Applying career ethics in practice: SDS mock client
A one- to two-page application built around a mock client and their Holland code, where two ethical codes are required and the sharpest point is that interests are not aptitudes.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 8, 2026
What does “SDS type code” actually mean here?
One to two pages against three deliverables makes this an exercise in compression, and the way to survive it is to notice that the first bullet is not really an essay task. *Create a “mock” client that you can describe in one paragraph, including the client's current goals, resources, and their Self-Directed Search (SDS) type code* — the brief has already specified the length and the three contents. Write it as one tight paragraph and move on; the marks live in the second and third bullets. Design the client deliberately rather than generically, because a client whose goals sit slightly awkwardly against their SDS results gives you something ethical to discuss, while a client whose interests neatly match their plan gives you nothing. Deciding that tension first also tells you which ethical standards you will need, which is the fastest route through a paper this short.
The **SDS type code** is the one technical detail this assignment can check precisely, and it is routinely fudged. The Self-Directed Search yields a Holland code: a three-letter summary drawn from Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising and Conventional, ordered by the strength of the client's expressed interests. So the answer looks like **SEA** or **IRC**, not “the client enjoys helping people and is quite organised”. Give the code, say what the three letters are, and note the differentiation between them — a client with three near-equal scores is a very different interpretive problem from one with a clear first letter, and that difference is itself worth a sentence. The Occupations Finder that accompanies the instrument turns a code into a list of occupations to explore, and mentioning that step shows you know what the tool is for rather than only what it produces.
The strongest ethical content available to you is the distinction between interest and aptitude. The SDS measures what a client is drawn to, not what they are capable of and not how likely they are to succeed — and treating a Holland code as a prediction of performance is simultaneously a psychometric error and an ethical one, because the client will act on what you tell them. Say so explicitly in the follow-up discussion. The related point is that the SDS is self-administered and self-scored, which shifts your responsibility rather than removing it: your obligations are to confirm the scoring, to interpret rather than hand over, and to check the instrument is appropriate for this client before it is taken. Both points are worth stating as decisions you made rather than as principles you hold, because the brief asks how you would work with this client.
*Include specific relevant ethical standards from the NCDA code and from the ethical code most closely associated with your discipline* is two codes, not one, and **specific** means cited by section rather than characterised. That is the requirement most often half-met: a paper quotes NCDA at length and gestures at the ACA or APA code in a closing sentence. Choose the standards that actually bear on what you are doing — competence to select, administer and interpret an instrument, informed consent before assessment, releasing results with adequate explanation, and the multicultural and fairness provisions that both codes carry for career assessment. Four well-chosen standards beat a survey of either code. Quote a clause rather than paraphrasing it where the wording carries the obligation, since a paraphrase of an ethical standard usually loses the qualification that made it binding.
*Follow-up steps after the SDS* is the phrase that makes this a counselling assignment rather than an assessment one, and it is where a short paper tends to stop early. Administration is a paragraph; what follows is the work — interpreting the code with the client rather than to them, exploring occupations against it, testing the fit between the results and the goals and resources you gave the client in bullet one, and deciding what happens if they conflict. Note the sourcing rule too, since it is unusual: you provide a reference list **only** for resources not in the course Learning Resources, so the textbook and the codes are cited in text without appearing on your reference page. Read that clause carefully before you build the reference page, because listing everything is the more obvious mistake and it is the one the instruction is written to prevent.
Bullet | What it requires | The version that loses marks |
|---|---|---|
Mock client | One paragraph: goals, resources, SDS code | Half a page of backstory |
SDS type code | A three-letter Holland code, e.g. SEA | A prose description of interests |
Ethical work with the client | Competence, consent, interpretation | General statements about respect |
Administration | Suitability checked before it is taken | The instrument assumed appropriate |
Follow-up steps | Interpretation, exploration, planning | Delivering the results and stopping |
NCDA standards | Cited by section, chosen for relevance | A summary of the code's themes |
Discipline code | ACA or APA, at equal depth | A closing sentence acknowledging it exists |
Reference list | Only sources outside the Learning Resources | Everything listed, including the textbook |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Report an interest inventory result in the form the instrument actually produces.
- 02Distinguish what a career interest measure does and does not predict.
- 03Apply named ethical standards from two codes to a specific assessment decision.
