Professional Standards

Following ethical codes and abiding by laws are imperative for all professionals in any field of psychology, including school psychology. Although all fields (e.g., school psychology, clinical psychology, and counseling psychology) have similar laws to follow, depending on the state, each field has an individual code of ethics. The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) adopted the code of ethics entitled Principles for Professional Ethics for school psychologists in 1974 which was revised in 1984 and 1992 (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne, 1995) and most recently in 2000 (Jacob, 2002). As a set of common beliefs among professionals in the field of school psychology, ethics assure that we will represent our field and serve our clients to our best capability. When problems occur in the schools, applying the principles of ethics to our practice allows for an appropriate set of guidelines and rules to follow (Jacob-Timm & Hartshorne, 1995), which will ultimately allow us to best advocate for students and children.

A note from Dr. Betsy Grier:

As the new committee chair for the South Carolina Association of School Psychologists Professional Standards Committee, I would like to continue to provide problem-solving assistance to practicing school psychologists faced with ethical dilemmas as well as update the members within our organization about the best practices in following ethical standards. Technology (e.g., communicating through e-mail & faxing reports), the use of revised assessment techniques (e.g., WISC-IV, SB-V, WPPSI-III), updated IDEA regulations, HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) guidelines, and a host of other issues raise many questions in the best way to practice as a school psychologist. It is the intention and responsibility of the Professional Standards committee to assist in providing information about the best practices in school psychology based on our code of ethics as we address these issues each day. Thus, each newsletter will feature information about a topic area that presents us with possible ethical dilemmas so that we might be able to apply our ethical guidelines to our current and future practices as school psychologists to best help the children with whom we work. To help provide you with information that would be the most useful to you, I invite members to send ideas and specific questions to me via e-mail. Also, if there are members who are interested in participating on the committee, please contact me as well. I will look forward to hearing from you and collaborating with you to promote best practices in following our professional standards and ethics as we practice school psychology in the state of South Carolina.

ARTICLE from the School Psych Scene by Betsy Grier:

The year 2003 introduced several revised tests that are commonly used by school psychologists for assessment of students’ cognitive abilities including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales: 5th Edition (SB-V) in February of 2003 and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: 4th Edition (WISC-IV) in the summer of 2003. Also fairly recent, in the spring of 2002 the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III) was released. These revised assessment tools create several important ethical and legal issues that are important for school psychologists to consider.

As trained professionals, we know the utility and significance of using the most recent tests to adequately and appropriately assess a child’s cognitive abilities. All of our professional organizations include these mandates in their ethical standards. The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) code of ethics entitled Principles for Professional Ethics (2000) maintains this directive: “School psychologists… [choose] instruments and techniques…that have up-to-date standardization data and are applicable and appropriate for the benefit of the child.”

Often, school budgets seem to dictate when school psychologists are able to obtain these new testing materials. However, school psychologists are bound to practice ethically and legally when evaluating students. If schools do not provide these instruments in a suitable amount of time to allow for training, then the agency will be violating the standards outlined by the Regulations from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which clearly state that “the public agency uses technically sound instruments” (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003, p. 86). The use of old versions of tests using outdated normative data is not considered appropriate. So, “how long” do school agencies and/or school psychologists have to purchase the new testing materials and to receive appropriate training to administer these tests?

Dombrowski (2003) reported that there is limited guidance about “how long” school psychologists have to transition to using the new instruments. However, a proposed standard is offered that states “Psychologists should adopt and use the most recent version of an intellectual assessment instrument within one year of its publication” (p. 12). A one-year timeline is proposed in order to allow for good training to use the tool, to provide additional time to research the technical adequacy of the tool, and to allow for psychologists and school districts to budget the money to purchase the instrument. Thus, all agencies should be using the WPPSI-III at this time considering that it has been available for almost 2 years. Psychologists should be using the SB-V by February of this year and the WISC-IV by the summer. This time allotment is considered appropriate and the best practice in incorporating these newly revised tests into a psychologists’ assessment practices.

As a practicing school psychologist, I see many children who have had previous psychological evaluations that I review as part of my assessment. From time to time, I come across reports that have been completed by psychologists recently using very old versions of the WISC (i.e., WISC-Revised) and/or SB. When discussing this finding among my colleagues, they have had similar experiences. When I spoke with a representative on the Board of Examiners in Psychology through the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation about this issue, I was informed that this problem (i.e., finding that a report was completed using outdated assessment tools) should be reported as soon as possible by sending a copy of the report, with all identifying information removed or blacked out, to the Board as soon as possible through mail or fax (803-896-4687). The complaint would be investigated so that this unethical practice could be ceased. It will be important for us, as professionals, to work together to make sure that the children and students we serve are being assessed in an ethical manner to ensure that their individual needs are met appropriately.

Please feel free to contact me via email (grierb@cdd.sc.edu) if you have questions, comments, or concerns about any of the issues presented within this article. I especially welcome comments and additional questions about assessment issues and/or other topic areas that present possible ethical dilemmas so that we, the school psychologists within the South Carolina Association of School Psychologists, might be able to learn from each other to best help the children with whom we work. I will look forward to hearing from you and collaborating with you to promote best practices in following our professional standards and ethics as we practice school psychology in the state of South Carolina.

References

Dombrowski, S.C. (2003). Ethical standards and best practices in using new revised tests. Communiqué, 32 (1), 12-13.

Jacob, S., & Hartshorne, T.S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). "Principles for professional ethics." Bethesda, MD: Author.

Back to SCASP Table of Contents