Application of the APS Code of Ethics - Essay Example

Critique of the proposal: ‘Ethics and Professional Issues Essay’ I. Introduction The research proposal has been critiqued with regards to the ambiguities observed throughout the text that raise drawbacks concerned with ethical and professional issues in relation to the research proposal. The contribution of NEAF, is equally getting vital in the research methodology. NEAF’s has got user-friendly features, assisting the researchers directly; that is, by removing the need to consult with supervisors by saving much of the time. It also reduces ambiguity during the research design phase and application process. NEAF gives the researchers, the provision of all kinds of information, reducing the time required for the ethics review process and post-meeting communication with the Ethics Committee. Additional support of Quick start guide, On-line Help and FAQ’s are also part of its assistance. However without the supervisor and a proper scholarly guidance there are every possible chance of facing complications in the research proceedings. II. LITERARY REVIEW According to Ackeroyd (1998, 1991), “The achievement of informed consent from patients and potential research participants is considered a basic requirement in clinical care and clinical research, but ethicists have paid little attention to the psychological processes and social factors involved in sharing information between individuals”. The observation voiced by Gerry Kent (1996), on similar version is evident here, as the proposal statement highlights ambiguity and an unwillingness to divulge concise information on the researcher’s part to both, the participants and the Ethic’s Committee. There is no mention of the hypothesis either in the paper. However, in accordance to Wilkinson, ‘online CBT are routinely administered these days and the benefits are also well acknowledged’ (Wilkinson, Emma, 2007). This is the point where it seems that the researcher fails to impress upon what new contributions he can lend to the field of CBT therapy through the research. Added to this it has been agreed that via the World Wide Web, one can efficiently recruit large, heterogeneous samples quickly, recruit specialized samples (people with rare characteristics), and standardize procedures, making studies easy to replicate. (Birnbaum, Michael 2004) However, the researcher fails to provide concise details. For example, he mentions that he will log in to chat rooms and leave a message for interested people to contact by email. III. APPLICATION OF APS CODE OF ETHICS To begin with, the proposal title is not appropriate because it fails to correspond in to the information provided in the proposal description. Given that the researcher intends to evaluate the effectiveness of online Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorder online. The proposal description fails to elaborate how the researcher intends to study professional issues and ethics. In absence of a co-relation between the title and the proposal description, the name of the topic, ‘Ethics and Professional Issues Essay’ thus fails to provide a concise direction on which the research is based. Ethics and professional issues are important aspects of any well conducted research. it is here that comes the need to follow certain regulations that are preconceived. The purpose of the Guidelines is to clarify and amplify the application of the principles established in the APS Code of Ethics and to facilitate their interpretation in contemporary areas of professional practices. The Guidelines are subsidiary to the relevant sections of the Code. It is also very vital to read and interpreted in conjunction with the Code. Further, in response to the query in section 1.2, (Description of the project), the researcher has not clearly mentioned the research design and the research methods he intends to use. According to the Australian Psychological Society [APS], Code of Ethics, (2007), all research involving humans needs to have both value and validity. For the Code of Ethics by APS, the subject matter is of great concern. It is a matter in which the member is or has been professionally engaged. The member gets the privilege to express consent of the client concerned and it is not contrary to the interests of the client to do so. That is the research must demonstrate that because of the prior research, it is justifiable to seek the information to which the research is directed. Second, the research should be so designed that it is likely to lead to the discovery of new knowledge. Researcher does not assure either of the two requisites mentioned in the handbook. The researcher has left the field ‘Types of Research’ (1.3) blank. Given the nature of research dealing with CBT and the researcher’s claims that the results may produce data that may be clinically beneficial, the type of research deals with what can be called a clinical approach, or what deals with participants who may be required to seek a professional, clinical help. According to the Code of Ethics by APS Limited, the advertisements soliciting research participants in which clinical services or to consider the other professional services gets offered as an inducement must make clear the nature and limits of the services as well as the costs and other obligations to be accepted by participants in the research. There are sequences that lead to the researcher to a state of ambiguity about his hypothesis, objectives and research approach throughout the proposal. Enough information has also not been provided in response the query in section 1.4, ‘Research participants’. While