Case Studies

There are three (3) Case Studies that make up the Signature Assignment for the course. In each case, use the Welfel (2016) ethical decision making model to address the situation to come up with a plan. Make sure that you review the following references while writing up the paper.(Files attached)

FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 1 of 6
Signature Assignment Details
Signature Assignment Information
A signature assignment is an assignment, task, activity, project, or exam used to collect evidence of student learning for a specific
program learning outcome(s). The PLO rubric is used to assess the signature assignment and the cumulative results are used as part
of a program’s reporting on student learning in the annual report or self-study. Other coursework can build toward the signature
assignment, meaning that the signature assignment integrates cumulative knowledge of what the student learned in a particular
course or set of courses for a particular program learning outcome(s). Like other assignments, a signature assignment is graded
numerically to be factored into the final course grade.
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
For the signature assignment for this course, students will apply an ethical decision-making model to each of the three cases below.
The paper should be an integrative, critical review of each case while integrating the most current version of the American Counseling
Association (ACA) Code of Ethics as a primary resource. Students may integrate additional materials such as additional ethical codes
or laws pertaining to the cases, however the ACA Code should be the primary reference in the paper. The additional codes should be
discussed with the instructor prior to adding them to the paper.
Below is the ethical decision-making model that students must use for each case. Students are to produce one paper that separates
each of the three vignettes and uses the ten (10) steps of the Welfel (2016) decision making model to resolve the dilemma. In each
step, students should write in a clear, logical manner while including references as needed in order to thoroughly address each step.
Students should not merely state that a step was complete without discussing all relevant aspects of that step. Each case will be
approximately 4-6 pages long not including title page or references. This means that your paper will end up being approximately 14-
20 pages including title page and references in APA style format. Please read the chapter associated with the Welfel model for ethical
decision making as this will assist how you address each step.
Ethical Decision-Making Model
Welfel, E.R. (2016). A Model for Ethical Practice: Using Resources to Enhance Individual Judgment and Ethical Resolve.
Step 1: Develop ethical sensitivity, integrating personal and professional values.
Step 2: Clarify facts, stakeholders, and the sociocultural context of the case.
Step 3: Define the central issues and the available options.
Step 4: Refer to professional standards, guidelines, and relevant law/regulations.
Step 5: Search out ethics scholarship.
Step 6: Apply ethical principles to the situation.
Step 7: Consult with supervisor and respected colleagues.
Step 8: Deliberate and decide.
Step 9: Inform supervisor, implement and document decision-making process and actions.
Step 10: Reflect on the experience.
Suggested Format of Paper (APA Style)
I. Title Page
II. Case #1: Ethical Decision-Making Model Analysis
a. Review steps 1-10, while incorporating relevant diversity variables and ethical and professional codes/standards
and necessary details from the Welfel model.
III. Case #2: Ethical Decision-Making Model Analysis
a. Review steps 1-10, while incorporating relevant diversity variables and ethical and professional codes/standards
and necessary details from the Welfel model.
IV. Case #3: Ethical Decision-Making Model Analysis
a. Review steps 1-10, while incorporating relevant diversity variables and ethical and professional codes/standards
and necessary details from the Welfel model.
V. Reference Page
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 2 of 6
CASES
In each of the following dilemmas, use the Welfel (2016) ethical decision-making model to address the situation to come up with a
plan. Make sure that you review the following references while writing up the paper.
Mandatory references
• American Counseling Association (2014). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.
https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
• Welfel, E.R. (2016). A Model for Ethical Practice: Using Resources to Enhance Individual Judgment and Ethical Resolve.
Please discuss supplemental references (additional codes, laws, book chapters, etc.) with your instructor prior to including in your
paper.
Case #1:
You are an intern at an outpatient center where juveniles have been mandated by court to receive your services, which include
psycho-education on anger and stress management to clients from diverse backgrounds and socioeconomic status. You have
employed all of the strategies that you were taught in graduate school, researched the topics, and tried to consult with your
supervisor regularly. However, your supervisor always tells you that you are doing fine and supervision is not needed because you are
doing such a good job. Your supervisor does not even listen to you when you have questions and does not appear to be monitoring
the client’s progress. You are not licensed as a counselor, but want to be licensed in your state, so you need the appropriate forms
signed by your supervisor, which indicate that you completed your hours and required supervision. You have questions about what
you are doing, especially since your clients have world views different than yourself.
Case #2:
Your adult client has been arrested on several occasions, which resulted in your client having a long criminal record, being on
probation, and being incarcerated on a number of occasions. The client was arrested and convicted for selling controlled substances.
You were asked to visit the client to complete a current mental status and provide recommendations to the court. The client’s mental
status exam did not yield any clinically significant issues. The client reported having positive thoughts about going home. The client
has stated that they have learned a life lesson and will “never do anything against the law again.” The client denied having any
distressing dreams, hallucinations, no manic or depressive episodes, and no problems with sleeping. The client reported no concerns
about appetite and had no changes in the last few weeks. The client agreed that the medications were working well for diagnosed
Bipolar I Disorder. Upon questioning about the client’s children, the client said the children have visited about four times since this
last incarceration, and the client was happy about those visits. During your evaluation, you notice that you have started to have
romantic feelings toward the client because the client seems like a nice person. You have decided that the client was in the wrong
place at the wrong time and had to do what was needed to in order to survive. You have never felt this strongly about a client in the
past.
Case #3:
You are working with a client who is from a different religion than you and has strong beliefs about religion. You know very little
about the religion or the religious practices so you have some reservations working with the client due to your lack of knowledge and
how your lack of knowledge could negatively affect your therapeutic relationship. The client does not always answer your questions,
is somewhat evasive, and insists on taking breaks to pray or meditate during the evaluation process. You know you are not supposed
to cause harm to clients but are feeling hesitant to continue the evaluation process due to your lack of knowledge and familiarity with
the client’s diverse background. You also think that the client may not open up to you due to your differences. You want to refer the
client to someone else but are not sure if that is appropriate. You are receiving supervision in the process and your supervisor thinks
that you are able to handle this case competently.
The grading rubrics for each case are below, totaling 300 points (100 points for each case).
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 3 of 6
CASE 1 RUBRIC
Points Student’s
Score Does Not Meet Criteria Somewhat Lacking Meets Criteria
Case #1:
(100 points)
Review of
Ethical
Decision
Making
Model and
Ethical
Codes
(____ of 80
points total)
Welfel (2016) Model
There are ethical decisionmaking model steps missing,
or review of all steps was
poorly integrated and/or
there are 4+ missing
elements. No ethical and
professional codes are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant. Information is
unclear throughout.
Complete absence of analytic
and critical thinking skills.
There is a poor discussion of
the subject matter, and
absence of analytic and
critical thinking skills.
(0-64)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making model
steps are reviewed, however, not
thoroughly and missing 1-3
crucial elements. Only one ethical
and professional code, standard,
guideline, and/or law is
discussed, or peripheral codes or
guidelines are mentioned.
Information is not thorough, may
be unclear/vague during some
sections and difficult to
understand or follow. There is
some difficulty with analytic and
critical thinking and writing skills.
Information presented has some
inaccuracies and/or irrelevancies.
(64.5-72)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making
model steps are reviewed
thoroughly. At least two ethical
and professional codes,
standards, guidelines, and/or
laws related to the topic are
discussed. Information is
presented clearly, completely,
and across all sections of the
paper. The subject matter is
clearly discussed. Information
presented is accurate and
relevant to the field of forensic
psychology and/or counseling in
general and case facts in
particular. Analytic and critical
thinking skills are demonstrated
throughout.
(72.5-80)
Diversity
Variables
(____ of 10
points total)
Diversity Variables
No diversity variables are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant.
(0-7.5)
Diversity Variables
Only one diversity variable is
discussed, or peripheral diversity
variables are mentioned.
(8-8.5)
Diversity Variables
At least two diversity variables
related to the topic are
discussed.
(9-10)
Grammar/
Organization
(____ of 10
points)
There are at least 6
violations of APA rules and at
least 3 or more missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in at least 3 sections.
There are no headers.
Multiple spelling (5+) or
grammatical errors are
made. (0-7.5)
There are less than 5 APA rule
violations and/or 3-5 missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in 1-2 sections
(unfocused paragraphs, poor
topic sentences, poor
transitions). Several (1-4) spelling
or grammatical errors are made.
(8-8.5)
All APA rules are followed for
citations, quotes, references,
etc. Paragraphs, topic
sentences, and transitions aid in
understanding main points.
