Effective Small Business Management An Entrepreneurial Approach .docx

Effective Small Business Management: An Entrepreneurial
Approach
9th Edition, 2009 ISBN-13: 9780136152705
Norman M. Scarborough, Douglas L. Wilson, and Thomas W.
Zimmerer Pearson Education
Writing Assignment for Unit Four
· Use a standard essay format for responses to all
questions (i.e., an introduction, middle paragraphs and
conclusion).
· Responses must be typed double-spaced, using a
standard font (i.e. Times New Roman) and 12 point type size.
Word count is NOT one of the criteria that is used in
assigning points to writing assignments. However, students who
are successful in earning the maximum number of points tend to
submit writing assignments that fall in the following ranges:
· Graduate courses: 500 - 750 words or 2 - 3 pages.
· Plagiarism All work must be free of any form of
plagiarism.
· Put written answers into your own words. Do not simply cut
and paste your answers from the Internet and do not copy your
answers from the textbook. Be sure to refer to the course
syllabus for more details on plagiarism and proper citation
styles.
· Please answer ONE of the following:
· 1) Venture capital companies are an important source of
equity funding for small businesses. Examine their policies,
ownership, control, and investment preferences when it comes
to funding small businesses.
· 2) Examine the role of commercial banks as source of debt
capital for small businesses. What types of financing are
available from commercial banks?
· 3) What impact has the Americans with Disabilities Act had
on small businesses in terms of building location and layout?

Unit 4 Examination
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 48(6), 2011 C© 2011 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20574
ETHICALLY CHALLENGING SITUATIONS REPORTED BY
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING
A. NICHOLE DAILOR
Bourbonnais Elementary School District #53
SUSAN JACOB
Central Michigan University
Practitioner-members of the National Association of School
Psychologists (N = 208) completed
questionnaires regarding their ethics training, preparedness, the
types of ethical transgressions and
dilemmas encountered in the previous year, and the strategies
used to solve problems. Respondents
who received multilevel training in ethics (ethics coursework,
ethics instruction in multiple classes,
ethics addressed in practicum/internship) perceived themselves
to be better prepared to tackle
difficult challenges and were more likely to use a systematic
problem-solving strategy when faced
with an ethical dilemma than respondents who did not receive
multilevel training. Assessment-

related ethical transgressions and failure to follow up on
interventions were the two most commonly
witnessed types of ethics code violations; troublesome
dilemmas included whether to suspect child
abuse, whether to tell parents about their child’s risky behavior,
and how to handle administrative
pressure to engage in unethical actions. Implications for ethics
training are discussed. C© 2011
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
School psychology practitioners are likely to encounter two
types of ethically challenging situa-
tions: ethical dilemmas and transgressions. Dilemmas occur
when “there are good but contradictory
ethical reasons to take conflicting and incompatible courses of
action” (Knauss, 2001, p. 231; also
Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). Some ethical dilemmas are
quickly and easily resolved; others are
troubling and time-consuming (Sinclair, 1998). Ethical
transgressions or violations are those acts
that go against professional expectations for ethical conduct and
violate enforceable ethics codes.
Ethical transgressions can result in harm to students or other
clients and create a problematic situation
for colleagues who must decide whether and how to confront the
misconduct.
Several methods for gathering information about ethical
dilemmas and transgressions encoun-
tered by psychologists have been developed. The critical
incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) is a set
of procedures for collecting reports from real-life settings of
particular types of problem situations,
with the goal of describing the types of problems encountered in
“real world” practice settings. An
advantage of this approach is that it allows the respondent,

rather than the researcher, to identify
the types of situations that create ethical challenges for
practitioners. A second advantage is that re-
spondents are likely to describe situations that capture the
complexities of contemporary practice. A
disadvantage of this approach is that it characteristically results
in a low return rate, and respondents
may be most likely to describe situations that were particularly
troublesome rather than the ethical
problems they frequently encounter.
Another approach to studying real-world ethical challenges is to
use a structured questionnaire
to ask practitioners whether they have experienced or witnessed
various types of ethical dilemmas
and transgressions. One advantage of a structured questionnaire
is that it typically requires less
A. Nichole Dailor conducted this research in fulfillment of the
master’s thesis requirement at Central Michigan
University (CMU). Funds for the study were provided by a
CMU Graduate Student Research and Creative Endeavors
Grant to the first author. Some findings were reported
previously in Dailor and Jacob (2010).
Correspondence to: Susan Jacob, Central Michigan University,
Psychology Department, 104 Sloan Hall, Mt.
Pleasant, MI 48859. E-mail: [email protected]
619
620 Dailor and Jacob
time and effort to complete, and consequently may yield a
higher return rate and responses from a

more representative sample. Participation by a nationally
representative sample makes it possible
to identify how commonly various types of problems are
encountered in practice and how school
psychologists typically respond to such challenges. The
disadvantage of this approach is that the
types of ethical dilemmas and transgressions studied are
predetermined by the researcher and may
not reflect “real-world” concerns.
Jacob-Timm (1999) used the critical incident technique to
collect descriptions of ethical prob-
lems from school psychologists to guide the development of a
structured questionnaire for further
study of ethical challenges encountered by practitioners. Her
survey instrument was a modification
of one developed by Pope and Vetter (1992). Participants were
simply asked to “describe, in a few
words or more detail, an incident that you or a colleague have
faced in the past 2 years that was
ethically challenging or troubling to you” (Pope & Vetter, 1992,
p. 398). The questionnaire was
mailed to a random sample of 1,035 members of the National
Association of School Psychologists
(NASP). Replies were received from 226 respondents (return
rate of 22%), with descriptions of
222 ethically troubling incidents provided by 159 study
participants. Each incident was categorized
in one of 19 categories of different types of ethical problems,
including administrative pressure
to act unethically, assessment-related concerns, confidentiality,
unsound educational practices, job
competence and performance, parent conflicts, school record
keeping, divided or conflicting in-
terests that might impair delivery of services, informed consent
and client self-determination, and

