Get personal help with your studies from any of the 45,000 experienced experts on Studybay

  • No intermediaries
  • No plagiarism
  • Any Subject
  • Always on time

Here’s an example of project completed by our experts:

Ethics in Assesment Paper (Example)

Document Preview:

Ethics and Assessment: Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Ethics and Assessment: Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) The Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) is a legal case touching united states labor law which was determined in the United States Supreme Court that the fire department of New Haven unlawfully discriminated against ramification of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court’s decision was that the Fire Department had unfairly kept the plaintiffs from having job promotions based on their race. The case arose after the Fire Department in 2003 offered promotional vacancies to fire department through examinations. Those who took the lieutenant examinations where seventy-seven firefighters of the New Haven station while forty-one firefighters took for the captain openings ("Ricci v. DeStefano 557 U.S. 557 (2009)" 2018). When results were out the passage rate of black fighter fighters who had taken the examinations was around half of the corresponding should not have feared litigation and the expense of lawfully successful candidates. The lower courts should have considered the role of normalization in admitting evidence tabled by the respondents. References Biddle R. & Biddle D. (2013). What Public-Sector Employers Need to Know About Promotional Practices Procedures and Tests in Public Safety Promotional Processes. Public Personnel Management  42(2) 151-190. Gasquoine P. (2009). Race-Norming of Neuropsychological Tests. Neuropsychology Review  19(2) 250-262. Miao W. (2010). Did the Results of Promotion Exams Have a Disparate Impact on Minorities? Using Statistical Evidence in Ricci v. DeStefano. Journal of Statistics Education  18(3). C. (2013). An Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. Public Personnel Management  42(1) 41-54. Ricci v. DeStefano 557 U.S. 557 (2009). (2018). Justia Law. Retrieved 23 March 2018 from Rutherglen G. (2009). Ricci v DeStefano: Affirmative Action and the Lessons of Adversity. The Supreme Court Review  2009(1) 83-114. [...]

Order Description:

Resource: the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics Select a legal case from the list in Table 2-1 in Ch. 2 of Psychological Testing and Assessment or another case related to psychological assessment. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Employment testing materials and procedures must be essential to the job and not discriminate against persons with handicaps. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended in 1991), also known as the Equal Opportunity Employment Act It is an unlawful employment practice to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of employment-related tests on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (1974) Parents and eligible students must be given access to school records, and have a right to challenge findings in records by a hearing. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) New federal privacy standards limit the ways in which health care providers and others can use patients’ personal information. Education for All Handicapped Children (PL 94-142) (1975 and then amended several times thereafter, including IDEA of 1997 and 2004) Screening is mandated for children suspected to have mental or physical handicaps. Once identified, an individual child must be evaluated by a professional team qualified to determine that child’s special educational needs. The child must be reevaluated periodically. Amended in 1986 to extend disability-related protections downward to infants and toddlers. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 (PL 105-17) Children should not be inappropriately placed in special education programs due to cultural differences. Schools should accommodate existing test instruments and other alternate means of assessment for the purpose of gauging the progress of special education students as measured by state- and district-wide assessments. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) This reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 was designed to “close the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” by, among other things, setting strict standards for school accountability and establishing periodic assessments to gauge the progress of school districts in improving academic achievement. The “battle cry” driving this legislation was “Demographics are not destiny!” However, by 2012, it was clear that many, perhaps the majority of states, sought or will seek waivers to opt out of NCLB and what has been viewed as its demanding bureaucratic structure, and overly ambitious goals. Hobson v. Hansen (1967) U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ability tests developed on Whites could not lawfully be used to track Black students in the school system. To do so could result in resegregation of desegregated schools. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1974) Therapists (and presumably psychological assessors) must reveal privileged information if a third party is endangered. In the words of the Court, “Protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.” Larry P. v. Riles (1979 and reaffirmed by the same judge in 1986) California judge ruled that the use of intelligence tests to place Black children in special classes had a discriminatory impact because the tests were “racially and culturally biased.” Debra P. v. Turlington (1981) Federal court ruled that minimum competency testing in Florida was unconstitutional because it perpetuated the effects of past discrimination. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Black employees brought suit against a private company for discriminatory hiring practices. The U.S. Supreme Court found problems with “broad and general testing devices” and ruled that tests must “fairly measure the knowledge or skills required by a particular job.” Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody (1976) An industrial psychologist at a paper mill found that scores on a general ability test predicted measures of job performance. However, as a group, Whites scored better than Blacks on the test. The U.S. District Court found the use of the test to be sufficiently job related. An appeals court did not. It ruled that discrimination had occurred, however unintended. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) When Alan Bakke, who had been denied admission, learned that his test scores were higher than those of some minority students who had gained admission to the University of California at Davis medical school, he sued. A highly divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Bakke should be admitted, but it did not preclude the use of diversity considerations in admission decisions. Allen v. District of Columbia (1993) Blacks scored lower than Whites on a city fire department promotion test based on specific aspects of firefighting. The court found in favor of the fire department, ruling that “the promotional examination … was a valid measure of the abilities and probable future success of those individuals taking the test.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena et al. (1995) A construction firm competing for a federal contract brought suit against the federal government after it lost a bid to a minority-controlled competitor, which the government had retained instead in the interest of affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a close (5–4) decision, found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the government’s affirmative action policy violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled, “Government may treat people differently because of their race only for the most compelling reasons.” Jaffee v. Redmond (1996) Communication between a psychotherapist and a patient (and presumably a psychological assessor and a client) is privileged in federal courts. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) In a highly divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of race in admissions decisions on a time-limited basis to further the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Mitchell v. State, 192 P.3d 721 (Nev. 2008) Does a court order for a compulsory psychiatric examination of the defendant in a criminal trial violate that defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination? Given the particular circumstances of the case (see Leahy et al., 2010), the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s right to avoid self-incrimination was not violated by the trial court’s order to have him undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in this case had implications for the ways in which government agencies can and cannot institute race-conscious remedies in hiring and promotional practices. Employers in the public sector were forbidden from e-hiring or promoting personnel using certain practices (such as altering a cutoff score to avoid adverse impact) unless the practice has been demonstrated to have a “strong basis in evidence.” Write a 1,400 word paper discussing: The background of your selected case and the legal implications of the decision An analysis of the biases related to the assessments in the case The ethical implications for diverse populations in relationship to the case The role of norming in creating bias Format your paper according to APA guidelines. This paper is due by Friday, March 23, [email protected] 8pm CST

Subject Area: Psychology

Document Type: Dissertation

This project has already been completed by one of the Studybay experts. The client rated this project:

Project's rating is 5/5

Price $30

Words 825

Pages 3

Completed in 4 days

Expert Ephraim Noah

Client Review

Once again, this writer has completed the assignment before the deadline and provided a quality paper!


Similar projects

Subject of the project is Psychology   Type of the project is Dissertation

Stakeholder Analysis Part I

Need Help With a Project on This or Another Topic?

Cooperate with seasoned experts directly — create your project now and start getting help in 2 minutes.

Money-Back Guarantee

Support 24/7

No Hidden Charges

Studybay top experts

Reviews from Studybay Community

  • Our Studybay rating is:
  • Our ReviewCentre rating is:
  • Our SiteJabber rating is: