Ethical Concerns in Psychological Testing - Term Paper Example

Due Ethical Concerns in Psychological Testing By professional standards, psychological assessment should not be a punitive exercise that worsens the condition of the test takers; a core ethical responsibility that psychometric practitioners should be fully aware of to guard against inflicting harm, harm that may worsen an already delicate condition of a client. Psychometric tests in many ways presents a relationship in which assessors wields most of the power leaving clients in vulnerable positions (Foxcroft par 3). Psychology, being a clinical discipline, should not be perceived as a negative disempowering process, but rather a fairly constructive field of study that engenders in it helpful ethical practices with corrective inclinations. According to the International Test Commission guidelines on ethical, psychological assessment, a practitioner is bound "to use appropriate professionally recommended tests in an ethical manner paying due regard to the needs and rights of those involved in the process and the broader context in which such tests takes place" (ITC 7). Ethically compliant testing demands competency in terms of sound knowledge of psychometric test procedures and a thorough understanding of the broader socio-cultural, political, and legal context to ascertain whether the tests are viable, the weight of the above factors to the final test results, their interpretation, and use (Korman 18). It is imperative for psychometric assessors to acquire psychological training with a wider scope of multicultural awareness and worldview to avoid infringement of clientele rights. In this regard therefore, blanket application of psychometric tests devoid of ethical concerns in the whole process is a violation of human rights whose dangers extend far and wide from the mere testing process. There are a number of ethical concerns when conducting psychological tests. One such concern relates to the right of a client to privacy. The right to privacy is a fundamental element to the maintenance of societal dignity and must therefore be taken seriously to avoid lapses that may extend to court battles, especially where young students are involved. The Ethical Principles with reference to individuals’ rights to privacy and confidentiality touches on the very delicate component of self-determination. Noteworthy, confidentiality in this context denotes a guaranteed responsibility on the part of practitioners that any personal information disclosed in the process of such assessments is kept out of reach of third parties. And unless consent directing otherwise so states, the information remains a secret. Breach of confidential information disclosure in managerial areas where managerial sought after information from employees are divulged and shared are common but with detrimental effects to the affected parties (McIntire and Miller 443). Certain disclosures amount to the assassination of character, and may at times be used against employees in their quest to climb the hierarchical ladder at work. Interestingly, teaching is another profession that uses the same autocratic principles while testing their students. Even though it may be done in good faith to understand and alleviate critical issues of performance, privacy remains a key instrument of progress even in this distinguished profession. Another ethical concern regards the right of a test taker to informed consent. As indicated above, the right to self-determination is paramount to every individual. Any hindrance to making informed decisive choices should thus be a cause of alarm that portends serous consequential effects to the test scores/results downwards. Individuals are therefore entitled to the receipt of complete explanations regarding exact reasons for conducting the tests, the meaning of the test scores and how the test results will be used. The explanations, complete and conveyed in a straight forward manner, constitute what is normally known as informed consent of the test taker, and capture the concept of understanding as a key component. In situations where minors or those with limited cognitive abilities are involved, informed consent extends the explanations to immediate confidants-the test takers themselves, parents and/or guardians. However, it is important to note that parental approval is not equivalent to informed consent. The implications and requirements of psychological tests should be understood across the board with the test takers’ understanding taking precedence before any administration of the tests takes place. Besides the ethics of informed consent, test takers are entitled to an explanation of the test results. Given the fact that the test results may well sway the sweeping off of an individual’s self-esteem as well as behavior, due caution is of utmost necessity more than a responsibility on the part of psychological assessors to be sensitive with their explanations (McIntire and Miller 541-43). In addition to informed consent, permission should be sought from concerned authorities (community or government) in cases where the psychological tests are to form part of research projects (Foxcroft par 17). In peculiar instances, this might be a tedious, tiresome process with the eventual result of a reduced/limited time for the tests, particularly in scenarios where assessment practitioners have no working relationship with such bodies. Indeed, it is a responsibility for relevant stakeholders to scrutinize the test material to weed out anything considered offensive and insensitive. Moreover, the objective of the project needs to be as clear as possible with information on how the community is to benefit. Communitywide psychometric tests need to have practical value if at all they are to be perceived to be ethically constructive. As an element of practical value, immediate release of results after project completion may compromise results with research reports being hurriedly compiled to beat deadlines. In as much as the test takers are rightfully owed explanations on their test scores, practitioners have a humbling duty to guard against stigmatization as a consequential effect of feedback as a right (Foxcroft par 43). It may be a right as it is, but rights come with responsibilities. And one of such responsibilities entails proper description of the test scores to their clientele. Noting that poor descriptions are insinuative of labels, a well-trained practitioner will refrain from both negativity as well as overboard showering of praise. Use of terms such as "pathetic" only serves to aggravate a downward pull. Result explanations need to be objective, received in the presence of parents/guardians in cases where minors are involved with certain elemental positivity on comments to spur growth and development, particularly to the test taker. Psychological assessment should be a focused exercise with beneficial prospects of adherence to enhancement and maintenance of respect for the parties involved and should be devoid of non-discriminative features spanning from gender, ethnicity, etcetera (McIntire and Miller 358). The process of psychological test administration is a lengthy process that requires proper preparedness on the part of test administrators. It is therefore essential for psychologists tasked with steering off this process to acquire the fundamental basics regarding the test takers worldview, and if possible immersing self in the test takers boots, before applying the tests. Without mincing words on this important issue, a clinical psychologist who defiantly changes unfamiliar settings of a client to something more familiar to him/her leaving the latter in unfamiliar grounds has no business dealing with sick minds. If anything, will a test carried out in (remote) rural central Africa yield the same results to one done to a rich felon brought up in New York all his/her life? Not necessarily. Even so, will the outcome of such a test be valid and ethically constructive? Well, the answer still remains thoroughly in the negative. The presumptions of a practitioner administering tests should remain assumptions, just that. Indeed, how best to assess certain aspects of human, cognitive functioning remains a challenge. Otherwise, interpreting performance test scores of human behavioral aspects, especially when socio-cultural issues are engendered, might be a more daunting task than even the former (Ivey, Ivey, and Simek-Morgan 149). It is also appropriate for well-trained psychologists to consider when it is appropriate to use a psychometric test. Anyway, when is it appropriate to run psychological tests? Psychometric assessments are Western pioneered activities that cannot be assumed to befit all forms of societal cultures inexistence in this planet earth. The Muslims, like other religious groups, have believes that cannot be taken for granted in such assessments. And depending on the line of profession and the level of a test taker, “psychological test taking” may not necessarily be a familiar experience. Noteworthy, the extent to which a test-taker is “test-wise” significantly impacts the test scores (Nell 47). Consequently, an ethically administered assessment must be ethically compliant in terms of testing practices; a determination that occurs best prior to the test administration, either through personally observing behavioral observation or obtaining information from key informants (e.g., family members, religious ministers/priests, a respected elder in the community or teachers). Another dimension of ethically compliant psychological testing regards where and when to conduct the tests. Notably, conducting such tests in unfamiliar environments is a problem in itself. Arranging dates that suits psychologist practitioners may further add undue strain on the test-takers. Shipping test takers from a deep rural setting to a big city and into a strange office, or test room for that matter, may be anxiety provoking; a case scenario that may invalidate the test scores. In the interests of ethical testing principles, sticking to familiar surroundings would be perfect to avoid undue distractions. However, this too may be a challenging adventure to certain assessment practitioners. Merging the interests of test participants is thus a dilemma in which compromises may as well be the challenge invalidating results. Even in perfect locations with fitting time arrangements for both parties, determining appropriate tests may not be as easy as it may seem. Psychometric testing guidelines are closely linked to the context of the designers’ presumptive or familiar thoughts. To be specific, particular tests are usually designed to fit certain contexts (societal, cultural, or purpose). It subsequently follows that the interpretation of the test performance is linked to predetermined factors such as known behavior, norms, or cut-scores; factors that may only be relevant in the context where the tests were developed. It is no secret that the majority of tests in use is mostly monolithic in terms of cultural validity and cannot therefore be applied to people of certain backgrounds without scrutinizing the possibility of bias and adaptability. It is purely unethical and unacceptable to run tests without first taking a bias study to determine ‘local’ psychometric properties. In certain contexts, the race and language spoken by the assessment practitioner are the negative factors affecting the test-takers’ performance (Hambleton 37). A case in point was a study conducted in Sierra Leone that found conservation skills in children lagging behind their developmental stage under the stewardship of test administrators from a different race compared to their test scores administered by those familiar with the children’s home language (Kamara (1971). Apart from cultural factors, there are a number of physical problems that will certainly impact the performance test scores. Therefore, the interpretation of such results needs to factor in the effects of influences that may be out of the practitioners’ control. For instance, in countries ravaged by HIV/AIDS and where social amenities are out of reach of the majority of people (Sub-Saharan Africa is a case in point), the impact of the physical status of the test-takers on the test performance is real and are far reaching that overlooking them would be a dangerous precedent, yet it has happened. Lack of “clean environments” heightens the possibility of disease infestations, which negatively affects the speed of information processing, responding time and the answer itself (Foxcroft par 42). Similarly, a hungry test-taker is unlikely to utilize his or her potential per se during a test. The more knowledgeable the test administrator is in terms of the environmental surrounding of the test-taker and of his/her physical status, the greater is the possibility that such information will be factored in during test interpretation. Perhaps, consulting anthropologists, linguists among other local cultural experts may provide informational additives valuable in guiding the adaptation process. Additionally, the adapted content (tasks and instructions) ought to be piloted to refine any other area that might look contentious (Hambleton 42). As noted earlier, psychometric tests are basically western designed where value are put on individualism. Quite a huge number of non-westernized societies emphasize collectivism-whether in Asia (socialism) or Africa. Clearly, a person brought up in an environment where personalized needs supersede communal undertakings would be better-off with an introspective psychological testing. Likewise, it would rather be challenging for individuals from collectively based societies confronted with questionnaires to answer questions like the former. Tollman and Msengana while contributing to the subject of ethical concerns in psychometric testing commented that: “Whereas evaluation based on introspection is an essential requirement to behavioral assessments, an exploratory test on the 'self' capturing on the inner feelings and needs would be highly appropriate in a society that emphasizes 'Personal Happiness', not in a society concerned with 'Collective Happiness'. (Tollman and Msengana 24) Hence, the possibility of bias in self-reports such as those contained in questionnaires requiring introspection or self-reflection on non-western test-takers is high. Assessment practitioners should thus be keen while selecting psychological tests to assess certain aspects of behavioral function in non-western societies. Speed has been another feature of western designed psychological tests. The truth of the matter is that the imposition of time limits in any kind of test is highly provocative and may raise adrenaline and pressurize the test scores downwards, especially to test takers who are not testwise (Foxcroft par 43). The idea of “being ruled by the clock" is something associated more with westernized cultural groups. Even though the idea is gaining acceptance in non-western societies, certain groups of people are less motivated by tasks that are time bound. As such, their test scores may not reliably portray a picture of their correct behavioral functioning speedwise. Given that many governments around the world have not enshrined laws governing the use of psychological tests, their usage normally extends to non-psychologists. Even in countries where such laws do exist, their applications are very limited leaving almost a free ride for every Tom, Dick and Harry to apply very important psychological tests without the required safeguards. It is clearly unethical for a non-psychologist to use any form of psychological test let alone the uncertainty surrounding knowledge of the governing laws and other factors such as speed. Nonetheless, the sooner such laws are enacted and applied like other governing laws, the better for societies around the world. The issues that concern ethics in psychometric tests are numerous surpassing the number in this short analysis by a wider margin. It is imperative that such issues be looked at with keen interests, worked through, and more so addressed before any tests actually occur. Well preparations and hyper-sensitivity on the part of practitioners to the test-taker's worldview lies at the epicenter of ethical psychometric testing and should thus have much consideration among psychologists if at all the profession cares to achieve a balanced, healthy society. Work cited: Foxcroft, Cheryl. Ethical issues related to psychological testing in Africa: What I have learned (so far). Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Eds. W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes and D. N. Sattler. Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University, 2002. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. Hambleton, R.K. Guidelines for adapting educational or psychological tests: A progress report. Bulletin of the International Test Commission 10.3 (1994): 229-244. Print. International Test Commission (ITC). International guidelines for test use. International Journal of Testing, 1.2(2001): 93-114. Print. Ivey, A.E., Ivey, M.B., and Simek-Morgan, L. Counselling and psychotherapy: A multicultural perspective. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. Print. Korman, M. Levels and patterns of training in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1973. Print. Miller, Leslie A., McIntire, Sandra, A. and Robert, Lovler L. Foundations of psychological testing: a practical approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010. Print. Nell, V. Science and politics meet at last: The insurance industry and neuropsychological norms. South African Journal of Psychology 27 (1997): 43-49. Print. Tollman, S.G. and Msengana, N.B. Neuropsychological assessment: Problems in evaluating the higher mental functioning of Zulu-speaking people using traditional Western techniques. South African Journal of Psychology 20.1 (1990): 20-24. Print. Read More