Title: Ensuring Ethical Conduct in Supervised Experience for BCBA Certification: Analyzing a Case Study

Thesis Statement:

The case of Marco raises ethical concerns surrounding the violation of Ethics Code 5.04 – Compliance with Behavior Analysts’ Responsibility to Clients, and 6.02 – Behavior Analysts’ Ethical Responsibility to Supervisees. Marco’s actions, under the direction of Dr. Stargyen, reflect a breach of confidentiality and lack of transparency with clients’ parents, highlighting the need to address antecedent factors, implement preventative strategies, and uphold ethical standards in behavior analysis practice.

Rationale for Chosen Code(s):

– Ethics Code 5.04 (Compliance with Behavior Analysts’ Responsibility to Clients): This code emphasizes the obligation to maintain confidentiality and protect the rights and well-being of clients. Marco’s disclosure of research involvement without parental consent violates this code.
– Ethics Code 6.02 (Behavior Analysts’ Ethical Responsibility to Supervisees): This code outlines the responsibilities of supervisors to provide appropriate oversight and guidance to supervisees. Dr. Stargyen’s threat to undermine Marco’s supervision hours contradicts this code.

Code Violation:

Marco’s disclosure of research involvement to the parents without obtaining prior consent violates Ethics Code 5.04, which mandates behavior analysts to safeguard client confidentiality and privacy.

Antecedent Factors Contributing to Scenario:

1. Lack of clear communication between Dr. Stargyen, Marco, and the parents regarding the involvement of participants in research activities.
2. Inadequate training and guidance provided to Marco on handling sensitive information and maintaining confidentiality.
3. Ethical oversight and supervision issues within the university setting leading to misunderstandings and non-compliance with ethical standards.

Preventative Strategies:

1. Establish clear protocols for obtaining informed consent from participants and their parents regarding research involvement.
2. Provide comprehensive training to supervisees on ethical guidelines, confidentiality requirements, and communication protocols.
3. Regularly review and reassess supervision practices to ensure compliance with ethical standards and address any emerging ethical concerns promptly.

Ethical Course of Action:

1. Acknowledge the concerns raised by the parents regarding research involvement and apologize for the lack of transparency.
2. Engage in a dialogue with Dr. Stargyen to address the ethical implications of non-disclosure and seek guidance on handling similar situations in the future.
3. Implement informed consent procedures for research participation, ensuring that all parties are fully informed and consented to involvement.

Future Risk Factors to Keep in Mind:

1. Potential legal repercussions for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and breach of research ethics.
2. Damage to professional relationships with clients and supervisors due to lack of transparency and ethical misconduct.
3. Compromised credibility and reputation within the behavior analysis community for failing to adhere to ethical standards and guidelines.

In conclusion, Marco’s case underscores the critical importance of upholding ethical standards in behavior analysis practice, particularly in supervised experience settings. By addressing antecedent factors, implementing preventative strategies, taking an ethical course of action, and considering future risk factors, behavior analysts can navigate complex ethical dilemmas effectively while ensuring the welfare and rights of clients and supervisees are protected.