Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent vulnerability of adolescent clients and the sensitive nature of substance use. Psychologists must navigate the ethical imperative to protect client confidentiality while also recognizing situations where disclosure is legally and ethically mandated to prevent harm. The dual responsibility to the client’s well-being and public safety requires careful judgment and adherence to established ethical guidelines and legal frameworks. The psychologist must balance the client’s right to privacy with the duty to protect others from potential harm, a common ethical dilemma in clinical practice. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough assessment of the immediate risk of harm to the client or others. This approach prioritizes gathering comprehensive information about the client’s intent, plan, and capacity to carry out any harmful actions. If the assessment indicates a clear and imminent danger, the psychologist must then follow established protocols for breaking confidentiality, which typically involves notifying appropriate authorities or individuals who can intervene to prevent harm. This approach is correct because it aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), while also fulfilling legal obligations to protect third parties when necessary. Specifically, ethical codes for psychologists universally emphasize the duty to warn or protect when a client poses a serious, imminent threat to an identifiable victim. This requires a risk assessment, not an immediate assumption of danger. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately breaching confidentiality without a thorough risk assessment. This fails to uphold the client’s right to privacy and can erode trust, potentially hindering future therapeutic engagement. It violates the principle of proportionality, as confidentiality should only be breached when the risk of harm is significant and imminent. Another incorrect approach is to strictly adhere to confidentiality regardless of the assessed risk, even when there is a clear and present danger to others. This neglects the ethical and legal duty to protect third parties from foreseeable harm, which can have severe consequences for potential victims and expose the psychologist to legal and professional repercussions. A further incorrect approach is to rely solely on the client’s statements without seeking corroborating information or consulting with supervisors or legal counsel when the situation is ambiguous. This can lead to either an over- or under-estimation of risk, both of which are professionally unsound. Ethical practice demands a diligent and informed decision-making process. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making framework when faced with potential breaches of confidentiality due to risk of harm. This framework typically includes: 1) Identifying the ethical and legal obligations relevant to the situation. 2) Conducting a comprehensive risk assessment, considering the client’s statements, history, and any other available information. 3) Consulting with supervisors, colleagues, or legal counsel to ensure informed decision-making. 4) Documenting the assessment process, the decision made, and the rationale behind it. 5) Implementing the chosen course of action in a manner that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit, while adhering to all relevant professional standards and legal requirements. This systematic approach ensures that decisions are not made impulsively but are grounded in careful consideration of all factors.

The scenario presents a common challenge in fellowship programs: determining eligibility for exit examinations when a candidate’s academic progression has been interrupted. This requires careful consideration of program policies, ethical obligations to the candidate, and the overarching purpose of the examination itself, which is to certify a minimum standard of competence for practice. The challenge lies in balancing flexibility with the need to uphold the integrity and standards of the fellowship. The correct approach involves a thorough review of the fellowship’s established policies regarding academic standing, leave of absence, and eligibility for exit examinations. This approach prioritizes adherence to the documented framework that governs the program, ensuring fairness and consistency for all candidates. The purpose of the Applied Mediterranean Youth Substance Use Psychology Fellowship Exit Examination is to assess a candidate’s readiness to practice independently, having successfully completed all required training and demonstrated mastery of core competencies. Therefore, eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that candidates have met these foundational requirements. A candidate who has not completed all stipulated coursework or clinical hours, or who has taken an approved leave that impacts their ability to demonstrate these competencies, may not meet the fundamental eligibility requirements as defined by the fellowship’s governing documents. This approach is ethically sound as it upholds the principles of fairness and transparency by applying pre-defined rules consistently. An incorrect approach would be to grant eligibility based solely on the candidate’s expressed desire to complete the fellowship or on the assumption that their prior performance guarantees future competence, without verifying that all formal requirements have been met. This fails to acknowledge the purpose of the exit examination as a summative assessment of completed training and acquired competencies. It also risks undermining the credibility of the fellowship by allowing candidates to bypass established benchmarks. Ethically, this approach is problematic as it deviates from established policies, potentially creating an unfair advantage or disadvantage compared to other candidates and compromising the integrity of the