Information is presented
logically. No spelling or
grammatical errors are made.
(9-10)
Case #1:
POINTS
POSSIBLE
(100)
(_______ of 100 points)
Case 2 Rubric on next page.
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 4 of 6
CASE 2 RUBRIC
Points Student’s
Score Does Not Meet Criteria Somewhat Lacking Meets Criteria
Case #2:
(100 points)
Review of
Ethical
Decision
Making
Model and
Ethical
Codes
(____ of 80
points total)
Welfel (2016) Model
There are ethical decisionmaking model steps missing,
or review of all steps was
poorly integrated and/or
there are 4+ missing
elements. No ethical and
professional codes are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant. Information is
unclear throughout.
Complete absence of analytic
and critical thinking skills.
There is a poor discussion of
the subject matter, and
absence of analytic and
critical thinking skills.
(0-64)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making model
steps are reviewed, however, not
thoroughly and missing 1-3
crucial elements. Only one ethical
and professional code, standard,
guideline, and/or law is
discussed, or peripheral codes or
guidelines are mentioned.
Information is not thorough, may
be unclear/vague during some
sections and difficult to
understand or follow. There is
some difficulty with analytic and
critical thinking and writing skills.
Information presented has some
inaccuracies and/or irrelevancies.
(64.5-72)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making
model steps are reviewed
thoroughly. At least two ethical
and professional codes,
standards, guidelines, and/or
laws related to the topic are
discussed. Information is
presented clearly, completely,
and across all sections of the
paper. The subject matter is
clearly discussed. Information
presented is accurate and
relevant to the field of forensic
psychology and/or counseling in
general and case facts in
particular. Analytic and critical
thinking skills are demonstrated
throughout.
(72.5-80)
Diversity
Variables
(____ of 10
points total)
Diversity Variables
No diversity variables are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant.
(0-7.5)
Diversity Variables
Only one diversity variable is
discussed, or peripheral diversity
variables are mentioned.
(8-8.5)
Diversity Variables
At least two diversity variables
related to the topic are
discussed.
(9-10)
Grammar/
Organization
(____ of 10
points)
There are at least 6
violations of APA rules and at
least 3 or more missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in at least 3 sections.
There are no headers.
Multiple spelling (5+) or
grammatical errors are
made. (0-7.5)
There are less than 5 APA rule
violations and/or 3-5 missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in 1-2 sections
(unfocused paragraphs, poor
topic sentences, poor
transitions). Several (1-4) spelling
or grammatical errors are made.
(8-8.5)
All APA rules are followed for
citations, quotes, references,
etc. Paragraphs, topic
sentences, and transitions aid in
understanding main points.
Information is presented
logically. No spelling or
grammatical errors are made.
(9-10)
Case #2:
POINTS
POSSIBLE
(100)
(_______ of 100 points)
Case 3 rubric on next page.
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 5 of 6
CASE 3 RUBRIC
Points Student’s
Score Does Not Meet Criteria Somewhat Lacking Meets Criteria
Case #3:
(100 points)
Review of
Ethical
Decision
Making
Model and
Ethical
Codes
(____ of 80
points total)
Welfel (2016) Model
There are ethical decisionmaking model steps missing,
or review of all steps was
poorly integrated and/or
there are 4+ missing
elements. No ethical and
professional codes are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant. Information is
unclear throughout.
Complete absence of analytic
and critical thinking skills.
There is a poor discussion of
the subject matter, and
absence of analytic and
critical thinking skills.
(0-64)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making model
steps are reviewed, however, not
thoroughly and missing 1-3
crucial elements. Only one ethical
and professional code, standard,
guideline, and/or law is
discussed, or peripheral codes or
guidelines are mentioned.
Information is not thorough, may
be unclear/vague during some
sections and difficult to
understand or follow. There is
some difficulty with analytic and
critical thinking and writing skills.
Information presented has some
inaccuracies and/or irrelevancies.
(64.5-72)
Welfel (2016) Model
All ethical decision-making
model steps are reviewed
thoroughly. At least two ethical
and professional codes,
standards, guidelines, and/or
laws related to the topic are
discussed. Information is
presented clearly, completely,
and across all sections of the
paper. The subject matter is
clearly discussed. Information
presented is accurate and
relevant to the field of forensic
psychology and/or counseling in
general and case facts in
particular. Analytic and critical
thinking skills are demonstrated
throughout.
