Professional Behavior Expectations

MSP Professional Behavior Expectations

The faculty at MSP has adopted the Council of Chairs of Training Councils (CCTC) model of The Comprehensive Evaluation of Student-Trainee Competence in Professional Psychology Programs (March 2004).

MSP informs students that faculty, training staff, supervisors, and administrators have a professional, ethical, and potentially legal obligation to:

1. establish criteria and methods through which aspects of competence other than, and in addition to, a student-trainee’s knowledge or skills may be assessed (including, but not limited to, emotional stability and well being, interpersonal skills, professional development, and personal fitness for practice); and,
2. ensure—insofar as possible—that the student-trainees who complete their programs are competent to manage future relationships (e.g., client, collegial, professional, public, scholarly, supervisory, teaching) in an effective and appropriate manner. Because of this commitment, and within the parameters of their administrative authority, professional psychology education and training programs, faculty, training staff, supervisors, and administrators strive not to advance, recommend, or graduate students or trainees with demonstrable problems (e.g., cognitive, emotional, psychological, interpersonal, technical, and ethical) that may interfere with professional competence to other programs, the profession, employers, or the public at large.

As such, within a developmental framework, and with due regard for the inherent power difference between students and faculty, students and trainees should know that their faculty, training staff, and supervisors will evaluate their competence in areas other than, and in addition to, coursework, seminars, scholarship, comprehensive examinations, or related program requirements. These evaluative areas include, but are not limited to, demonstration of sufficient:

1. interpersonal and professional competence (e.g., the ways in which student-trainees relate to clients, peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse backgrounds or histories);
2. self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-evaluation (e.g., knowledge of the content and potential impact of one’s own beliefs and values on clients, peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse backgrounds or histories);
3. openness to processes of supervision (e.g., the ability and willingness to explore issues that either interfere with the appropriate provision of care or impede professional development or functioning); and
4. resolution of issues or problems that interfere with professional development or functioning in a satisfactory manner (e.g., by responding constructively to feedback from supervisors or program faculty; by the successful completion of remediation plans; by participating in personal therapy in order to resolve issues or problems).

This policy is applicable to settings and contexts in which evaluation would appropriately occur (e.g., coursework, practica, supervision), rather than settings and contexts that are unrelated to the formal process of education and training (e.g., non-academic, social contexts). However, irrespective of setting or context, when a student-trainee’s conduct clearly and demonstrably:

1. impacts the performance, development, or functioning of the student trainee,
2. raises questions of an ethical nature,
3. represents a risk to public safety, or
4. damages the representation of psychology to the profession or public,

appropriate representatives of the program may review such conduct within the context of the program’s evaluation processes.