must read attached case 7/no plag DUE IN 24 HOURS

Case 7. Handling Disparate Information for Evaluating Trainees Rashid Vaji, Ph.D., a member of the school psychology faculty at a midsize university serves as a faculty supervisor for students assigned to externships in schools. The department has formalized a supervision and evaluation system for the extern pro-gram. Students have weekly individual meetings with the faculty supervisor and biweekly meetings with the on-site supervisor. The on-site supervisor writes a mid-year (December) and end of academic year (May) evaluation of each student. The site evaluations are sent to Dr. Vaji, and he provides feedback based on the site and his own supervisory evaluation to each student. The final grade (fail, low pass, pass, high pass) is the responsibility of Dr. Vaji.Dr. Vaji also teaches the Spring Semester graduate class on “Health Disparities in Mental Health.” One of the course requirements is for students to write weekly thought papers, in which they are required to take the perspective of therapy clients from different ethnic groups in reaction to specific session topics. Leo Watson, a second-year graduate student is one of Dr. Vaji’s externship supervisees. He is also enrolled in the Health Disparities course. Leo’s thought papers often present ethnic-minority adolescents as prone to violence and unable to “grasp” the insights offered by school psychologists. In a classroom role-playing exercise, Leo “plays” an ethnic-minority student client as slumping in the chair not understanding the psychologist and giving angry retorts. In written comments on these thought papers and class feedback, Dr. Vaji encourages Leo to incorporate more of the readings on racial/ethnic discrimination and multicultural competence into his papers and to provide more complex perspectives on clients. One day during his office hours, three students from the class come to Dr. Vaji’s office to complain about Leo’s behavior outside the classroom. They describe inci-dents in which Leo uses derogatory ethnic labels to describe his externship clients and brags about “putting one over” on his site supervisors by describing these cli-ents in “glowing” terms just to satisfy his supervisors’ “stupid liberal do-good” attitudes. They also report an incident at a local bar at which Leo was seen harassing an African American waitress using racial slurs. After the students have left his office, Dr. Vaji reviews his midyear evaluation and supervision notes on Leo and the midyear on-site supervisor’s report. In his own evaluation report Dr. Vaji had written, “Leo often articulates a strong sense of duty to help his ethnic minority students overcome past discrimination but needs additional growth and supervision in applying a multicultural perspective into his clinical work.” The on-site supervisor’s evaluation states that Leo has a wonderful attitude towards his student clients . . . Unfortunately evaluation of his treatment skills is limited because Leo has had fewer cases to discuss than some of his peers since a larger than usual number of students have stopped coming to their sessions with him. It is the middle of the Spring Semester, and Dr. Vaji still has approximately 6 weeks of supervision left with Leo. The students’ complaints about Leo, while more extreme, are consistent with what Dr. Vaji has observed in Leo’s class papers and role-playing exercises. However, these complaints are very different from his presentation during on-site supervision. If Leo has been intentionally deceiving both supervisors, then he may be more ineffective or harmful as a therapist to his current clients than either supervisor realized. In addition, purposeful attempts to deceive the supervisors might indicate a personality disorder or lack of integrity that if left unaddressed might be harmful to adolescent clients in the future. Ethical Dilemma. Vaji would like to meet with Leo at minimum to discuss ways to retain ado-descent clients and to improve his multicultural treatment skills. He does not know to what extent his conversation with Leo and final supervisory report should be influenced by the information provided by the graduate students. Discussion Questions 1. Why is this ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma? 2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Vaji resolves this dilemma? 3. What additional information might Dr. Vaji collect to provide him with a more accurate picture of Leo’s multicultural attitudes and professional skills? What are reasons for and against contacting Leo’s site supervisor for more information? Should he request that Leo’s sessions with clients be electronically taped or observed? 4. Is Dr. Vaji in a potentially unethical multiple relationships as both Leo’s externship supervisor and his teacher in the Health Disparities class? Why or why not? 366——DECODING THE ETHICS CODE 5. To what extent, if any, should Dr. Vaji consider Leo’s own ethnicity in his deliberations? Would the dilemma be addressed differently if Leo self-identified as non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic black? 6. Once the dilemma is resolved, should Dr. Vaji have a follow-up meeting with the students who complained? 7. How are APA Ethical Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, 7.05, and 7.06 and the Hot Topics “Ethical Supervision of Trainees” (Chapter 10) and “Multicultural Ethical Competence” (Chapter 5) relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply? 8. What are Dr. Vaji’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision? 9. What steps should Dr. Vaji take to implement his decision and monitor its effect? Suggested Readings Allen, J. (2007). A multicultural assessment supervision model to guide research and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 248–258.Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2008). The relationship between level of training, implicit bias, and multicultural competency among counselor trainees. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2, 103–110.Dailor, A. N. (2011). Ethically challenging situations reported by school psychologists: Implications for training. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 619–631.Gilfoyle, N. (2008). The legal exosytem: Risk management in addressing student competence problems in professional psychology training. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2, 202–209.Case 8. Using Deception to Study College Students’ Willingness to Report Threats of Violence against Female Students College drinking has become a serious public health issue that has been associated with violence against women on college campuses. Although some violence against women prevention programs appear promising when empirically tested, most have small effect sizes and have not been replicated on other campuses. Rachel Cohen, a first-year faculty member in an applied developmental psychology program at a large research institution, was asked to join a group of other scientists in an application to the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to conduct a two-phase multisite study. The senior invest complimented that she had been invited to join the project. The long-term goal of the study is to develop a peer-oriented prevention program that encourages fresh-man living in campus housing to contact their resident director (RD) if an inebriated student is making threatening comments suggesting potential violence toward female dorm residents. To help inform the final design of the prevention program, the first phase of the study will experimentally test conditions under which students are more or less likely to report a threatening incident. For this first phase, the lead investigator on the project suggests a design that uses deception to control conditions under which reporting of an incident may or may not occur. The design would test the following hypotheses: (a) Freshmen are more likely to call an RD if an inebriated student mentions a potential victim by name and (b) Students are more likely to contact an RD if another student suggests it. To test these hypotheses across different dorms and campuses, the study would use research confederates acting as students. A 10 p.m. Pizza Study Break would be advertised through posters and held in a small meeting room in the freshman dorm. One confederate would walk into the room at the start of the break pretending she was there for the pizza. Once there were at least 10 students in the room, the confederate acting as the inebriated student would enter the room and both confederates would act out one of the following four conditions: Condition A1B1: The inebriated student actor speaks threateningly about an unnamed female student; a second student actor is present, who does not encourage-age anyone to call. Condition A2B1: The inebriated student actor speaks threateningly about and names a (fictitious) female student; a second student actor is present, who does not encourage anyone to call. Condition A1B2: The inebriated student actor speaks threateningly about an unnamed female student; a second student actor is present, who says “Shouldn’t someone call the RD?”Condition A2B2: The inebriated student actor speaks threateningly about and names a (fictitious) female student; a second student actor is present, who says “Shouldn’t someone call the RD?”The RDs in each dorm would be informed of the study and participate by com-ing to remove the “confederate” from the premises if called by students. If after a given period of time they were not contacted, they would tell the students they heard loud noises and take the confederate to their office. Ethical Dilemma Dr. Cohen believes violence against women on college campuses is an important issue to address and that to do so requires understanding of the conditions that increase students’ willingness to report other students who threaten t 368——DECODING THE ETHICS CODE females on campus. She also believes the deceptive research design adequately tests important hypotheses that may lead to the design of effective peer intervention studies. However, she is uncomfortable with the idea of deceiving the students and also worries that it might harm them in some way. She does not know how to respond to the invitation to participate in the multisite research.