Supervision and teaching ethics

Transcript

RyanA practicum student opens her end-of-year evaluation. Ten months of work. And there, in writing, for the first time: concerns about her case notes, her timeliness, and her risk assessments. Concerns her supervisor apparently had since autumn.

SoheeAnd she's thinking, why didn't anyone tell me? I could have fixed this.

RyanWelcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Ryan.

SoheeI'm Sohee. Today: the ethics of supervision and teaching. What psychologists owe students and supervisees, and the lines they can't cross. And yes, we'll come back to that evaluation.

RyanLet's start right there, because it's Standard 7.06, Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance. Part a: in academic and supervisory relationships, psychologists establish a timely and specific process for providing feedback to students and supervisees.

SoheeAnd information about that process is provided to the student at the beginning of supervision. So the trainee knows from day one how and when feedback will come.

RyanPart b: psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and established program requirements.

SoheeSo, back to our practicum student. Holding concerns for ten months and unveiling them in the final evaluation isn't timely feedback. Neither is vague praise all year with the details saved for the end.

RyanThe exam's tempting wrong answers here sound kind. Wait and see if the problem resolves on its own, so you don't discourage her. Or save it all for the formal evaluation, so it reflects the full training period.

SoheeOr pass the concern to the training director and let the director decide whether the trainee hears about it. None of those gives her timely, specific feedback. The keyed answer: give it now, specifically, through a process she was told about at the start.

RyanLet's zoom out to the programs themselves. Standard 7.01: psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure the programs provide the appropriate knowledge and proper experiences, and meet the requirements for licensure, certification, or other goals the program claims.

SoheeAnd 7.02 is truth in advertising for programs. A current and accurate description of program content, training goals, stipends and benefits, and the requirements for completing the program. And that information must be made readily available to all interested parties.

RyanProgram content includes required participation in things like counseling, psychotherapy, experiential groups, consulting projects or community service. If it's required, applicants should be able to find that out.

SoheeThen 7.03, Accuracy in Teaching. Syllabi are accurate about the subject matter, the bases for evaluating progress, and the nature of course experiences.

RyanBut an instructor isn't frozen. The standard doesn't preclude modifying content or requirements when it's pedagogically necessary or desirable, as long as students are made aware of the changes in a way that lets them fulfill course requirements.

SoheeNow a standard that protects trainees' privacy. Standard 7.04, Student Disclosure of Personal Information. Psychologists don't require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course or program activities about sexual history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, spouses or significant others.

RyanWith two exceptions. One: the program has clearly identified this requirement in its admissions and program materials. Two: the information is necessary to evaluate or get help for students whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing competent performance, or posing a threat to the students or others.

SoheeAnd 7.05 covers required therapy. When individual or group therapy is a program or course requirement, students in undergraduate and graduate programs get the option of choosing a practitioner unaffiliated with the program.

RyanAnd faculty who are, or are likely to be, responsible for evaluating students' academic performance don't provide that therapy themselves.

SoheeWhich makes sense. Imagine being honest in therapy with the person who'll grade your comprehensive exam.

RyanNow delegation, Standard 2.05. It covers psychologists who delegate work to employees, supervisees, or research or teaching assistants, or who use the services of others, such as interpreters.

SoheeThree reasonable steps. One, avoid delegating to people who have a multiple relationship with those being served that would likely lead to exploitation or loss of objectivity.

RyanTwo, authorize only those responsibilities that such persons can be expected to perform competently, given their education, training or experience, either independently or with the level of supervision being provided. And three, see that they actually perform the work competently.

SoheeThe phrase to hold onto is, with the level of supervision being provided. Not the supervision that could theoretically exist. The supervision that's actually there.

RyanSo a psychometrist trained in administration and scoring can do those. But interpretation and diagnostic feedback go beyond that training. And a student who's never done crisis work shouldn't be sent to do it unsupervised.

SoheeAnd the trap answers: delegate it, because the psychologist stays responsible for everything anyway. Or delegate it, as long as the clients agree. Neither makes it acceptable to hand someone work beyond their training and the supervision available.

RyanThere's a related assessment standard, 9.07. Psychologists don't promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when that use is for training purposes with appropriate supervision.

SoheeNow, the client's side of supervision. Standard 10.01c. When the therapist is a trainee and legal responsibility for the treatment resides with the supervisor, the client is told, as part of informed consent, that the therapist is in training and being supervised, and is given the supervisor's name.

RyanPause and think. A doctoral intern begins seeing a new client. Legal responsibility rests with her licensed supervisor. The intern worries that mentioning her trainee status will undermine the client's confidence. What does the Code require?

SoheeShe tells the client she's in training and being supervised, and gives the supervisor's name, as part of informed consent. Her worry is understandable, but it doesn't change the requirement.

RyanNow the power piece. Standard 3.08, Exploitative Relationships. Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority, such as clients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees.

SoheeAnd Standard 7.07 draws a bright line. Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees who are in their department, agency or training center, or over whom they have, or are likely to have, evaluative authority.

RyanNotice the or. There are two separate triggers. Being in the same department, agency or training center is enough on its own. Having, or being likely to have, evaluative authority is also enough on its own.

SoheePause and think, number two. A psychologist at a training center starts dating an intern there. He's not her supervisor, doesn't teach her, never evaluates her, and they're both adults who consent. They even tell the training director, and the psychologist steps aside from anything involving her. Permissible?

RyanNo. She's in his training center, and that alone puts the relationship within 7.07. Consent between adults, the lack of a current evaluative role, and disclosure plus recusal don't create an exception.

SoheeAnd a variation the exam uses: the student is in a different department, but the psychologist is likely to supervise her next year. That's the second trigger. Likely to have evaluative authority.

RyanOne last pointer. Supervision delivered at a distance, telesupervision, comes up in our telepsychology episode.

SoheeLet's recap. 7.06: a timely and specific feedback process, explained at the beginning of supervision, and evaluation on actual performance against relevant, established requirements.

Ryan7.01 and 7.02: programs deliver the knowledge and experiences they claim, and describe content, goals, stipends and requirements accurately. 7.03: accurate syllabi, with changes communicated so students can still meet requirements.

Sohee7.04: no required disclosure of sexual history, abuse, treatment, or close relationships, unless it was clearly stated in admissions and program materials, or it's needed to help or evaluate a student whose problems are interfering or posing a threat.

Ryan7.05: required therapy can be with an unaffiliated practitioner, and evaluating faculty don't provide it. 2.05: delegate only what someone can do competently with the supervision actually provided.

Sohee10.01c: clients of trainees learn they're seeing a supervised trainee and get the supervisor's name. 3.08: no exploiting people you have authority over. And 7.07: no sexual relationships with students or supervisees in your own department, agency or training center, or with anyone you evaluate or are likely to.

RyanHere's something worth noticing. So much of this is about the feedback we all deserve: timely, specific, fair. If your last exam result came without much explanation, you can give yourself what 7.06 asks for. Look at your practice results, name the specific gaps, and work on them one at a time.

SoheeThat's what good supervisors do, and you can do it for yourself. You're further along than you think. Thanks for listening to EPPP Prep.

Loading the read-along timings…