- 04Plan the interpretive work that follows an assessment rather than ending at administration.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
What the one- to two-page career ethics application needs
- 01A one-paragraph mock client with goals, resources and an SDS type code.
- 02A discussion of how you would ethically work with that client.
- 03Coverage of SDS administration and of the follow-up steps after it.
- 04Specific relevant standards from the NCDA Code of Ethics.
- 05Specific relevant standards from the ACA or APA code.
- 06A one- to two-page submission.
- 07A reference list covering only resources outside the course Learning Resources.
From mock client to administration, follow-up and standards
The mock client
One paragraph covering goals, resources and the SDS type code.
Before the SDS
Address suitability, consent and what the client is told the instrument will do.
Administering the SDS
Describe how the self-administered, self-scored format is handled responsibly.
Follow-up and interpretation
Work the code through with the client and into occupational exploration and planning.
The ethical standards applied
Name the NCDA and ACA or APA standards that governed each decision above.
Finding the assessment provisions in both ethical codes
Recommended databases
- The current NCDA Code of Ethics
- The ACA or APA code of ethics
- The course textbook chapter on ethics
- PubMed Central
Search sequence
- 1.Read both codes' assessment sections before writing anything, because the brief wants specific standards and the relevant ones cluster in the assessment provisions rather than being spread through the code.
- 2.Look up the Holland model itself rather than relying on the SDS report format, so the code you assign your mock client is internally coherent and you can say what its letters mean.
- 3.Search for evidence on what interest inventories predict, which is what makes the interest-versus-aptitude point an argument rather than an assertion.
- 4.Check the multicultural and fairness provisions in both codes specifically, since career assessment is one of the areas where they are written to apply directly.
Career assessment and counselling ethics sources
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
18REST: a short RIASEC-interest measure for large-scale educational and vocational assessment
Psicologica · 2018
Grounds the Holland code you assign your mock client. It sets out the RIASEC dimensions and how interest measures are constructed and validated, which is what lets you say what a three-letter code represents — and, just as importantly, what it is measuring, since the whole ethical argument about interests and aptitudes rests on that.
- 02
Personality and Person-Work Environment Fit: A Study Based on the RIASEC Model
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2022
Evidence for the congruence idea the SDS rests on — that outcomes relate to the fit between a person's type and their environment. Cite it in the follow-up section, where you are arguing that a code is useful for exploring occupational fit while stopping short of predicting whether the client will succeed in any of them.
- 03
Counseling Ethics & ACA Code of Ethics Resources
American Counseling Association · 2025
The access point for the discipline code half of the requirement if your discipline is counselling. Go to the assessment section rather than the code's opening principles, because the standards this assignment needs — competence to administer and interpret, consent before assessment, and how results are released and explained — are the ones that map onto the decisions you are describing.
- 04
NCDA
National Career Development Association · 2025
The brief names the NCDA code specifically, so it has to appear and it has to be cited by section. Its ethical standards cover career assessment directly, including the selection and use of instruments and the multicultural considerations that apply when interpreting interest results — the provisions your administration and follow-up sections are actually governed by.
Before the career ethics application is submitted
Common mistakes
- Spending a page on the client and leaving no room for the ethical analysis.
- Describing interests in prose instead of giving the three-letter Holland code.
- Ignoring differentiation, so a flat profile is interpreted as confidently as a clear one.
- Treating the SDS as a measure of ability or of likely success.
- Assuming the self-administered format removes the counsellor's responsibility for scoring and interpretation.
- Citing only the NCDA code and mentioning ACA or APA in passing.
- Referring to standards by theme rather than by section.
- Choosing standards that are prominent rather than relevant to assessment.
- Stopping at administration when the brief names follow-up steps explicitly.
- Listing the textbook and the ethical codes on the reference page despite the instruction not to.
Submission checklist
- The client description is one paragraph and includes goals, resources and an SDS code.
- The SDS code is three Holland letters.
- The interest-versus-aptitude distinction is stated.
- Suitability of the instrument for this client is addressed before administration.
- Follow-up steps are described, not just the administration.
- Standards from the NCDA code are cited specifically.
- Standards from ACA or APA are cited at comparable depth.
- At least one standard concerns competence in assessment.
- At least one concerns informed consent or explaining results.
- The submission is one to two pages.
- The reference list excludes course Learning Resources.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.