certification process. Another incorrect approach would be to immediately deny eligibility without a comprehensive review of the candidate’s situation and the fellowship’s policies. While adherence to policy is crucial, a rigid application without considering any potential mitigating circumstances or alternative pathways for demonstrating competence, as outlined within the fellowship’s framework, can be overly punitive and fail to support the candidate’s professional development. This approach might overlook provisions for re-evaluation or alternative assessment methods that could still uphold the fellowship’s standards while accommodating the candidate’s circumstances. A professional decision-making process for similar situations should begin with a clear understanding of the fellowship’s stated purpose and the specific eligibility criteria for the exit examination. This involves consulting the official program handbook, policy documents, and any relevant accreditation standards. The next step is to gather all relevant information regarding the candidate’s academic record, any approved leaves, and their current standing. This information should then be objectively assessed against the established eligibility criteria. If there is ambiguity or if the candidate’s situation presents a unique challenge, seeking guidance from the fellowship director or a designated committee is essential. The decision should be communicated clearly to the candidate, outlining the rationale based on the fellowship’s policies and any next steps or alternative options available.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professionally challenging situation due to the complexity of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders in a young person. The challenge lies in navigating the ethical imperative to provide comprehensive care while respecting the client’s autonomy and ensuring the safety and efficacy of interventions. A nuanced understanding of evidence-based practices and the ability to integrate them into a cohesive treatment plan are paramount. The psychologist must balance the need for structured, evidence-based interventions with the individualised needs and developmental stage of the adolescent client. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a comprehensive assessment that identifies both the substance use disorder and any co-occurring mental health conditions. Following this, the psychologist should develop an integrated treatment plan that addresses both diagnoses concurrently, utilizing evidence-based psychotherapies tailored to the adolescent’s specific needs and developmental level. This approach is correct because it aligns with best practices in treating dual-diagnosis populations, as advocated by leading psychological associations and ethical guidelines. Integrated treatment is recognized as more effective than sequential or parallel treatment models, as it acknowledges the interconnectedness of mental health and substance use issues. For adolescents, this often means employing therapies like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) adapted for substance use and co-occurring disorders, Motivational Interviewing (MI), and potentially family-based interventions, all delivered within a framework that prioritizes safety, engagement, and therapeutic alliance. This holistic approach maximizes the likelihood of positive outcomes by treating the whole person. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to solely focus on treating the substance use disorder while deferring mental health treatment until the substance use is resolved. This is professionally unacceptable because it ignores the significant impact that untreated mental health conditions can have on substance use patterns and recovery. It also violates the principle of providing comprehensive care and can lead to treatment dropout or relapse due to unaddressed underlying psychological distress. Another incorrect approach would be to apply a generic, one-size-fits-all evidence-based therapy without considering the specific co-occurring diagnoses or the adolescent’s developmental stage and cultural background. This fails to acknowledge the individualised nature of treatment and the need for tailoring interventions to the client’s unique presentation. Such an approach risks being ineffective or even detrimental if the chosen therapy is not appropriate for the specific mental health condition or if it does not adequately address the complexities of adolescent development in the context of substance use. A third incorrect approach would be to prioritize a single therapeutic modality without considering the potential benefits of integrating multiple evidence-based techniques. For instance, relying solely on individual therapy without incorporating family support or psychoeducation when indicated would be a limitation. This approach fails to leverage the full spectrum of evidence-based interventions that could contribute to a more robust and effective treatment plan for an adolescent with co-occurring disorders. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making framework. This begins with a thorough biopsychosocial and spiritual assessment to understand the client’s presenting problems, history, strengths, and support systems. Next, they should consult current evidence-based guidelines and research for treating adolescent substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health conditions. The treatment plan should then be collaboratively developed with the client and, where appropriate, their family, ensuring it is individualized, integrated, and addresses all identified needs. Regular monitoring and evaluation of treatment progress are crucial, with flexibility to adapt the plan based on the client’s response and evolving needs. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and client autonomy, must be integrated throughout the process.

