e7b67221c20745438596f1cfec059175
glass
pen
clip
papers
heaphones

Applied Sciences Signature Assignment

Applied Sciences Signature Assignment

Our county has a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with two designated mental health providers to provide school-based therapy. They meet the specific requirements and guidelines of our state and district. These are the only providers we allow to meet with students and conduct therapy sessions during school hours. An intake process is completed and informed consent is provided by the parent/guardian. 

There is a private mental health provider that continuously tries to see his clients during school hours. He has been told that he is not allowed to conduct therapy on campus.  In response to this, he gets parents to add him to their child’s emergency contact list and permission to check-out list.  He has been seen driving students around town to run his errands, taking them to restaurants, going to the park etc., all while billing the students insurance for the time he has the client. He is now picking up 2-3 students at a time and states he is providing “group therapy”, while he is billing insurance for each client.  

School administrators are encouraged to express concerns with parents regarding the amount of instruction lost, potential misuse of funds/bills, and inefficient therapy provided. A number of administrators actually advocate to allow him to come because he often works with many of their “problem behaviors.” They have stated, “he actually answers when we call” or “I’m just glad to get this student off campus for a while.” This provider will also buy food, clothes, pay phone/light bills for parents/families, etc.,  so this makes it very difficult to explain to the parent the misuse of funds or substandard therapy he is providing.  They see him as a resource and  financial support to them. In addition to all of this, the provider's wife is a private, licensed psychologist who provides diagnoses and recommendations for therapy services, so most of his clients are referred to him by his wife’s company.   

Use References below:

Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2019). Guidance or Compliance: What Makes an Ethical Behavior Analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 473.

Brodhead, M. T. (2019). Culture Always Matters: Some Thoughts on Rosenberg and Schwartz. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 826.

Signature Assignment (to be completed on WIKI and submit to submit to Turnitin via Blackboard)

Total points = 75

Solving an Ethical Dilemma

Course Learning Outcome:

Students will understand how to identify an ethical challenge and apply decision making principles according to the Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts (E1).

Your Signature Assignment for this class is to respond to one peer’s ethical dilemma on their WIKI page. Analyze the dilemma through the lens of Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019) steps 1-5, and refer to Broadhead (2019) if appropriate to support your response.

See the rubric for expectations related to each criteria of your response. Your paper should closely follow the steps outlined in Rosenberg & Schwartz (2019) and incorporate cultural information as suggested by Broadhead (2019).

Respond to your classmates WIKI by attaching a word document. They will appreciate the guidance.

Directions for submitting to Turnitin via Blackboard

Create one document to upload to Turnitin via Blackboard. Your document should have the following elements included:

· Title Page

· Heading 1: Ethical dilemma (from your classmate’s week 6 WIKI)

· Heading 2: Associated values and/or biases

· Heading 3: Proposed Solution #1 (per Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 steps 1 – 5 augmented with Broadhead, 2019)

· Heading 4: Proposed Solution #2 (per Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 steps 1 – 5 augmented with Broadhead, 2019)

· Heading 5: Select action, use all resources to justify selection

· Heading 6: Document implementation steps in the format of an action plan so that it can be followed with fidelity that addresses actions to ameliorate potential risk per the Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts.

(See rubric for grading details)

SIgnature assignment rubric:

Exemplary

Proficient

Emerging

insufficient

Missing

Identify the dilemma, codes, stakeholders

5

Exemplary description of the dilemma, codes and stakeholders.

4

Proficient description of the dilemma, codes and stakeholders.

3

Accurate description of 2: dilemma, codes and stakeholders.

2

Accurate description of 1: dilemma, codes and stakeholders.

0

Missing or inaccurate description of Description of 2: dilemma, codes and stakeholders.

Reflect on personal values or biases that influence decision

10

Exemplary reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision

8

Proficient reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision

6

Partial reflection on reflection on personal values or biases that might influence decision

4

Minimal description but no reflection on personal values or biases that might influence decision

n

0

Missing reflection of personal values or biases that might influence decision

Step 2 and 3 Evaluate 1st solution per client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference, considering cultural implications.

15

Exemplary evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

12

Proficient evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

9

Partial evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

6

Minimal evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

0

Missing evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

Step 2 and 3 Evaluate 2nd solution per client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference.

15

Exemplary evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

12

Proficient evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

9

Partial evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

6

Minimal evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

0

Missing evaluation of all elements (client safety, dignity, outcomes, impact and family preference) and considers cultural implications.

Step 4: Justify the selected acceptable solution

15

Exemplary analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information for two other sources.

12

Proficient analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information for two other sources.

9

Partial analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code and information from one other source.

6

Minimal analysis and justification for selection option that incorporates the Ethical Code but no other sources.

0

Missing analysis and justification for selection option.

Step 5:

Document the steps and parameters of the selected course of action, linking in the Code of Ethics and core principles.

15

Exemplary and detailed description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations.

12

Proficient and detailed description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations.

9

Partial description of course of action that addresses parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations.

6

Minimal description of course of action that does not address parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations.

0

Missing description of course of action that does not address parameters to ameliorate potential risk for code violations