intervention practices. Interestingly, most of the 222 incidents
concerned difficult situations rather
than clear-cut violations of codes of ethics. “Ethical tugs” were
created by situations involving
competing ethical principles, conflicts between ethics and law,
dilemmas inherent in the dual roles
of employee and pupil advocate, conflicting interests of
multiple clients (e.g., pupil, parents, class-
mates), and poor educational practices resulting in potential
harm to students. In addition to the
Jacob-Timm (1999) critical incidents survey, other researchers
have explored ethical transgressions
encountered by school psychologists in training (e.g., Tryon,
2001) and ethical decision-making in
school psychology (e.g., Chevalier & Lyon, 1993).
In the present study, a representative sample of NASP public
school practitioners was invited
to complete a structured survey regarding ethically challenging
situations they had experienced in
the previous year. The survey questions were based on the types
of real-world ethical problems
described by practitioners in Jacob-Timm’s (1999) study. The
following research questions were
addressed: What types of formal training in ethics had
practitioners received? What is the perceived
level of preparedness of school psychologists regarding their
ability to handle ethical issues? Is there
an association between perceived preparedness and multilevel
university ethics training, degree level
(doctoral or nondoctoral), or years of experience? What types of
ethical transgressions did school
practitioners witness in the past year? What types of ethical
dilemmas did they experience in the
previous year? What types of strategies do practitioners use to
handle ethical dilemmas? And, what

are the ethical issues of concern to practitioners?
METHOD
In 2007, about one-half of the 23,500 NASP members consented
to be listed in a database of
potential research participants. Four hundred members who
identified themselves as employed in the
public schools were randomly selected from the database and
contacted by U.S. mail. Of this sample,
217 responses were received. Four respondents indicated they
were no longer working as school
psychologists, two declined participation, and three envelopes
were returned as undeliverable. This
resulted in 208 returned usable questionnaires (52%).
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits
Ethically Challenging Situations 621
Participants
The sample was 77% female. Study participants had worked as
school psychologists for an
average of 13.9 years (SD = 9.8), with 24% reporting 5 or fewer
years of work experience. Sixteen
percent of the respondents were 21 to 30 years old, 22% were
31 to 40, 19% were 41 to 50, 38%
were 51 to 60, and 4% were older than 60. Approximately 9%
reported a master’s degree as the
highest degree attained, 32% reported a master’s degree plus
certificate, 39% had earned a specialist
degree, and 19% had received a doctoral degree.

Eighty-three percent of the respondents indicated that their
primary employment situation was
an individual school district, with the remainder working in
cooperative school districts (10%), as
self-employed consultants (0.5%), or other (3%). Three percent
marked more than one category.
Based on feedback from a prior survey conducted by one of the
authors, the categories “self-employed
consultant” and “other” were included as options for school
psychologists who provide services to
public schools on a part-time, per-case, or consultative basis.
Approximately 40% of the participants
described their work setting as suburban, 24% as rural, and 21%
as urban, and 3% reported working
in more than one type of community. Respondents also were
asked to indicate all of the grades or
age groups included in their caseloads during the past 2 years:
6% provided services to infants and
toddlers, 54% to preschoolers, 80% to early elementary
students, 76% to upper elementary students,
63% to students in middle school, and 55% to high school
students. In addition, 37% of practitioners
reported that they provided services to special programs, and
13% held an administrative role at
least part time.
Instrument
Participants were invited to complete an 88-item questionnaire
(available from the second au-
thor). The survey first asked respondents about their ethics
training and perceived level of prepared-
ness to handle ethical issues. Findings from the Jacob-Timm
(1999) study provided the foundation
for the development of questions regarding ethical
transgressions and dilemmas. Respondents were

asked to indicate whether they had witnessed each of 35
possible ethical transgressions by a school
psychologist (i.e., “a colleague in your service area or you”)
within the last year; whether they had
personally experienced each of eight different ethical dilemmas
within the past year; and to select
the types of problem-solving strategies they used to address a
challenging ethical dilemma they
had faced in the past year from a list of six possible strategies.
The questionnaire also asked re-
spondents to provide background information, such as the
number of years of employment, primary
employment setting, and highest degree attained.
Multiple drafts of the questionnaire were reviewed by three
psychology faculty members for
content and clarity. Two advanced doctoral school psychology
students completed the survey and
provided feedback regarding content, wording, format, and time
required for survey completion.
Procedure
Data collection procedures were based on the Tailored Design
Method for Surveys (Dillman,
2007). In keeping with this method, a pre-notice letter was sent
to potential respondents providing
a brief overview of the study. About 1 week later, complete
survey packets that included a cover
letter explaining the research were mailed. Potential
participants were informed that their names
would be entered into a raffle drawing for one of three $50.00
Barnes and Noble gift certificates
with the return of a completed questionnaire. Approximately 2
weeks after the original mailing, a
thank you/reminder postcard was mailed to individuals who had

not yet returned questionnaires.
Four weeks after the initial mailing, nonrespondents were sent a
replacement questionnaire.
RESULTS
Not all of the 208 participants answered all of the 88
questionnaire items. Item nonresponse
ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 4. Percentages reported here
are based on N = 208 unless otherwise
noted. Cases with missing data were deleted from chi-square
analyses. The first research question
was: What types of formal training in ethics had practitioners
received? Most respondents (90%) had
received at least one of the three categories of formal ethics
training (graduate course[s] on ethics,
ethics instruction in multiple graduate courses, and/or ethics
addressed in practicum/internship)
listed on the survey. Fifty-five percent indicated they had
completed graduate course(s) on ethics,
54% reported that ethics were taught in multiple graduate
classes, and 70% indicated that ethics
were addressed in practicum/internship. A “multilevel
university-based ethics training” variable was
created that identified respondents who received all three types
of formal training. Twenty-four
percent of respondents (n = 50) indicated they had received
multilevel university training.
Ethics Training and Perceived Preparedness

Participants were asked to rate how prepared they perceived
themselves to be to handle ethical
issues that arise on the job on a 3-point Likert scale. Sixty-three
percent reported feeling “very
prepared,” and the remaining 37% reported feeling “somewhat
prepared” to handle job-related
ethical issues. No one indicated feeling “not at all prepared.” A
p value of .05 or less was considered
statistically significant for all analyses.A chi-square test was
done to determine whether there was
an association between perceived preparedness to handle ethical
issues on the job and multilevel
university ethics training. A significant association was found,
with a greater than expected number
of respondents with multilevel ethics training reporting that
they felt “very well prepared” to handle
ethical issues, χ 2(1, N = 208) = 6.368, p = .012. Results of chi-
square tests indicated no association
between perceived preparedness to handle ethical issues on the
job and degree level (nondoctoral
vs. doctoral), or years of work experience (≤ 5 or fewer years
vs. > 5 years).
Participants were asked how prepared they perceived
themselves to be to handle pressure from
administrators to act unethically based on the same Likert scale.
Sixty-five percent reported feeling
“very prepared,” 30% reported feeling “somewhat prepared,”
and 5% reported feeling “not at all
prepared” to handle this type of situation. A chi-square test to
determine whether there was an
association between preparedness to handle pressure from
administrators to act unethically and
multilevel university ethics training was not significant. A chi-
square test did indicate a significant

association between perceived preparedness to handle pressure
from administrators to act unethically
and degree level (nondoctoral vs. doctoral), with a
disproportionate number of doctoral-trained
practitioners, compared with nondoctoral-trained, reporting they
were “very prepared” to handle
administrator pressure, χ 2(1, N = 208) = 10.532, p = .005. No
association was found between
preparedness to handle pressure from administrators to act
unethically and years of work experience
(≤ 5 or fewer vs. > 5 years).
Finally, respondents were asked to indicate how prepared they
perceived themselves to be to
address unethical conduct by a colleague. Only 38% reported
feeling “very prepared” to address
misconduct by a colleague, 52% felt “somewhat prepared,” and
10% reported that they felt “not at all
prepared.” A significant association was found between
perceived preparedness to address unethical
conduct by a colleague and receiving multilevel university
ethics training. A greater than expected
number of respondents who had received multilevel training
reported they were “very prepared” to
address unethical conduct by a colleague than those who had not
received multilevel training, χ 2 (2,
N = 208) = 6.645, p = .036. No association was found between
preparedness to address unethical
conduct by a colleague and degree level (nondoctoral vs.
doctoral), or with years of work experience
(≤ 5 vs. > 5 years).

Ethical Transgressions
The survey included 35 questions that reflected nine broad
categories of ethical transgressions.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had witnessed
each of 35 possible ethical trans-
gressions by a school psychologist (i.e., “a colleague in your
service area or you”) within the last
year. For each of the nine broad categories, the results in Table
1 show the percentage of respondents
who had encountered at least one type of transgression within
the broad category and the number
of respondents who witnessed each specific transgression
example within the category. The number
of nonresponses to items in Table 1 ranged from a low of 1 to a
high of 4. Missing responses were
counted as “not witnessed” transgressions.
The most commonly witnessed broad category of transgressions
concerned assessment-related
incidents. Failing to follow-up on an intervention, conducting
assessments in unsatisfactory locations,
and avoiding recommendations for certain support services due
to administrative pressure to contain
costs were the specific transgressions witnessed by the largest
number of respondents.
Ethical Dilemmas
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had personally
experienced each of eight
different ethical dilemmas within the past year. Table 2 shows
the percentage of respondents who
indicated whether they had encountered those dilemmas. The

number of nonresponses to items in
Table 2 ranged from 3 to 4. Missing responses were counted as
a “not experienced” ethical dilemma.
The four dilemmas experienced by the greatest number of
respondents (about one fourth)
concerned whether to contact child protective services, whether
to disclose a student’s risky behavior
to his or her parents, how to address unethical conduct by a
colleague, and how to balance a parent’s
request to view test protocols with the ethical obligation to
maintain test security. Seventeen percent
of respondents reported they had been pressured by an
administrator to make decisions or take
actions that were unethical, with an implied threat to job
standing (e.g., negative evaluation, move
to less desirable assignment, or loss of job) for noncompliance.
Fourteen percent reported that an
administrator had pressured them to make decisions or take
actions that were not in compliance with
federal or state law, with an implied threat to job standing if
they did not comply.
Chi-square tests showed a significant association between
respondent reports of having expe-
rienced certain ethical dilemmas and years of work experience.
When compared with respondents
who had more than 5 years of experience working as a school
psychologist, respondents with 5 or
fewer years working were more likely to report experiencing the
following dilemmas in the past year:
administrative pressure to make a decision or take actions that
are unethical with an implied threat
to job standing, χ 2(1, N = 205) = 5.505, p = .019;
administrative pressure to disclose confidential
client information, χ 2(1, N = 205) = 7.352, p = .007; and

