Ethics education in professional psychology: A survey of American Psychological Association accredited programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional psychologists are expected to know ethical standards and engage in proactive analysis of ethical considerations across professional roles (e.g., practice, research, teaching). Yet, little is known about the current state of doctoral ethics education in professional psychology, including the content covered and pedagogical strategies used to ensure developing this core component of professional competency (de las Fuentes, Willmuth, & Yarrow, 2005). A survey of ethics educators from APAaccredited programs across the United States and Canada resulted in 136 instructors reporting on their program's ethics training. The majority of questionnaires returned were from PhD programs (77.9%). A substantial number of programs were clinical (59.6%) and followed a scientist practitioner training model (69.9%). The response rate across specialties ranged from 34.5% to 41.4%. Nearly all (95.6%) reported having a required ethics course. Lectures (95.6%) were the most common teaching method reported. Fully 100% of ethics educators reported teaching about mandated reporting and informed consent to treatment. An overwhelming majority (90% and above) covered the same 11 other topics, showing notable convergence in content. The most commonly used document across programs (99.3%) was the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2010). The most common type of assignment was reading (94.1%), and the most common teaching practice was "teaching by example" (90.4%). Finally the most endorsed teaching goal was advancement of critical thinking (94.9%). Implications for ethics education and future research directions are described. © 2014 American Psychological Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".