the researcher states that he excludes children and young adults (those below eighteen years of age) and those with an intellectual or mental impairment, the research model fails to describe how he plans to ascertain the age and other criteria (for example extent of intellectual or mental impairment) of the participants in the online study. Further, other than those he intends to exclude from the reason, he gives no information about the participants he wishes to include in the survey. Added to this APS, makes provision for the subject matter the psychological or a related professional guidelines. There can be the implication of pre-eminence in the concerned subject. However there is found to be a lack of research methodology applied with regards to the type of sampling. In response to the query in section 1.5, Research Techniques, the researcher is expected to explain in detail the research methodology he intends to use in collecting data, data analysis, etc. According to the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, 2002, the participation of human beings in research studies is necessary in order to achieve advances in medical and social/behavioral sciences. The researcher has failed to provide adequate details about himself in response to queries in section 2: 1) Contact details (2.0.1 and 2.1.1) are incomplete. The researcher has failed to fill up all the requisite details like address, telephone number, etc. These omissions may be a hindrance in case of establishing a contact with the researcher, or even establishing the credibility of the researcher. 2) Details pertaining to the qualification, expertise and experience of the principle researcher (2.1.2, 2.4 and 2.5) states that he holds a post graduate diploma in Psychology. Prima facie, the researcher does not hold any expertise in handling the clinical nature of the research single-handedly. These shortcomings (2.1.2, 2.4 and 2.5) have been discussed in detail thus: Code of Ethics of the Australian Psychological Society [APS], 2007 clearly states that Psychologists only provide psychological services within the boundaries of their professional competence. This includes, but is not restricted to: (a) working within the limits of their education, training, supervised experience and appropriate professional experience; (b) basing their service on the established knowledge of the discipline and profession of psychology; (c) adhering to the Code and the Guidelines; (d) complying with the law of the jurisdiction in which they provide psychological services; and (e) ensuring that their emotional, mental, and physical state does not impair their ability to provide a competent psychological service. The Code of Ethics by APS laid emphasis on the development and standardization of psychological tests and other assessment techniques. It is very much concerned about the establishment of scientific procedures and observations that are relevant to the psychometric standards. As for the paper here, the researcher has very conveniently ignored the demarcation between a therapist and a researcher and attempts to play both the roles himself even though he has no professional degrees that can allow him to be qualified as a therapist. Researcher has failed to provide specific details like site names, URL in response to queries in sections 3.1.3.1 & 3.1.3.2 In accordance to APS Code the specification of the purposes and uses of the assessment techniques are mandatory and has to indicate clearly the limits of their applicability.Thus the researcher has also failed to provide the requisite details which specifically seek information related to the research methodology used. Instead, he has replied in the same manner as he responded to the query in point number 1.2 i.e. Description of the project in simple language. The response given by the researcher does not throw any light on theoretical, empirical and/or conceptual basis [of the research], and background evidence, for the research proposal, e.g. previous studies, anecdotal evidence, review of literature, prior observation, laboratory or animal studies, as sought in the query 1.2. APS (2007) Code of Ethics (b.13.1), states that the psychologists use established scientific procedures and thereby are into the observations relevant to psychometric standards when they develop and standardise psychological tests and other assessment techniques. The researcher relies heavily on ready to use questionnaires. An effort to probe into the study based on a self-made questionnaire may have shown the researcher’s willingness to probe the issue originally. Since the purpose of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of online CBT for anxiety disorder, is the researcher aware that while CBT is considered a short-term form of psychotherapy, it may still take months or longer to successfully challenge and overcome unhealthy patterns of thinking and behaviour? Researcher further needs to explain how only answering “a battery of questionnaires” (3.2.2) can provide the participants of the study with promising results for their problems. APS (2007) Code of Ethics (b.13.1), confronted with evidence of a problem which they are not competent to deal. It is also applicable to the situation where a client is not benefiting from their psychological services, psychologists. The scopes are to provide clients with an explanation of the need for the termination. It also looks after the factors that take reasonable steps to safeguard the client’s ongoing welfare. The reason the researcher cites for not opting for a peer review (in response to query in section 3.3) is that the proposal