.
Knauss, L. K. (2001). Ethical issues in psychological assessment in school settings. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 77, 231-241.
Matarazzo,J.D.(1990).Psychologicalassessmentversuspsychologicaltesting:Validationfrom
Binettotheschool,clinic,andcourtroom.AmericanPsychologist,45,9991017.
Naglieri, J. A., Drasgow, F., Schmit, M., Handler, L., Prifitera, A., Margolis, A., & Velasquez, R.
(2004). Psychological testing on the internet: New problems, old issues. American
Psychologist, 59, 150-162.
Ochoa, S. H., Gonzalez, D., Galarza, A., & Guillemard, L. (1996). The training and use of
interpreters in bilingual psycho-educational assessment: An alternative in need of study.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 21, 19-40.
Rogers, M. R., Ingraham, C. L., Bursztyn, A., Cajigas-Segredo, N., Esquivel, G., Hess, R.,
Nahari, S. G., & Lopez, E. C. (1999). Providing psychological services to racially,
ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse individuals in the schools:
Recommendations for practice. School Psychology International, 20, 243-264.