of ethical complaints against APA members. According to APA’s Rules and Procedures, the primary objectives of its ethics committee are to “maintain ethical conduct by psychologists at the highest professional level, to educate psychologists concerning ethical standards, [and] to endeavor to protect the public against harmful conduct by psychologists” (Part A). The ethics committee investigates complaints alleging violation of the ethics code by APA members. Possible sanctions for ethics violations include reprimand, censure, expulsion, stipulated resignation, and probation (Part B).
The purposes of the NASP’s Ethical and Professional Practices Board (EPPB) are: (a) to promote and maintain ethical conduct by school psychologists, (b) to enforce the NASP Principles, (c) to investigate legitimate complaints as determined by the EPPB, (d) to determine violations of the Principles and sanctions based on the results of its investigations, (e) to educate school psychologists regarding NASP ethical standards, and (f) to protect the general well-being of consumers of school psychological services (2018, Section I.A.2). The EPPB responds to questions regarding appropriate professional practices and is committed to resolving concerns informally, if possible. The Board investigates alleged ethical misconduct of NASP members or any psychologist who holds an NCSP credential (p. 1). If, after investigation, the EPPB determines that a violation of NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics has occurred, the EPPB may require the respondent to engage in remedial activities such as education or training. The EPPB also may recommend probation, suspension, or termination of NASP membership, and/or revocation of the NCSP certification (NASP, 2018).
The legality of ethical complaint adjudication was tested in court in the case of Marshall v. American Psychological Association (1987). The plaintiff in this case claimed that the APA had no legal right to expel him or to publicize his expulsion from the association following an investigation of ethical misconduct. The court upheld the authority of the APA to expel the plaintiff, noting that he agreed to be bound by the APA’s ethical principles when he joined the association, that the principles were repeatedly published, and that he had detailed hearing rights to respond to any and all charges.
Complaints to Ethics Committees
The APA’s ethics committee periodically publishes an analysis of its actions in the American Psychologist. In 2014 (the most recent report as of November 2020), the APA ethics committee received 68 complaints against members and 52 notices of action pending against a member from entities such as state licensing boards. Complaints were filed against fewer than 1 member per 1,000; notices were received regarding fewer than 1 member per 1,000. Ten new cases were opened in 2014. Based on categorization of the underlying behaviors (rather than the basis for processing the case), problem areas were sexual misconduct; nonsexual dual relationships; inappropriate professional practices (e.g., providing services outside of areas of competence); and false, fraudulent, or misleading public statements (APA, 2015).
NASP’s Ethical and Professional Practices Board (EPPB) typically accepts and investigates only a small number (about 0–5) complaints each year. Complaints accepted in 2016–2017 or more recently involved issues such as the school psychologist’s non-compliance with special education law, the disclosure of sensitive private information to others who have no right or need to know, repeated failure to give meaningful consideration to credible findings from non-school experts, and the practitioner’s responsibility to ensure that intervention results are appropriately monitored. Although the EPPB may recommend suspension or termination of NASP membership, and/or revocation of the NCSP certification, these actions are rare, with only three cases of membership revocation between 2005 and 2020. All three cases involved egregious conduct (NASP EPPB, n.d.).
Because many requests for assistance are handled at the regional level, no precise count of the inquiries to EPPB members is available. Documented inquiries (2016–2017 or more recently) to the EPPB included questions regarding school district noncompliance with special education law, the acceptability of telepsychology assessment, how to report the results of non-standard administration procedures, the screening of students for mental health concerns without parent consent or notice, addressing a colleague with substance abuse issues, and parental requests to be present during an assessment of their child (see Jacob et al., 2021, for further examples).
Reasons for Unethical Conduct
In their survey of school psychology practitioners, Dailor and Jacob (2011) found that most of the respondents in their sample had witnessed at least one of nine types of ethical transgression by a school psychologist within the past year. According to Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2016), no one profile describes psychologists who become ethics violators. Ethics violations may occur because the psychologist is unaware of the parameters of appropriate conduct or not competent to provide the services being offered. Transgressions may occur because the psychologist is poorly trained, is inexperienced, or fails to maintain up-to-date knowledge. Violations also may occur when a psychologist who usually works within the parameters of appropriate practice fails to think through a situation carefully. Some psychologists suffer from emotional problems or situational stressors that impair professional judgment and performance. Some practitioners lack sensitivity to the needs and rights of others; others may engage in unethical conduct because they are irresponsible or vengeful. Finally, a few psychologists (fortunately only a few) are self-serving and knowingly put their needs before those of their clients (also see Mahoney & Morris, 2012).
Peer Monitoring
Both the APA and the NASP require members to monitor the ethical conduct of their professional colleagues. Both associations also support attempts to resolve concerns informally before filing a complaint. The NASP’s code of ethics states: “When a school psychologist suspects that another school psychologist has engaged in unethical practices, they attempt to resolve the suspected problem through a collegial problem-solving process, if feasible” (Standard IV.3.2; also see APA Standard 1.04). If, however, an apparent ethical violation cannot be resolved informally, school psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation, such as discussing the situation with a supervisor in the employment setting or other institutional authorities, referral to a professional ethics committee, or referral to a state certification or licensing board (APA Standard 1.05; NASP Standard IV.3.2). If a decision is made to file an ethics complaint, the appropriate professional organization is contacted for assistance and its procedures for resolving concerns about ethical practices are followed (see APA, 2018; NASP, 2018).
Although most psychologists are aware of their obligation to report unethical practices if the situation cannot be resolved informally, many are reluctant to do so (Pope et al., 1987). In her study of students’ beliefs about their preparation to deal with ethical issues, Tryon (2001) found that fewer than half of the advanced students in school psychology doctoral programs (fifth year and beyond) believed they were prepared to deal with ethical violations by colleagues. Similarly, Dailor and Jacob (2011) found that about 25% of public school psychology practitioners had witnessed multiple instances of unethical conduct by a colleague within the past year but only 38% of the respondents perceived themselves to be “very well prepared” to address unethical conduct by colleagues. Survey participants who reported receiving multilevel training in ethics (coursework in ethics, discussion of ethical issues in multiple courses, and supervised discussion of ethical issues during field experiences) were more likely to report that they felt prepared to address unethical conduct by others than those who did not receive multilevel ethics training.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Students and practitioners often complain that codes of ethics are bothersome to read, confusing and boring lists of “shoulds” and “should nots.” Wonderly (1989) suggested, however, that codes of ethics in psychology are not so overwhelming if we remember their primary purpose: namely, to protect the public. Professionals do not have rights under a code of ethics, only obligations. We will be exploring those obligations
