The APA ethics code would suggest an initial discussion with the supervisees to ensure they are made aware of the target areas they will be evaluated on. This allows the supervisees to better understand how their behavior, choices, and performance are all taken into consideration during the evaluation process. "Under Standard 7.06a, psychologists must inform students and supervisees (a) when and how often they will be evaluated, (b) the basis for evaluation (e.g., performance in exams, attendance, implementation of various phases of research, summaries of client/patient sessions, and administration and interpretation of psychological assessments), and (c) the timing and manner in which feedback will be provided" (Fisher, 2016, p. 413). Furthermore, for this scenario specifically, since the initial discussion did not occur to our knowledge, the APA ethics code would suggest initiating group supervision. "Group supervisees can benefit from the multiple input, support, and shared experiences of their peer colleagues while also learning how to provide effective feedback and gain initial competencies required for their own future skills as supervisors" (Fisher, 2016, p. 413). Group supervisees will allow the professor to incorporate the identified concerns of the other classmates into the evaluation without hesitation of if the complaints warrant utilization ethically. Thus, the concerns brought to the professor's attention are applicable in the student's evaluation report, whether separate from the on-site evaluation or conjoined. In addition, the other ethical dilemmas within this scenario of misrepresenting work and dual relationships also have suggestive resolution per the APA guidelines.

How would you respond to this. What are your opinion.