(72.5-80)
Diversity
Variables
(____ of 10
points total)
Diversity Variables
No diversity variables are
discussed, or they are
irrelevant.
(0-7.5)
Diversity Variables
Only one diversity variable is
discussed, or peripheral diversity
variables are mentioned.
(8-8.5)
Diversity Variables
At least two diversity variables
related to the topic are
discussed.
(9-10)
Grammar/
Organization
(____ of 10
points)
There are at least 6
violations of APA rules and at
least 3 or more missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in at least 3 sections.
There are no headers.
Multiple spelling (5+) or
grammatical errors are
made. (0-7.5)
There are less than 5 APA rule
violations and/or 3-5 missing or
incorrect citations and
references. Organization is
unclear in 1-2 sections
(unfocused paragraphs, poor
topic sentences, poor
transitions). Several (1-4) spelling
or grammatical errors are made.
(8-8.5)
All APA rules are followed for
citations, quotes, references,
etc. Paragraphs, topic
sentences, and transitions aid in
understanding main points.
Information is presented
logically. No spelling or
grammatical errors are made.
(9-10)
Case #3:
POINTS
POSSIBLE
(100)
(_______ of 100 points)
Total for all 3 Cases
TOTAL
POINTS
POSSIBLE
(300)
(_______ of 300 points)
Program Learning Outcomes Rubric on next page
FO611 Ethics and Professional Issues
Page 6 of 6
Program Learning Outcome Rubric
The Program Learning Outcome (PLO) Rubric will be utilized to assess the student’s level of performance for the PLO associated with
this course: Ethics. In addition to receiving a numerical grade for this assignment, students will also receive a rating along a scale of 1
(Novice Level Performance) to 4 (Graduate Level Performance) for the PLO.
Program Learning
Outcome (PLO)
Performance Level 1
(Novice)
Performance Level 2
(Internship)
Performance Level 3
(Entry-level)
Performance Level 4
(Graduate)
Ethics: Students will
be able to organize
professional activities
by ethical and
professional codes,
standards, and
guidelines; statutes,
rules, and regulations;
and relevant case law.
Student’s integration of
ethical and professional
codes is minimal to none.
There is not a commitment
to identify relevant codes.
Student leaves 2+
pertinent codes out of the
analysis and/or discusses
codes in a vague or
tangential manner.
Student does not display
ethical values and/or does
not recognize own moral
attitudes. Student does
not demonstrate
knowledge on identifying
and applying an ethical
decision-making model
effectively and needs
significant direction from
supervisor/ instructor
(tutoring on 3+ occasions).
Student manifests little to
no understanding of the
relationship between laws,
standards, and
professional activities.
Student needs moderate
to significant direction to
appreciate and resolve
ethical conflict between
codes and laws.
Student integrates ethical
and professional codes,
standards, and
regulations into
professional practice,
however code sections
are not relevant or
pertinent to the issues.
Student omits at least 1
pertinent code section.
Student does not fully
recognize own moral
attitudes. Student
demonstrates knowledge
on identifying and
applying an ethical
decision-making model,
however not effectively
and needs moderate
direction from
supervisor/ instructor
(tutoring on 2+
occasions). Student
manifests adequate
understanding of the
relationship between
laws, standards, and
professional activities.
Student needs minimal to
moderate direction to
appreciate and resolve
ethical conflict between
codes and laws.
Student is committed
to integrating ethical
and professional codes,
standards, and
regulations into
professional practice.
Student may leave one
peripheral code section
out but displays ethical
values and recognizes
own moral attitudes.
Student demonstrates
knowledge on
identifying and
effectively applying an
ethical decision-making
model. Student
manifests good
understanding of the
relationship between
laws, standards, and
professional activities.
Student is able to
appreciate and resolve
ethical conflict
between codes and
laws satisfactorily.
Student is committed
to integrating ethical
and professional
codes, standards,
and regulations into
professional practice.
Student recognizes
own moral attitudes,
such as accepting
opposing viewpoints
as valid despite
disagreement.
Student
spontaneously
identifies,
internalizes, and
effectively applies an
ethical decisionmaking model.
Student manifests indepth understanding
of the relationship
between laws,
standards, and
professional
activities. Student is
able to appreciate
and resolve ethical
conflict between
codes and laws at the
advanced level.