is not dependent on external financial support. This also safeguards the situation by the means to offer help the client locate alternative sources of assistance. Thus, not only are peer-reviewed research projects thought to carry more credibility than non-peer reviewed ones, it is strongly felt that a peer-review may have helped the researcher to iron out the many discrepancies that exist in the proposal. In response to queries regarding the storage of information (3.7), researcher states that the information will be stored on compact disks on the personal computer, laptop for a period of five years. However, researcher has not explained the reason why he thinks that the information needs to be stored for a period of five years.APS Ethical Guidelines for providing psychological services and products on the internet clearly states that ‘It is recommended that security be increased by the use of passwords and encryption’. Researcher denies sharing the results with the participants (3.3), even though he concedes that some data that results from the research may be of specific interest to the participants. The researcher displays indifference and a total connivance to ethical and professional standards of research. Serious ethical issues are also raised in view of the researcher’s response to query in section 3.11 that seeks information about the dissemination of final results. The researcher contradicts himself when in response to section 3.7.5 he answers that information collected about the participants will be de-identified and later in response to section 3.11.2 he divulges that confidentiality of the participants will not be protected. In case of de-identified information, the question of individual case studies using internet names (see response to section 3.11.2.2.1) with online user names should not arise as all information should be presented without any reference to original information with regards to the identity of the participant. The assumption that participants may have used their online names, which the researcher assumes to be pseudonyms is baseless. He does not heed to the Code of Ethics of APS, (2007) which insist that Psychologists inform clients at the outset of the professional relationship, and as regularly thereafter as is reasonably necessary of the:(a) limits to confidentiality; and (b) foreseeable uses of the information generated in the course of the relationship. APS Ethical Guidelines for providing psychological services and products on the internet mentions that where personally identifying information is disclosed, members are bound by the same obligations to protect the welfare of the client or others affected by the client as for face-to-face psychological work. Moreover, if the results are made public with the username used by the participant online, and if the username is not a pseudonym as conveniently assumed by the researcher, the right to anonymity of the participant may be violated and could pose a psychological, emotional, social harm as inquired by the query in section 3.11.3. In spite of this, the researcher, however maintains in his response that there are no perceived risks in response to the query 3.11.3 The research clearly poses several risks to the participants due to several ethical reasons. However, the researcher has failed to acknowledge this in the section Benefits / Risks (3.12) Risks to the participants are evident as the researcher is non-committal about keeping the data anonymous. The researcher mentions that the participants are expected to derive clinical benefits from the study and experience improvement in anxiety disorders (in response to section 3.12.2). However, in response to query in section 3.10.1.2.1 he is unwilling to share any information that may be relevant to the participants and reasons thus: ‘this is a research project, not a clinical study’. Thus, the researcher is contradicting himself, which in turn reflects the lack of clarity of purpose and ambiguity. Moreover, let us recall that the researcher has no certifications or expertise (2.2.1, 2.4 and 2.5) in this regards. There is continuous failure in providing the details of the two groups. These are the Intervention and Control that he had divided for the purpose of the study. He could have provided information in response to queries 5.1.3.4 for both the groups. He says that the age range of the participants would be 18-50 (in response to section 5.1.3.3) and excludes those below eighteen years and those with an intellectual or mental impairment (in response to section 1.4). Recruitment of participants (5.4) is does not confirm to the standards of the APS (2007) Code of Ethics (C.2.3) that clearly mentions that statements made by psychologists in announcing or advertising the availability of psychological services, products, or publications must not contain any statement which is false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive; any statement intended or likely to create false or unjustified expectations of favourable results. The Code of Ethics forwarded by APS, in a.1, bringsforth the aspects of discrimantions that are in practice. These are especially in the consequences of - A.1.1. Psychologists avoid discriminating on the basis of age, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, disability, or any other related basis that has been proscribed by law. A.1.2. Psychologists demonstrate the need of comprehensiveness in the situational consequences for people of unfair discrimination and stereotyping related to their age, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, or disability. A.1.3. Psychologists also are