| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Doctoral ethics paper |
| Length | About 1,076 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 1
When the Client Is Your Professor: Principles and Standards in a Training Clinic
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
When the Client Is Your Professor: Principles and Standards in a Training Clinic
Maya is a second-year student in a doctoral program in clinical psychology at a composite university in Columbus, Ohio, seeing clients in the program's training clinic under supervision. Her newest client, referred through the university's employee assistance program, turned out at intake to be an associate professor in her own department, a member of the committee that evaluates students' progress. The client seemed relieved to be seen at the clinic, which was convenient and affordable, and said he did not mind. Maya felt uneasy and brought the case to Ruth, the clinic director. Maya, the client, Ruth and the university are all fictional. This paper examines the case.
Principles Behind the Standards
Kitchener (1984) argued that ethical decisions in psychology rest on two levels of reasoning. At the intuitive level, practitioners draw on their ordinary moral sense, shaped by experience and training. When intuitions conflict, are uncertain or seem to lead to harm, practitioners must move to a critical-evaluative level, appealing to ethical rules, such as professional codes, and, beyond them, to principles. She named five such principles. Autonomy asks practitioners to respect people's right to decide for themselves. Nonmaleficence asks them to do no harm, and beneficence to do good. Justice concerns fair sharing of benefits and burdens. Fidelity concerns loyalty, honesty and kept commitments. Professional codes translate these principles into enforceable standards.
The Dilemmas Psychologists Face
Pope and Vetter (1992) mailed a survey to a national sample of American Psychological Association members asking each for one incident from their own work that had posed an ethical problem. Confidentiality was the most frequently reported category, followed closely by blurred, dual or conflicting relationships. Other categories included payment, teaching and training, forensic work and research. Many respondents described situations that the code did not clearly resolve. The findings show that Maya's dilemma, a relationship that overlaps professional roles, is among the most common in the field.
A Model for Multiple Relationships
Gottlieb (1993) proposed a decision model for avoiding exploitive multiple relationships. It considers three dimensions of the current professional relationship: power, the degree of influence the professional has; duration, from brief to long-term; and termination, whether the relationship has a clear end. The professional then considers the same dimensions for the other relationship, consults a colleague and discusses the issues with the client. Relationships with large power differences, long duration and unclear termination carry the greatest risk.
| Principle | Application to the case |
|---|---|
| Autonomy | The client prefers the clinic; his choice deserves respect but depends on understanding the risks |
| Nonmaleficence | Risk of harm to the client if confidentiality feels compromised; to Maya if evaluation is affected |
| Beneficence | The client needs accessible care; the clinic can help him, but perhaps not through Maya |
| Justice | Other students and clients should not be affected by a relationship that could bias evaluations |
| Fidelity | Maya's promise of confidentiality may be hard to keep in a department where she sees him daily |
Applying the Model
In the therapy relationship, Maya holds power as the therapist, and therapy may last months. In the academic relationship, the power runs the other way: the client helps evaluate Maya's progress, and their relationship will continue for years, with no clear end until she graduates. The two relationships carry power in opposite directions, which creates risks for both. Maya might be reluctant to challenge the client in therapy because of his role in her evaluation; the client might later doubt the confidentiality of what he disclosed. Their daily contact in the department leaves no clean separation. By Gottlieb's dimensions, the risk is high.
The Decision
Ruth consulted the clinic's ethics committee, as the training setting required, and concluded that Maya should not treat the client. She met with the client, explained the concerns about confidentiality and evaluation without implying that he had done anything wrong and offered two options: treatment by a licensed staff psychologist with no role in the doctoral program, or referral to a community provider. He chose the staff psychologist. Maya was told only that the client had been reassigned, and records were restricted so that program faculty could not access them. The decision and reasoning were documented.
The Costs
The decision had costs. The client lost a therapist he had begun to trust after one session, and the reassignment could feel like rejection. Ruth addressed this by explaining the reasons openly and by ensuring a warm handoff to the new psychologist.
Alternatives Considered
Ruth considered two alternatives before deciding. The first was to let Maya continue with safeguards: the client would be removed from Maya's evaluation committee, and her supervisor would monitor the therapy closely. This option respected the client's choice, but it could not remove their daily contact in the department or the client's influence through informal channels, and it placed the burden of the arrangement on Maya. The second was to refer the client to a community provider, which would remove all overlap but might reduce his access to affordable care. Reassignment to a staff psychologist outside the program offered most of the benefits of the clinic with few of the risks. Kitchener (1984) noted that principles often conflict and that critical reasoning weighs them in context; here, autonomy and beneficence pointed toward keeping the client at the clinic, while nonmaleficence, justice and fidelity pointed away from Maya treating him.