uncertainty regarding appropriate actions
when a student is at risk for self-harm, χ 2(1, N = 205) = 4.399,
p = .036.
Problem-Solving Strategies
Selecting from a list of six possible strategies, respondents
indicated the types of problem-
solving strategies they used to address a challenging ethical
dilemma they had faced in the past year.
Sixty-six percent reported they consulted with another school
psychologist or professional; 42%
consulted ethics codes, laws, or other guidelines; 41%
considered the benefits and risks of various
actions; 16% used a systematic decision-making model; 6%
contacted a state school psychology
association consultant; 2% contacted NASP, and 23% reported
they did not experience an ethically
challenging situation in the past year. A significant association
was found between explicitly using
a systematic problem-solving strategy and multilevel university
training, χ 2(1, N = 208) = 4.473,
Table 1
Ethical Transgressions Witnessed in the Past Year
Transgression % (n) N = 208 NRa
Assessment 86 (178)
Conducted assessments in an unsatisfactory location (e.g.,

library, hall). 51 (105) 3
Used one or more out-of-date tests or instruments. 40 (83) 3
Prepared a report that listed the student’s test scores but offered
no interpretation. 37 (76) 2
Made recommendations that were not substantiated by the data.
35 (73) 2
Used instruments that were not appropriate for the student
tested in light of his or her native
language.
35 (72) 4
A school psychologist signed and submitted a computer-
generated psychological report without
individualized interpretation of the results.
26 (55) 3
Selected assessment tools that have unknown or poor technical
adequacy and used those results
in decision making.
23 (48) 2
Used instruments that were not appropriate for the student
tested in light of his or her disability. 22 (45) 2
Used instruments that were not appropriate for the student in
light of his or her age or ability
level.
13 (26) 4
Allowed psychological tests to be administered by unqualified
persons. 11 (22) 4
Intervention 79 (165)
Failed to follow up to ensure intervention recommendations

were effective. 73 (152) 2
Recommended pharmacological treatment of a child to his/her
parents. 39 (81) 2
Selected an unresearched intervention for a student, although
evidence-based, effective
treatments were available.
18 (37) 3
Planned a behavioral intervention based on extinction or
punishment before multiple positive
behavioral interventions had been implemented with integrity
and found ineffective.
17 (36) 2
Administrative Pressure 76 (157)
Yielded to pressure to avoid recommending certain support
services (e.g., psychological
counseling) due to costs to the district.
44 (91) 1
Yielded to pressure to agree with a special education placement
that was not the least restrictive
appropriate environment for the child.
42 (88) 3
Yielded to pressure to make a student eligible for special
education who did not meet eligibility
requirements.
39 (82) 2
Yielded to pressure to “make do” with inadequate assessment

and/or intervention materials. 37 (77) 1
Yielded to pressure to perform job duties that are outside the
scope of his or her training and
expertise (e.g., provide services to deaf, blind, bilingual
students).
23 (47) 1
Yielded to pressure to avoid finding a student eligible for
special education who did meet
eligibility requirements.
16 (34) 1
Informed Consent 51 (105)
A school psychologist began a psychological assessment of a
student, who was a minor, prior to
obtaining informed parent consent.
10 (21) 2
A school psychologist provided ongoing (multiple-session)
counseling to a student who was a
minor without parent consent.
13 (26) 2
A school psychologist made recommendations for a student
without allowing the student to
participate in decision making to the maximum extent feasible.
40 (84) 3
Parent Conflicts 48 (100)
Yielded to a placement requested by the parents that the
psychologist acknowledges was not in

the child’s best interests.
35 (73) 2
Yielded to pressure from parents to identify a student as having
a disability who did not meet
eligibility requirements.
33 (69) 3
(Continued )
Table 1
Continued
Transgression % (n) N = 208 NRa
School Records 38 (79)
Electronically transferred sensitive private student information
(e.g., via email) without taking
steps to ensure security.
35 (73) 4
Withheld or destroyed portions of the psychological records or
test protocols before parents
came in to review their child’s psychological folder.
6 (12) 2

Job Competence 36 (74)
Provided poor quality assessment or intervention services to a
student client because he or she
failed to update skills through continuing education.
23 (47) 2
Provided intervention services that were outside the scope of his
or her training and competence. 15 (31) 2
Conducted an assessment outside the scope of his or her
competence. 13 (27) 2
Misrepresented his or her training or credentials to his or her
clients or employer. 4 (8) 2
Confidentiality 33 (69)
Violated confidentiality by disclosing information learned in a
confidential relationship to
individuals who have no right or need to know.
33 (69) 2
Conflictual Relationships 20 (42)
Provided psychological services to family members or children
of very close personal friends. 14 (30) 4
Inappropriately solicited clients in the school setting for his or
her own private practice or other
business.
9 (19) 2
Entered into a romantic relationship with a student who was or
had been a client. 1 (2) 2
Note. Percentages of respondents reporting having witnessed a
particular type of transgression were calculated based on
N = 208. The number of nonresponses to items in this table
ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 4, with 4 being less than 1%

of the total number of survey respondents.
a NR = number of nonresponses.
p = .034. No association was found between use of a systematic
problem-solving strategy and
degree level (nondoctoral vs. doctoral) or years of experience (≤
5 vs. > 5 years).
Ethical Concerns
From a list of 16 choices including “other,” respondents were
asked to rank order their top three
areas of ethical concern. Pressure from administrators to act
unethically was ranked as the number
one concern by 28% of respondents; the second most common
concern was unsound educational
practices in the schools. The ethical concerns that were ranked
in the top three by the greatest
number of respondents were as follows: administrative pressure
to act unethically (43%), unsound
educational practices in the schools (41%), and assessment-
related concerns (27%).
DISCUSSION
In the present study, we investigated the types of formal ethics
training that school psychologists
received, how prepared they perceive themselves to be to handle
ethical problems, the types of
ethical transgressions and dilemmas encountered by
psychologists in the schools, and the strategies
commonly used to solve problems by surveying a representative
sample of NASP members who
work in the public schools. The demographic characteristics of
the respondents were similar to those
in two other contemporary studies conducted with NASP school

