Ethical Use Of Assessment Research Paper Sample

Introduction

Psychologists recognize the difference in human capabilities in coping and overcoming risk, stress factors and adversity. Various strategies and tools have been incorporated to measure the resilience efficiently and in the most accurate manner. Although the technology plays integral part in developing measuring devices, it is evident that there is still a concern until psychologists become efficient enough in administering tests and psychological assessment (Griffin, et al., 200). For instance, the Youth Risk-Resilience Inventory device was established to facilitate psychologists’ assessment routines. However, a lot of concerns ranging from ethical and theoretical ground continue to undermine psychologists’ evaluation activities. This paper offers an analysis of the Youth Risk-Resilience Inventory device determining its competence, ethical concerns and reviewers’ evaluation.

Youth Risk-Resilience Inventory (YRRI)

The Youth Risk and Resilience Inventory – abbreviated as YRRI – refer to 54-item comprising of self-report inventory. It is designed to assess the various types of protective factors and stressors that adolescents and children experience. Eighteen items out of the fifty-four measure resilience while the remaining assesses risk factors. Psychologists determine various categories of risks from different environments including school and home risks. Also, the tool focuses on interpersonal risks in terms of quantity and quality of relationships of the subject. Under the above environments, YRRI comprises of numeral scale ranging from 1-5 where the subject respond to appropriately. Then, the YRRI set up a self-scoring and groups the individual into specific blocks of risks and protective factors.

Theoretical Analysis

The success of YRRI is credited to the clarity and simplicity. As a self-response tool, both psychologists and respondents have the chance to exercise authority as they are fully aware of the expectation when administering the various items. In a clear manner, respondent’s totaling scores are projected in items of distinctive colors (Ungar, 2006). For instance, yellow represents items that assess risk factors while green assess protective factors. For this reason, both the psychologist and the respondent have a clear guide to obtaining the subtotals. The scale showing items from low to high risk is also open for both parties to see. After totaling, respondent’s scores will reflect which category they belong to on the scale without any alterations or outside influence. The psychologists can only record the projected scores seen by each party. For this reason, the YRRI’s credibility is undoubted and beyond any concern.
However, YRRI’s reliability reflects a certain level of concern. According to Brady (2006), the inventory’s consistency assessment project some gaps that psychologists will strive to cover. Although the YRRI’s coefficients for both Resilience and Risk factor scale are adequate, there is inadequacy in test-reset reliability. Here, it means that a particular respondent will score different codes upon going through the YRRI more than once.
The score sheet will never be the same even though they reflect the capabilities of the same respondent. This has brought a validity concern of the YRRI as its measure is non-responsive to time schedules. If it were to be beyond validity concern, YRRI would reflect similar figures to suggest a repetition of respondents. Validity undermines YRRI to an extent of abuse of treatment programs and procedures endured when risk and resilient respondents are assessed through the YRRI items. Serious areas of concern such as anxiety, depression, and psychological torture may not be captured adequately. Respondents receive less routine cure to such risk factors due to the false information.

Ethical Consideration

As the case with other disciplines, psychological therapy requires a high level of ethical considerations. Ethics defines the professional conduct and specific routine that practitioners identify themselves. According to the American Counseling Association (2014), the counseling relationship is a process. Therapists are the main players that facilitate the process. However, it should be clear that their facilitation is never an advantage to undermine the conduct of the entire process. Here, freedom of respondent’s should be a priority. The various items for the code of ethics for psychologists dictate that client welfare is a primary responsibility of the therapists. During documentation, therapists should take all measures to safeguard sensitive information. They should never disclose unless there is a go ahead consent of the respondent. Also, clients should be informed of the process before it begins. The expectations, challenges and projected outcome and sensibility to certain issues such as culture and religion should be set clear by the therapist to the client.
Using the YRRI, ethical considerations are well covered throughout the entire assessment process. As stated earlier, the YRRI items provide no hindrance to either party to exercise their freedom and right of consent. Respondents are always in a pole position to give their suggestions and considerations even before the beginning of the assessment. Having seen what they are about to expect, respondents will share their attributes and sensitive information on cultural and religious constraints so that the therapists can take care of when administering the YRRI tool and the entire process. Therefore, the YRRI completes its mandate in identifying Risk Factors and Resilience without ethical hindrances or very little if any.
There is a lot to compare when taking into account that many users have received the YRRI tool differently. The distinctive factors leading to the comparisons are that of culture and religious groupings. Although the YRRI design only suit for the particular purpose of assessment, its appropriateness is not uniform across all cultures (Gladding, Newsome & Gladding, 2010). This is because the device’s specific items touch on inappropriate components for some cultural communities. The case is different for other communities. For instance, the YRRI’s handling of relationship items and the level of engagement that the therapists initiate with the respondent could be inappropriate in Islamic culture. Disclosing some essential information during the process is a breach of some cultural considerations of the particular cultural group. However, the opposite is true when considering the western culture. For this reason, it can be concluded that the YRRI tool presents some inappropriateness with diverse populations.
Making an ethical judgment is a responsibility of the therapist during the assessment process when administering the YRRI. With adverse knowledge of the age group or cultural composition, the therapist will make appropriate emphasis on some areas and disregard other areas in reflection to the relevance of the particular environmental context (Nower, Derevensky & Gupta, 2004). In any case, the judgment should not undermine or violate the ethical and code of professionalism as attested by the American counseling association.

Conclusion

As discussed above, the Youth Risk-Resilience Inventory offers the much-needed assistance to counselors administer professional assessments. The comprised items of the YRRI are the basis of a comprehensive analysis that gives the most accurate information during the assessment process. The device is also ethical sound as it covers various factors in reflection to diverse populations. Reviews recommend the use of the YRRI in serving diverse population. However, with regard to cultural and religious constraints, the reliability and appropriateness of YRRI is somewhat under scrutiny. It may not be suitable for identifying and address some sensitive risk and resilience factors to respondents from certain cultural groups.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). Journal of counseling development & code of ethics. S.l.: Wiley.
Brady, R. P. (2006). Youth Risk and Resilience Inventory.. JIST Publishing.
Gladding, S. T., Newsome, D. W., & Gladding, S. T. (2010). Clinical mental health counseling in community and agency settings (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Griffin, K. W., Scheier, L. M., Botvin, G. J., & Diaz, T. (2000). Ethnic and Gender Differences in Psychosocial Risk, Protection, and Adolescent Alcohol Use.Prevention Science. doi:10.1023/A:1026599112279
Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L., & Gupta, R. (2004). The Relationship of Impulsivity, Sensation Seeking, Coping, and Substance Use in Youth. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.49
Ungar, M. (2006). Strengths-based counseling with at-risk youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.