In analyzing and identifying the federal guidelines, including statutory, case law, and APA standards for psychological tests, the need to account for basic ethical and moral principles is evident in the professional practices of evaporators. This presents the need to establish an understanding of the basic priorities of these statutes. In this sense, it is essential to have “a thorough knowledge of professional statutory regulations and current legal standards upon which forensic testimony may be based” (Kalambach & Lyons, 2006, p. 263). Looking at the various elements that are necessary in these cases presents the basic priorities of the guidelines and their conception. In forensic psychology the identification of the individual in question is fundamentally different than in other psychological settings. In these cases, the individual is not generally a client, but rather someone under investigation or in a defense position. Furthermore, it is essential to account for the general purposes of those involved. The idea of informed consent is essential in these cases.
The idea of autonomy expresses the need to obtain consent from those that information is obtained from. In doing so, the general requirements of the law can be met. “In instances where there is neither a court order nor a statutory mandate for the evaluation, informed consent is generally required” (Kalambach & Lyons, 2006, p. 264). The intentions of those under investigation should therefore be considered. Furthermore, some states, such as Texas, have implemented policies that involve the notion of competency. In this sense, a person must be judged psychologically capable of undergoing the judicial process. These types of guidelines are meant to “specify the kind of training and experiences that qualify one as an expert to conduct competence evaluation” (Kalambach & Lyons, 2006, p. 272). This demonstrates the need for competence for both the patients under investigation as well as those performing the evaluations. In assuring the competency of these individuals the standards of Federal statutory guidelines can be ensured.
The appropriateness of the tools and methods used for evaluation are also an important criteria. There is major concern at this level for the discretion that is given to practitioners in their assessment and how these assessments are implemented. “Indiscriminate administration of instruments may, at best, be time consuming and unnecessary, and, at worst, expose prejudicial information” (Kalambach & Lyons, 2006, p. 272). Selection, interpretation, and administration are indicated as being the essential elements that must be considered in the development of psychological testing. The ethical responsibilities of those organizing the study must account for their obligations to the basic rights and autonomy of those involved. This demonstrates the need for “an independent set of standards for the selection, administration, and interpretation of psychological testing in forensic context” (Kalambach & Lyons, 2006, p. 269). These standards are evident in the developmeent of cases involving the Federal Government's role in these tests.
In order to describe some of the cases influential in bringing about the federal government's involvement in the use of tests in the forensic setting it is apparent that the historic implications of these cases should be assessed in relation to the standards that have been set forth by both Federal regulations and APA guidelines. An early case that led to the involvement of the Federal government in psychological cases was Frye Vs the United States 1923. This case set an early precedent for the acceptance of expert testimony in criminal cases. This was therefore a necessary step in the establishment of the court's acceptance of psychological testimony. Next, in the case of Jenkins Vs United States 1962, the precedent for the acceptance of psychological testimony in criminal cases involving mental illnesses was established. These cases were essential in the influence of the federal government in forensic testing.
In looking at the effect of the Federal guidelines in ensuring whether assessment reports are accurate and unbiased. The APA guidelines present further development of the basic regulations put forth by the government. Rather than being enforced, however, they are intended as basic moral or ethical principles that should be considered by professionals. These guidelines are “intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists” (APA). It is indicated that these guidelines were not intended to be used in order to enforce or enact a penalty upon those in question. “No ethical, licensure, or other administrative action or remedy, nor any other cause of action, should be taken solely on the basis of a forensic practitioner acting in a manner consistent or inconsistent with these Guidelines” (APA). Instead, they are based on the principles of professional standards that are essential to those in psychological practice.
The standards by which they are designed to abide are an essential element in professional practice in psychology. These guidelines are therefore “designed to be national in scope and are intended to be consistent with state and federal law” (APA). First of all, these guidelines demonstrate the need to adhere to specific responsibilities, including integrity, impartiality and fairness, and avoiding any conflicts of interest. There is also a need for a high level of competence and diligence. Furthermore, building strong relationships is essential for these practices. Accounting for the need for informed consent and conflicts that are evident in practice is essential. Understanding the basic elements of privacy, confidentiality, and privilege is essential in maintaining the basic rights of the patient. Developing accurate and efficient methods and procedures that are as non-invasive as possible is also a major priority of the APA guidelines. Finally, fair assessment and accuracy of any published information is also necessary in this respect.
References
Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Jenkins v. United States, 307 F.2d 637.
Kalambach, K.C. & Lyons, P.M. (2006). Ethical Issues in Conducting Forensic Evaluations. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, No. 3. 261-290.
“Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology.” (2015). American Psychological Association.
