PsychologyWorksheetProfessional ethics

PSYCH 660 case study seven worksheet guide: Dr. Vaji

A PSYCH/660 worksheet on the Vaji-Watson supervision case: identify the ethical issues, hidden agendas, and stakeholder obligations, map the Ethics Code principles and standards, and choose and implement a defensible resolution.

Aug 12, 2026

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 12, 2026

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

What makes the Vaji-Watson case an ethics case?

The case earns its place in the ethics course by giving Dr. Vaji three entangled roles — course instructor, externship faculty supervisor, and gatekeeper who assigns the final grade — and then feeding him troubling information through a channel that touches all three. Students from his class report Leo's derogatory ethnic labels and dismissive behavior outside the classroom; Leo's thought papers and role-play conduct already show a pattern; and the on-site supervisor's evaluations, the document trail that formally matters, may or may not corroborate any of it. The worksheet's early questions ask for the ethical issues and everyone's competing interests, and the strong answer inventories them honestly: the welfare of the ethnic-minority school clients Leo currently serves, Leo's due-process rights as a student being judged partly on hearsay, the complaining students' confidentiality and possible motives, the university's obligations to the externship sites, and Dr. Vaji's own multiple-relationship problem in judging a student he supervises in two settings at once.

The code-mapping questions reward the same define-then-justify discipline the course has practiced all term, applied here to a live personnel dilemma. The aspirational principles that bite hardest in this case are justice and respect for people's rights and dignity — Leo's conduct implicates both toward clients — alongside beneficence and nonmaleficence for the adolescents in his care and fidelity and responsibility for Vaji's gatekeeping duty. On the enforceable side, the human relations cluster around unfair discrimination and harassment, the competence standards — including the question of multicultural competence as a clinical competence rather than a political preference — and the education and training standards governing student evaluation on the basis of actual program performance are the ones to argue in the code's own language, each of them tied to a specific named behavior from the case record rather than asserted in a bare list.

The resolution questions are decision-theory questions, and the worksheet's own citation — the course text on decoding the ethics code — supplies the method: generate genuine alternatives rather than one obvious answer flanked by strawmen. Vaji's realistic options run from informal remediation conversations, through verifying the reports and gathering the site supervisor's observations, to formal competence-remediation planning or affecting the evaluation itself — and the worksheet asks which alternative best serves the aspirational principles, enforceable standards, legal obligations, and stakeholders at once, which is an argument you must actually make. The implementation question then wants visible process: documentation at every step, transparency with Leo about what was reported and what happens next, coordination with the site supervisor, realistic timelines, and the monitoring loop that checks whether client welfare and Leo's professional development both actually improved. Answering it as a sequence with checkpoints, not a gesture, is what completes the worksheet.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

01
Inventory the ethical issues and every stakeholder's competing interests, including client welfare and Leo's due process.
02
Name Dr. Vaji's multiple-relationship problem across instructor, supervisor, and gatekeeper roles.
03
Map the applicable aspirational principles and enforceable standards to named case behaviors, in the code's language.
04
Generate genuine resolution alternatives and argue which best serves code, law, and stakeholders together.
05
Write implementation as a documented, monitored sequence rather than a single act.

Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Assignment Case Study Seven Worksheet Case Study Seven Worksheet Title ABC/123 Version X 1 Case Study Seven Worksheet PSYCH/660 Version 1 2 University of Phoenix Material Case Study Seven Worksheet Case Study Rashid Vaji, Ph.D., a member of the school psychology faculty at a midsize university, serves as a faculty supervisor for students assigned to externships in schools. The department has formalized a supervision and evaluation system for the extern program. Students have weekly individual meetings with the faculty supervisor and biweekly meetings with the on-site supervisor. The on-site supervisor writes a midyear (December) and end of academic year (May) evaluation of each student. The site evaluations are sent to Dr. Vaji, and he provides feedback based on the site and his own supervisory evaluation to each student. The final grade (fail, low pass, pass, high pass) is the responsibility of Dr. Vaji. Dr. Vaji also teaches the Spring Semester graduate class on “Health Disparities in Mental Health.” One of the course requirements is for students to write weekly thought papers, in which they are required to take the perspective of therapy clients from different ethnic groups in reaction to specific session topics. Leo Watson, a second-year graduate student is one of Dr. Vaji’s externship supervisees. He is also enrolled in the Health Disparities course. Leo’s thought papers often present ethnic-minority adolescents as prone to violence and unable to “grasp” the insights offered by school psychologists. In a classroom role-playing exercise, Leo “plays” an ethnic-minority student client as slumping in the chair not understanding the psychologist and giving angry retorts. In written comments on these thought papers and class feedback, Dr. Vaji encourages Leo to incorporate more of the readings on racial/ethnic discrimination and multicultural competence into his papers and to provide more complex perspectives on clients. One day during his office hours, three students from the class come to Dr. Vaji’s office to complain about Leo’s behavior outside the classroom. They describe incidents in which Leo uses derogatory ethnic labels to describe his externship clients and brags about “putting one over” on his site supervisors by describing these clients in “glowing” terms just to satisfy his supervisors’ “stupid liberal do-good” attitudes. They also report an incident at a local bar at which Leo was seen harassing attitudes. They also report an incident at a local bar at which Leo was seen harassing an African American waitress using racial slurs. After the students have left his office, Dr. Vaji reviews his midyear evaluation and supervision notes on Leo and the midyear on-site supervisor’s report. In his own evaluation report Dr. Vaji had written, “Leo often articulates a strong sense of duty to help his ethnic minority students overcome past discrimination but needs additional growth and supervision in applying a multicultural perspective into his clinical work.” The on-site supervisor’s evaluation states that: Leo has a wonderful attitude towards his student clients . . . Unfortunately evaluation of his treatment skills is limited because Leo has had less cases to discuss than some of his peers since a larger than usual number of students have stopped coming to their sessions with him. It is the middle of the Spring Semester, and Dr. Vaji still has approximately 6 weeks of supervision left with Leo. The students’ complaints about Leo, while more extreme, are consistent with what Dr. Vaji has observed in Leo’s class papers and role-playing exercises. However, these complaints are very different from his presentation during on-site supervision. If Leo has been intentionally deceiving both supervisors, then he may be more ineffective or harmful as a therapist to his current clients than either supervisor realized. In addition, purposeful attempts to deceive the supervisors might indicate a personality disorder or lack of integrity that if left unaddressed might be harmful to adolescent clients in the future. Assignment Case Study Seven Worksheet Ethical Dilemma Dr. Vaji would like to meet with Leo at minimum to discuss ways to retain adolescent clients and to improve his multicultural treatment skills. He does not know to what extent his conversation with Leo and final supervisory report should be influenced by the information provided by the graduate students Respond to the following questions in 1,250 to 1,500 words. 1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the nature of the dilemma? 2. To what extent, if any, should Dr. Vaji consider Leo’s ethnicity in his deliberations? Would the dilemma be addressed differently if Leo self-identified as non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, on non-Hispanic Black? 3. How are APA Ethical Standards 1.08, 3.04, 3.05, 3.09, 7.04, 7.05, and 17.05 relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply? 4. What are Dr. Vaji’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principle and enforceable standard, as well as legal standards and obligations to stakeholders? 5. What steps should Dr. Vaji take to ethically implement his decision and monitor its effects? Reference Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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!

Turn the brief into deliverables

01
Answers to the worksheet's questions on issues, interests, and hidden considerations.
02
The Ethics Code mapping: principles and standards relevant to the case, with justification.
03
The alternatives analysis with a defended choice, and the implementation-and-monitoring steps.

How should the code mapping and alternatives run?

The case's ethical anatomy

Lay out the three-role entanglement, the complaint channel, and the full stakeholder map — clients, Leo, complainants, sites, university — with their competing interests.

Principles and standards, mapped

Argue justice, dignity, beneficence, and fidelity as the operative principles, and the human-relations, competence, and education-and-training standards as the enforceable core, each pinned to case behavior.

Alternatives and the defended choice

Generate the realistic options from verification and remediation through formal evaluation consequences, then argue which best satisfies principles, standards, legal obligations, and stakeholders simultaneously.

Implementation and monitoring

Sequence the chosen path: documentation, transparency with Leo, site coordination, timelines, and the monitoring loop over client welfare and Leo's development.

Where are the code and its application documented?

Recommended databases

APA
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
NCBI Bookshelf / StatPearls

Search sequence

1.
Read the Ethics Code for the exact principle and standard language the mapping questions grade.
2.
Use the decision-making framework to structure the alternatives analysis.
3.
Review the cultural-competence material for the clinical-competence framing of Leo's deficits.
4.
Draft the worksheet in question order, keeping every claim pinned to case behavior.

Reference shortlist

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
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
American Psychological Association · 2017
The document every mapping question grades against — the aspirational principles and enforceable standards in their exact language.
02
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University · 2021
The alternatives-generation and multi-test evaluation method the resolution questions require.
03
Cultural Religious Competence in Clinical Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The clinical-competence framing for Leo's multicultural deficits — competence as a practice standard, not a preference.

Review before submission

Common mistakes

Treating Leo as the only ethical problem when Vaji's entangled roles are half the case.
Ignoring the hearsay problem — student complaints are a trigger for verification, not a verdict.
Listing code standards without tying each to a named behavior from the case.
Framing multicultural competence as opinion instead of as a clinical competence the standards govern.
Offering one real alternative flanked by strawmen instead of genuine options.
Ending at the decision without the documentation, coordination, and monitoring the last question demands.

Submission checklist

Issues and stakeholder interests inventoried, client welfare first among them.
Vaji's role entanglement named as part of the problem.
Principles and standards mapped with per-behavior justification, plus the might-apply set.
Alternatives genuine; the chosen one argued against code, legal, and stakeholder tests.
Implementation written as sequence with monitoring checkpoints.
Course-text method visible in the reasoning.

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.