The Supervisor's Responsibility
In a training clinic, ethical responsibility is shared. Maya did what her training asked, recognizing the problem and bringing it to her supervisor. Ruth, as clinic director, carried responsibility for the decision and for ensuring that clinic procedures, such as screening referrals for program affiliations, prevent the situation in future. The clinic now asks at referral whether the client has any connection to the department.
What the Client Was Told
Ruth's conversation with the client followed the principle of fidelity: she told him plainly why the clinic would not assign him to a student in his department, assured him that his intake information would be restricted and asked whether he had concerns. He said he appreciated the explanation.
Conclusion
Kitchener's principles explain why the case troubled Maya's intuitions and how critical reasoning resolves it, Pope and Vetter's survey shows that such dilemmas are common and Gottlieb's model shows why relationships with power running both ways are high risk. Reassigning the client respected his access to care while protecting confidentiality and the fairness of Maya's evaluation.
References
Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships: A decision-making model. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.30.1.41
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000084123005
Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47(3), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.397
EDP 820 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
The first module of EDP 820 usually asks for a paper on ethical principles and professional standards. Follow the Module 1 instructions in your Aspen course; the clinic is a composite. Explain the principles underlying professional ethics and how they relate to enforceable standards. Use evidence about the dilemmas practitioners face. Apply the principles and a decision model to a case. Identify the relevant standards by topic, such as multiple relationships and confidentiality. Reach and justify a decision. Use APA 7, and apply standards specifically rather than appealing to ethics in general. In a training setting, address the supervisor's responsibility as well as the trainee's, since ethical obligations are shared.
How the EDP 820 Module 1 example is put together
Maya, a composite doctoral student, is assigned a client who teaches in her program. Kitchener's article describes five principles and the move from intuitive to critical-evaluative reasoning when intuitions conflict or fail. Pope and Vetter's survey of members of the American Psychological Association reports the dilemmas psychologists described, with confidentiality and multiple relationships leading. Gottlieb's model weighs power, duration and clarity of termination in multiple relationships. A five-row table applies the principles, and the clinic director reassigns the client to a licensed staff psychologist outside the student's department, with the client's agreement. Sections address the supervisor's role, the alternatives considered and how confidentiality will be protected in the department.
Reading the EDP 820 Module 1 grading rubric
A strong ethics paper connects principles to specific standards and reasons through a case with a stated model. This example explains Kitchener's principles and when critical reasoning is needed. It uses Pope and Vetter's survey to show that the case reflects a common dilemma. Gottlieb's dimensions structure the analysis of the relationship. Each principle is applied to the case in the table, and the decision is justified, documented and discussed with the client. The paper acknowledges the cost of the decision for the client. It also weighs alternatives, including allowing the treatment with safeguards, and explains why they were rejected, which shows critical reasoning rather than a rule applied mechanically. The supervisor's responsibility in a training clinic is addressed, and confidentiality protections are concrete.
EDP 820 Module 1 help from the desk
Ethics papers often name principles without applying them or cite the code generally. Apply each principle to the facts. Name the standards by topic and explain how they apply. Use a decision model and show its steps. Consider the client's perspective and the costs of each option. Document the decision. Consult; in training settings, supervisors carry responsibility. Consider alternatives seriously before rejecting them, including options that allow the relationship with safeguards. In training settings, explain the supervisor's responsibility. Say how confidentiality will be protected in practice, such as restricting records. Discuss the costs of your decision for each person involved. Document the reasoning as well as the decision.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 2: Ethical Judgment and Decision Making
- EDP 820 Module 3: Ethics in Leadership
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 5: The History of Research Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 6: Institutional Review and Informed Consent
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDP 820 Module 8: An Ethics Plan for a Research Study
- EDO 810 Module 4: Systems and Contingency Theory
- EDP 816 Module 7: Culture, Health and Well-Being
- EDP 812 Module 8: An Applied I/O Consulting Report
- EDO 812 Module 1: Defining Innovation and Entrepreneurship
EDP 820 Module 1 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 opens with ethical principles and professional standards, so a paper applying principles and a decision model to a case is typical. Read your Module 1 prompt for details.
What are Kitchener's ethical principles?
Respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice and fidelity, which she argued underlie professional codes and guide reasoning when rules conflict.
What ethical dilemmas do psychologists face most?
Pope and Vetter's survey found confidentiality and blurred, dual or conflicting relationships were the most frequently reported categories.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 1 sample paper?
This page holds the complete paper: five principles, evidence on common dilemmas, a multiple relationship model and a decision in a training clinic.
How should a psychologist decide about a multiple relationship?
Gottlieb's model considers power differences, the duration of the relationship and the clarity of its termination, with consultation and discussion with the client.