psychology practitioners (Curtis
et al., 2008; Debski, Spadafore, Jacob, Poole, & Hixson, 2007).
For example, based on NASP’s
Table 2
Ethical Dilemmas Experienced in the Past Year
Ethical Dilemma % (n) N = 208 NRa
You were providing services to a student and began to wonder if
he/she were a victim of child
abuse, but were not sure whether to contact child protective
services.
28 (59) (3)
You were providing services to a student (a minor) who had
engaged in risky behavior
(e.g., alcohol use, drug use, unprotected sexual activity). You
were not sure what, if
anything, to disclose to the parents about these behaviors.
25 (52) (3)
A school psychologist you were acquainted with engaged in the
same unethical conduct on
more than one occasion and you were not sure how to address
his or her unethical behavior.
25 (52) (4)

Parents requested to see their child’s test protocols. You were
not sure how to balance this
request with your obligation to maintain test security.
23 (47) (3)
An administrator pressured you to make decisions or take
actions you believed were unethical,
with an implied threat to your job standing (e.g., negative
evaluation, move to less desirable
assignment, loss of job) if you did not comply.
17 (35) (3)
An administrator pressured you to make decisions or take
actions you believed were not in
compliance with federal or state law, with an implied threat to
your job standing (e.g.,
negative evaluation, move to less desirable assignment, loss of
job) if you did not comply.
14 (29) (3)
You became knowledgeable that a student may be at risk for
self-harm and were unsure of the
appropriate professional actions.
12 (24) (3)
A school administrator demanded that you disclose information
about a client that you
consider confidential.
7 (15) (3)

Note. Percentages of respondents reporting having experienced
a particular type of ethical dilemma were calculated based
on N = 208. The number of nonresponses to items in this table
ranged from 3 to 4, with 4 being less than 1% of the total
number of survey respondents.
a NR = number of nonresponses.
2004-2005 survey of the demographic characteristics of its
members (1,748 usable surveys), Curtis
et al. (2008) reported that practicing school psychologists
averaged 14 years of experience at that
time, 77% were female, and 24% held a doctorate degree. In
comparison, the participants in the
present study averaged 14 years of experience, 77% were
female, and 19% held a doctorate.
Ethics Training, Preparedness, Degree Level, and Years of
Experience
NASP’s School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and
Practice III identifies competence in
professional, legal, ethical, and social responsibility as a
foundational domain, one that permeates
“all areas of practice for every school psychologist” (Ysseldyke
et al., 2006, p. 15). Both the
NASP and the American Psychological Association (APA)
standards for approval of graduate
preparation programs require training in professional ethics.
Consistent with this requirement, almost
all respondents reported receiving at least one of three types of
ethics training. Slightly more than
half had completed at least one course in ethics as part of their
graduate training, about half indicated
ethics were taught in multiple graduate classes, and almost three
fourths reported that ethics was
addressed as part of their supervised field experiences.

Tryon (2000) and others (Jacob-Timm, 1999) recommended that
formal coursework in ethics
be required at the beginning of graduate training to prepare
students to participate in discus-
sions of ethical issues throughout their program. If students
have only one foundational course
in ethics, however, they may not be prepared to apply this
knowledge across various domains of
practice (Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996). Tryon (2000)
recommended that all graduate training
faculty address ethical issues related to their specialty area. In
addition, supervised field experiences
provide a vitally important opportunity for students to apply
their knowledge of ethics to multiple
real-world situations (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). Field- and
university-based practica and intern-
ship supervisors consequently have a special obligation to
model sound ethical decision making and
to monitor, assist, and support supervisees as they first
encounter real-world challenges (Conoley &
Sullivan, 2002; Handelsman, Gottlieb, & Knapp, 2005).
Growing professional support exists for a planned, multilevel
approach to graduate preparation
in ethics (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002; Meara et al., 1996). For
this reason, a “multilevel university-
based ethics training” variable was created to identify
respondents who received all three types

of training (e.g., formal coursework, ethics instruction in
multiple classes, and ethics taught during
practicum/internship). Surprisingly, only about one fourth of the
respondents had received multilevel
university preparation in ethics.
Participants were asked to rate how prepared they perceived
themselves to be to handle ethical
issues that arise on the job. About two thirds reported feeling
“very prepared.” A greater number of
respondents who had received multilevel university preparation
in ethics reported higher levels of
preparedness to handle ethical issues than those who had not
received multilevel ethics training. Per-
ceived preparedness was not associated with degree level or
years of experience on the job. The lack
of association between preparedness to handle ethical problems
and years of experience on the job is
somewhat surprising and may suggest that new practitioners
need greater supervisory support during
the first years of work, including mentoring with the explicit
goal of promoting skill development in
ethics problem solving. On the basis of their review of research
on expert performance, Ericsson and
Williams (2007) suggested that mastery of complex skills is
acquired by early supervised practice
coupled with deliberate practice over an extended period (also
Dreyfus, 1997). Consistent with
the idea that new practitioners need greater supervisory support
to develop confidence and com-
petence in ethical decision-making, NASP’s 2010 code of ethics
encourages school psychologists
to “advance professional excellence by mentoring less
experienced practitioners” (Principle IV). In
addition, continuing professional training in ethics is now
required for renewal of the Nationally

Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) credential (Armistead,
2006). This will hopefully encourage
practitioners to seek opportunities to continue to advance their
knowledge and skills in the area of
professional ethics.
Participants also were asked how prepared they perceived
themselves to be to handle pressure
from administrators to act unethically, and almost all reported
feeling “very” or “somewhat” prepared
to handle this type of situation. Perceived preparedness to
handle pressure from administrators to
act unethically was not associated with multilevel university
ethics training or job experience. It
was, however, associated with degree level, with a
disproportionate number of doctoral-trained
practitioners reporting they were “very prepared” to handle
administrator pressure. It is likely that
doctoral-level school psychologists have more training and
experience involving consultation with
school administrators than nondoctoral practitioners.
Respondents also were asked to indicate how prepared they
perceived themselves to be to
address unethical conduct by a colleague. Fewer than 4 of 10
respondents reported feeling “very
prepared” to address such conduct, about half felt “somewhat
prepared,” and 1 in 10 felt “not at
all prepared.” A greater than expected number of respondents
with multilevel training reported
they were very prepared to address unethical conduct by a
colleague. No association was found
between preparedness to address unethical conduct by a
colleague and degree level or years of
work experience. Previous studies reported that graduate
students and practitioners have difficulty

confronting unethical conduct by their peers (e.g., Bernard &
Jara, 1986; Betan & Staton, 1999;
Tryon, 2000). Multilevel university training in ethics, however,
appears to help practitioners feel
better prepared to tackle this difficult task, perhaps by
providing more opportunities to discuss or
role-play how to handle such a scenario (see Koocher & Keith-
Spiegel, 2008, pp. 35-37). (For
additional material on the preparation of school psychologists in
the area of ethics, see Armistead,
Williams, and Jacob, 2011; Dailor and Jacob, 2010; and
Williams, Sinko, and Epifanio, 2010).
Ethical Transgressions
Most survey respondents had witnessed at least one type of
ethical transgression by a school
psychologist within the past year. Assessment-related
transgressions were witnessed by the greatest
number of respondents. This finding is not surprising because
school-based psychologists typically
spent a large portion of their time in assessment-related
activities. About three fourths of the respon-
dents had witnessed a transgression involving failure to follow-
up on an intervention. Fortunately,
NASP’s code of ethics (2010, Principle II.2) and the literature
on best practices in school psychology
now both place greater emphasis on ensuring that interventions
are successful by monitoring their

implementation and effectiveness, and ensuring alternative
strategies are attempted until satisfactory
outcomes are achieved (e.g., Thomas & Grimes, 2008). About
three fourths of the respondents had
witnessed an ethical transgression in the previous year in which
a colleague yielded to administrative
pressure to make a decision that was not in the best interests of
the student.
The ethical concerns that were ranked in the top three by the
greatest number of respondents
were administrative pressure to act unethically, unsound
educational practices in the schools, and
assessment-related concerns. Although assessment-related
ethical problems may be relatively com-
mon, school psychology practitioners are most concerned about
pressure from administrators to act
unethically and unsound educational practices in the schools.
Ethical worries appear to be partic-
ularly acute when school-based practitioners must balance the
dual roles of student advocate and
school employee (Jacob-Timm, 1999). Jacob, Decker, and
Hartshorne (2011) address ethics, law,
and advocacy and provide some suggestions for speaking up
effectively for students without facing
sanctions by an employer.
Ethical Dilemmas
Almost three fourths of the survey respondents indicated they
had encountered at least one of
eight types of ethical dilemmas within the previous year. The
four dilemmas experienced by the
greatest number of respondents (about one fourth) concerned
whether to contact child protective
services, whether to disclose a student’s risky behavior to his or

her parents, how to address unethical
conduct by a colleague, and how to balance a parent’s request to
view his or her child’s test protocols
with the ethical obligation to maintain test security. These
difficult dilemmas also have been the
focus of research and multiple commentaries. The question of
whether “reasonable suspicion” of
child abuse exists is problematic (see Kalichman, 1999).
Schools are well advised to ensure that
each building has a mental health professional or school nurse
with expertise in child abuse and a
positive working relationship with child protective services.
This individual can seek guidance from
child protective services when difficult questions arise and also
assist in making reports when abuse
is suspected. It is critically important for school staff to
recognize that it is the responsibility of the
child protection agency, not school personnel, to confirm or
disconfirm the existence of suspected
abuse or neglect (Jacob et al., 2011).
About one quarter of respondents experienced the dilemma of
what information to disclose to
the parents of a minor who is engaging in risky behavior. The
NASP (2010) and the APA (2010)
codes of ethics emphasize the importance of discussing the
limits of confidentiality with both the
parents and the student at the outset of establishing a
psychologist-client relationship. This initial
meeting is an opportunity to clearly define what will and will
not be disclosed and to whom. Deciding
whether to break confidentiality when students disclose risky
behavior (e.g., experimentation with
alcohol) may be very challenging, particularly when there is no
clear foreseeable risk of harm (Isaacs

& Stone, 1999; Rae, Sullivan, Razo, & de Alba, 2009). Again,
there are no simple answers. Practice
with vignettes may assist graduate students and practitioners in
developing strategies to handle such
situations.
Tension exists between a parent’s legal right to review the test
protocols of his or her child
and the ethical obligation to maintain test security. This was the
fourth most commonly identified
dilemma. Although this dilemma has been discussed in the
literature since the mid-1970s, it continues
to be an ethical-legal concern (see Jacob et al., 2011; Rosenfeld,
2010).
Finally, it is important to note that respondents who had worked
for 5 or fewer years were
more likely to experience administrative pressure to make a
decision or take actions that are un-
ethical, including pressure to disclose confidential client
information, than their more experienced
counterparts. They also were more likely to be uncertain
regarding appropriate actions when a stu-
dent is at risk for self-harm. These findings further reinforce the
need for more experienced school
psychologists to provide support, guidance, and mentoring to
less experienced practitioners (NASP,
2010, Principle IV).
Strategies to Handle Ethical Dilemmas

Survey participants were asked to identify the types of problem-
solving strategies they used
when handling difficult situations in the previous year. Eberlein
(1987) and others (e.g., Armistead
et al., 2011; Knapp & VandeCreek, 2006; Tymchuk, 1986)
suggested that mastery of an explicit
decision-making model may help psychologists make informed,
well-reasoned choices when dilem-
mas arise in professional practice. Use of a systematic problem-
solving procedure also may assist
psychologists in anticipating and preventing ethical problems
(Sinclair, 1998). In addition, use of a
step-by-step decision-making procedure allows a practitioner to
describe how a decision was made
(Tymchuk, 1986). This may provide some protection when
difficult decisions are challenged and
come under the scrutiny of others (also see Koocher & Keith-
Spiegel, 2008; McNamara, 2008).
In the present study, many practitioners used elements of good
ethics problem solving when
faced with a difficult situation (e.g., consulting with
colleagues), but fewer than half consulted ethics
codes, laws, or other guidelines, and fewer than one quarter
reported using a systematic decision-
making model. As noted previously, respondents who had
received multilevel university training
were more likely to report feeling prepared to address ethical
challenges. They were also more likely
to report using a systematic decision model when faced with a
difficult ethical situation than those
who had not received multilevel ethics preparation.
Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

As anticipated, use of a structured questionnaire to study
ethically challenging situations en-
countered by school psychology practitioners yielded a higher
return rate and a sample that is most
likely more representative of practitioners than the Jacob-Timm
(1999) critical incidents study. One
shortcoming of the present study is that sampling was limited to
the NASP members who made their
addresses available for research purposes (about half of the total
membership). Although respondent
demographics in the present study are similar to those reported
for practicing school psychologists in
NASP’s 2004-2005 survey of its members, it is not possible to
know the extent to which the present
findings can be generalized to the broader intended target
population of public school psychology
practitioners, especially those who are not NASP members.
A disadvantage of using a structured questionnaire is that the
types of ethical dilemmas and
transgressions studied are predetermined by the researcher and
may not reflect the current real-
world concerns of the respondent. The number of nonresponses
to questions regarding whether the
respondent had witnessed a particular ethical transgression or
had experienced one of eight ethical
dilemmas in the previous year ranged from a low of 1 to a high
of 4. Some respondents may have
left these items blank because they had no opportunity to

witness a specific type of transgression
or experience a particular type of dilemma due to their job role
or work setting. To better interpret
nonresponses, future surveys asking participants to indicate
whether they had witnessed specific
ethical transgressions or experienced particular ethical
dilemmas might include a “not applicable to
my job situation” option.
An additional limitation of the present study is that it relied on
the participants’ retrospective
memory of events covering the previous year. It is likely that
respondents generally recollect the most
dramatic/traumatic ethical dilemmas, as well as the most
frequently occurring, irritating, or stressful
transgressions. A prospective study would provide fresher and
more comprehensive information
about ethical problems encountered by school psychology
practitioners. Future researchers might
consider using a confidential online diary that allows
participants to enter information about ethically
challenging experiences over multiple data collection points.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this study provide empirical support for a
planned, multilevel approach to training
school psychologists in ethics. Respondents who received
multilevel training in ethics felt better
prepared to tackle difficult challenges and were more likely to
use a systematic problem-solving
strategy when faced with an ethical dilemma than respondents
who did not receive multilevel
training. Assessment-related ethical violations and failure to
follow up on interventions were the
two most commonly witnessed types of ethical transgressions;

troublesome dilemmas included
whether to suspect child abuse, whether to tell parents about
their child’s risky behavior, and how to
handle administrative pressure to make an unethical decision.
These findings can inform graduate
preparation programs with regard to the content and sequencing
of ethics training to promote student
confidence and competence. Quality mentoring, deliberate
practice in ethics problem solving, and
continuing education are likely necessary for school psychology
practitioners to achieve expertise
in addressing the ethical challenges they encounter.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles
of psychologists and code of conduct. 2010 Amendments.
Retrieved October 18, 2010, from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.
Armistead, L. (2006). NASP leaders guide to continuing
professional development. Retrieved December, 18, 2007, from
http://www.nasponline.org/leadership/CPD Guide.pdf.
Armistead, L., Williams, B. B., & Jacob, S. (2011). Professional
ethics for school psychologists: A problem-solving model
casebook (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of
biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford.
Bernard, J. L., & Jara, C. S. (1986). The failure of clinical
psychology graduate students to apply understood ethical
principles.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 313 – 315.

Betan, E. J., & Stanton, A. L. (1999). Fostering ethical
willingness: Integrating emotional and contextual awareness
with
rational analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 30, 295 – 301.
Chevalier, N. E., & Lyon, M. A. (1993). A survey of ethical
decision making among practicing school psychologists.
Psychology in the Schools, 30, 327 – 337.
Conoley, J. C., & Sullivan, J. R. (2002). Best practices in the
supervision of interns. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology IV (pp. 131 – 144). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Curtis, M. J., Lopez, A. D., Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M.,
Minch, D., & Smith, J.C. (2008). The status of school
psychology:
Demographic characteristics, employment conditions,
professional practices, and continuing professional
development.
Communique, 36, 27 – 29.
Dailor, A. N., & Jacob, S. (2010). Ethical and legal challenges:
Negotiating change. In J. Kaufman, T. L. Hughes, & C. A.
Riccio (Eds.), Handbook of education, training, and supervision
of school psychologists in school and community (Vol.
2, pp. 153 – 168). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.