in active participation of assisting their clients to address unfair discrimination or prejudice that is directed against the clients. The researcher does not reveal sufficient details to the participants in order to recruit them. In his efforts to identify potential participants, the researcher is engaging participants by the promise of a ‘new treatment’. (see responses to Recruitment, i.e. points number 5.4.1 and 5.4.3). This is a direct violation of the Code of Ethics, Section G ‘Public Statements and Advertising’: G1 of the APS (2007) [that states]: Public statements … must not contain: i) any statement which is false, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive; ii) any statement intended or likely to create false or unjustified expectations of favourable results. The researcher has not mentioned any specific site, the reason for selection of the site, URL and other details. Given that observations in chat rooms and bulletin boards raise difficult questions about risks to participants, including privacy and lack of informed consent (Kraut, Olson, Banaji, Bruckman, Cohen & Couper) the researcher must be more specific on how he intends to proceed with online data collection. iV. conclusion Eventually, as conclusion it can be stated that the sample been clearly defined nor the methodology has been randomly applied to the means to attract participants in a systematic or credible manner. It is a vital factor for the researcher to note that ‘while qualitative information usually refers to individual’s behavior, opinion and feelings, and while transcripts and fieldnotes may have different purposes and meanings to “data” held by government and commercial organizations, the fact remains that qualitative material collected by, and manipulated with computers does not fall outside the scope of the legal system’. The researcher informs that consent will not be taken from the participants (5.5.1). He intends to go ahead with the assumption that the ‘consent is implied’ when anyone who emails him is indicating their willingness to participate in the study (see response to Recruitment, 5.4.3). This is clearly not a case of Informed consent as advised by the APS (2007) in its code of ethics that Psychologists [should] fully inform clients regarding the psychological services they intend to provide. Not only is this approach of implying a consent merely on the receipt of an email that might be a simple query out of inquisitiveness unethical but such a simplistic approach to research is not expected of a proposal presented at PhD level. The researcher mentions that in the event that this online CBT program is effective it will be considered for commercial distribution Duality of interest (7.2). APS Code of Ethics prescribes that consent must be sought from participants before a study is made public and their anonymity must be guaranteed. The researcher is committed to none of these as is evident in his responses to queries in section 5.5.1 that consent will not be sought and in response to section 3.11.2 where he says that the confidentiality of participants will not be protected. References APS Code of Ethics Translation Table, Code Review Committee; 2007, http://www.psychology.org.au/about/ethics/ viewed on May 05, 2008 Australian Psychological Society Limited, ABN 23 000 543 788; Code of Ethics, 2007, www.psychology.org.au, accessed on May 05, 2008 Ackeroyd (1998, 1991) as quoted by Mann, Chris and Stewart, Fiona, ‘Internet Communication and Qualitative Research, p40, viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HkuLBLAGp6UC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=research+conducted+online&ots=oXRRhwL9H7&sig=cIwE7yXV7KXTWAxOsM46YWc8yOc#PPP1,M1 Australian Psychological Society, Code of Ethics (2007), viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://www.psychology.org.au/ Australian Psychological Society, Guiding Principles (March 2004), viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://www.psychology.org.au/ Better Health Channel, (June 2007), viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcArticles.nsf/pages/Cognitive_behaviour_therapy?OpenDocument Birnbaum, M.(2004), ‘Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55: 803-832, Abstract viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 Human Research Ethics Handbook (2001), ‘Research Merit and Safety’, viewed on April 16, 2008 URL: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/hrecbook/_files/hrechand.pdf Kent, G., ‘Shared understandings for informed consent’ (1996) available online 19 February 1999, viewed on April 16, 2008: URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3VV411G-1D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1986c89e01912e7677cd46fdb44a3a52 Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J. and Cooper, M., ‘Psychological Research Online: Opportunities and Challenges’ viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/kraut/www/RKraut.site.files/articles/kraut03-PsychologicalResearchOnline.pdf National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, The Protection of Human Participants in Research, Research Exchange, Vol 7, Number 1, 2002, viewed on April 16, 2008, URL: http://www.ncddr.org/products/researchexchange/v07n01/2_protection.html Peer Review, (2002) Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Post Note, Number 182, viewed on April 16, 2008 URL: http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn182.pdf. Wilkinson, Emma, (2007), ‘Can online therapy ease depression?’ , BBC News, viewed on April 20, 2008, URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6442191.stm Read More