English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Psychologists often act as advocates when conducting diagnostic evaluations, using their reports as a way to assist clients in achieving their goals. At times, this comes at the expense of objectivity. The "soldier" and "scout" mindsets are useful metaphors for biased and unbiased reasoning, respectively, and they apply well to the practice of conducting psychological evaluations. Psychologists face several strong incentives for adopting a soldier mindset, but these can lead to unethical practices. Cultivating a scout mindset of actively open-minded thinking, in which a wide variety of assessment data are obtained, considered fairly and in an evenhanded manner, and presented with appropriate degrees of confidence, is critical for ethical psychological evaluations. There are certain types of advocacy that can coexist with such practices, but any attempts at advocacy must respect objectivity as a higher goal.

Objectivity or Advocacy? The Ethics of the Scout Mindset in Psychoeducational Assessment