Debski, J., Spadafore, C. D., Jacob, S., Poole, D. A., & Hixson,
M. D. (2007). Suicide intervention: Training, roles, and
knowledge of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools,
44, 15 – 170.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored
design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1997). Intuitive, deliberative, and calculative
models of expert performance. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein
(Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 17 – 28). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning
psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional
Psychology:
Research and Practice, 18, 353 – 359.
Ericsson, K. A., & Williams, A. M. (2007). Capturing naturally
occurring superior performance in the laboratory: Translational
research on expert performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 13, 115 – 123.
Flanagan, J. (1954). The critical incident technique.
Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327 – 358.
Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. C., Knapp, S. (2005). Training
ethical psychologists: An acculturation model. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 59 – 65.
Harvey, V. S., & Struzziero, J. A. (2008). Professional
development and supervision of school psychologists: From
intern to
expert (2nd ed.). Joint publication of Bethesda, MA: National
Association of School Psychologists & Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

Isaacs, M. L., & Stone, C. (1999). School counselors and
confidentiality: Factors affecting professional choices.
Professional
School Counseling, 2, 258 – 266.
Jacob, S. Decker, D. M., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2011). Ethics and
law for school psychologists (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Jacob-Timm, S. (1999). Ethically challenging situations
encountered by school psychologists. Psychology in the
Schools,
36, 205 – 217.
Kalichman, S. C. (1999). Mandated reporting of suspected child
abuse: Ethics, law, and policy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Knapp, S. J., & VandeCreek, L. D. (2006). Practical ethics for
psychologists: A positive approach. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Knauss, L. K. (2001). Ethical issues in psychological
assessment in school settings. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 77,
231 – 241.
Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). Ethics in
psychology and the mental health professions: Standards and
cases (3rd
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
McNamara, K. (2008). Best practices in the application of
professional ethics. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology V (pp. 1933 – 1941). Bethesda,

MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Meara, M. N., Schmidt, L. D., & Day, J. D. (1996). Principles
and virtues: A foundation for ethical decisions, policy, and
character. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 4 – 77.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010).
Principles for professional ethics. Available from http://
www.nasponline.org.
Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas
encountered by members of the American Psychological
Association:
A national survey. American Psychologist, 47, 397 – 411.
Rae, W. A., Sullivan, J. R., Razo, N. P., & de Alba, R. G.
(2009). Breaking confidentiality to report adolescent risk-taking
behavior by school psychologists, Ethics & Behavior, 19, 449 –
460.
Rosenfeld, S. J. (2010). Must school districts provide test
protocols to parents? Communique, 38, 1, 22 – 26.
Sinclair, C. (1998). Nine unique features of the Canadian Code
of Ethics for Psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 39,
167 – 176.
Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (2008). Best practices in
school psychology V (Vol. 2). Bethesda, MD: National
Association
of School Psychologists.
Tryon, G. S. (2000). Ethical transgressions of school
psychology graduate students: A critical incidents survey.
Ethics &
Behavior, 10, 271 – 279.

Tryon, G. S. (2001). School psychology students’ beliefs about
their preparation and concerns with ethical issues. Ethics &
Behavior, 11, 375 – 394.
Tymchuk, A. J. (1986). Guidelines for ethical decision making.
Canadian Psychology, 27, 36 – 43.
Williams, B. B., Sinko, A., & Epifanio, F. J. (2010). Teaching
ethical and legal issues. In J. Kaufman, T. L. Hughes, & C. A.
Riccio (Eds.), Handbook of education, training, and supervision
of school psychologists in school and community (Vol.
1, pp. 109 – 127). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D.,
Ortiz, S., et al. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for
training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Approach
9th Edition, 2009 ISBN-13: 9780136152705

Writing Assignment for Unit Three
conclusion).
· Plagiarism All work must be free of any form of
plagiarism.
styles.
· 1) What pricing strategies are available to manufacturers?
Examine each, why it is used, and what it does for the
manufacturer.
· 2) Discuss joint ventures, identifying the two primary types,
and explain why a small business might consider using a joint
venture to go global.
· 3) Analyze the criteria for an ideal domain name.
Unit 3
Approach
9th Edition, 2009 ISBN-13: 9780136152705

Writing Assignment for Unit Two
conclusion).
· Plagiarism All work must be free of any form of plagiarism.
styles.
· 1) Examine the seven-step process for ensuring a smooth
transition between owners in the purchase of a company.
· 2) How can the entrepreneur interpret and use the various
business ratios available to him/her?
· 3) If you were having difficulty getting your customers to pay
in a timely manner, what could you do to speed payment?
Approach. 9th Edition, 2009 Norman M. Scarborough,
Douglas L. Wilson, and Thomas W. Zimmerer
Pearson Education
Writing Assignment for Unit One
conclusion).

· Plagiarism All work must be free of any form of plagiarism.
styles.
· Please answer ONE of the following: 1 Exam
1. What can an entrepreneur do to avoid the failure of his/her
company? Examine at least six actions they can take.
2. Analyze core competencies and the role they play in helping
the company segment its market and develop effective
competitive strategies.
3. Examine the benefits of franchising to the franchisee.ination

Effective Small Business Management An Entrepreneurial Approach .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Effective Small Business Management An Entrepreneurial Approach .docx

Similar to Effective Small Business Management An Entrepreneurial Approach .docx (20)

More from jack60216

More from jack60216 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effective Small Business Management An Entrepreneurial Approach .docx