The review process indicates a need to assess the candidate’s understanding of ethical decision-making frameworks within the context of a fellowship program, specifically concerning the handling of sensitive information and professional boundaries. This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves a direct request from a peer for confidential information that could compromise client privacy and the integrity of the fellowship’s assessment process. Careful judgment is required to balance collegiality with the paramount ethical duty to protect client confidentiality and uphold professional standards. The best approach involves a direct, yet polite, refusal of the request, coupled with an offer to discuss general ethical principles or the candidate’s own experiences in a way that does not breach confidentiality. This upholds the ethical obligation to protect client information, as mandated by professional codes of conduct for psychologists and the implicit trust placed in fellows during their training. It also demonstrates an understanding of the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and the integrity of the fellowship’s evaluation process, which relies on independent assessment of each candidate’s performance and ethical comportment. An incorrect approach would be to provide any details about the peer’s performance, even if anonymized, as this could still lead to identification and constitutes a breach of confidentiality. This violates the fundamental ethical principle of respecting the dignity and rights of all individuals, including the right to privacy. Another incorrect approach would be to ignore the request, as this fails to address the ethical dilemma directly and could be interpreted as tacit approval or a lack of professional engagement. It also misses an opportunity to reinforce ethical standards within the peer group. Finally, agreeing to provide the information, even with the intention of being helpful, is a severe ethical lapse, directly contravening the duty of confidentiality and potentially jeopardizing the peer’s standing in the fellowship and the reputation of the program. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes ethical principles, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy and dignity. When faced with a request that conflicts with these principles, the process should involve identifying the ethical issues, considering relevant professional codes and guidelines, exploring alternative courses of action, evaluating the potential consequences of each action, and selecting the option that best aligns with ethical obligations and professional standards. Open and honest communication, while maintaining professional boundaries, is often a key component of ethical resolution.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the urgency of a fellowship application with the need for thorough, evidence-based preparation. Misjudging the timeline or the quality of resources can lead to a suboptimal application, potentially hindering the candidate’s entry into a competitive program. Careful judgment is required to ensure the candidate presents their strongest case without compromising the integrity of their preparation. The best approach involves a structured, proactive engagement with preparation resources, starting well in advance of application deadlines. This includes identifying key areas for development based on fellowship requirements, seeking out reputable academic literature, engaging with mentors for guidance, and practicing application components like personal statements and interview simulations. This method ensures a comprehensive understanding of the fellowship’s expectations and allows ample time for refinement, aligning with ethical principles of diligence and professional conduct expected in academic and clinical settings. It also implicitly adheres to the spirit of continuous professional development, a cornerstone of many psychological fellowships. An approach that relies solely on last-minute cramming of generic study materials is professionally unacceptable. This fails to demonstrate the necessary diligence and commitment required for a specialized fellowship. It risks superficial understanding and an inability to articulate nuanced insights, potentially violating ethical obligations to present oneself truthfully and competently. Another unacceptable approach is to exclusively rely on informal advice from peers without cross-referencing with official fellowship guidelines or established academic resources. While peer insights can be valuable, they may be incomplete, biased, or outdated, leading to a misinformed preparation strategy. This can result in overlooking critical application components or misinterpreting program priorities, which is a failure of professional responsibility to seek accurate and comprehensive information. Finally, an approach that prioritizes networking and relationship-building over substantive preparation, assuming connections will compensate for a lack of demonstrated competence, is also professionally unsound. While networking is important, it should complement, not replace, the rigorous academic and experiential preparation required for a fellowship. Over-reliance on this aspect can be seen as an attempt to circumvent the merit-based selection process, which is ethically problematic and undermines the integrity of the fellowship admissions. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough review of the fellowship’s specific requirements and desired candidate profile. This should be followed by an assessment of personal strengths and weaknesses relative to these requirements. A strategic plan should then be developed, allocating sufficient time for research, skill development, and application component preparation, with regular check-ins with mentors or advisors. This systematic approach ensures that preparation is targeted, comprehensive, and ethically grounded.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors influencing adolescent substance use. The psychologist must navigate the ethical imperative to protect the minor’s well-being and confidentiality while also considering the legal and ethical obligations to involve parents or guardians in treatment decisions, especially when the minor’s safety or the severity of the psychopathology is a concern. Balancing these competing interests requires a nuanced understanding of developmental psychology, psychopathology, and relevant ethical codes. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that explicitly considers the developmental stage of the adolescent, the nature and severity of their psychopathology, and the potential risks associated with their substance use. This approach prioritizes gathering sufficient information to make an informed decision about the appropriate level of parental involvement. It recognizes that while confidentiality is crucial, it is not absolute, particularly when a minor’s safety or the effectiveness of treatment is compromised by a lack of parental support or awareness. This approach aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate practitioners to act in the best interest of the client, which may necessitate breaking confidentiality under specific circumstances, such as imminent risk of harm or when parental involvement is deemed therapeutically essential for the adolescent’s recovery and development. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately disclosing all information to the parents without a thorough assessment. This violates the adolescent’s right to confidentiality, which is a cornerstone of therapeutic trust, especially for a young person grappling with sensitive issues like substance use and psychopathology. Such a breach can lead to damaged rapport, increased resistance to treatment, and potential harm to the adolescent’s developing autonomy. Another incorrect approach is to maintain absolute confidentiality with the adolescent, refusing any parental involvement even if the assessment reveals significant risks or a clear need for family support. This fails to acknowledge the developmental reality that adolescents often require parental guidance and support for effective treatment, particularly when dealing with complex mental health issues and substance use. It can also contravene ethical obligations to ensure the client’s safety and well-being, especially if the psychopathology indicates a risk of self-harm or harm to others that cannot be adequately managed without family intervention. A third incorrect approach is to make a unilateral decision about parental involvement based solely on the adolescent’s stated preference without a robust assessment of the underlying psychopathology and developmental context. This overlooks the potential for the adolescent’s perception to be skewed by their current mental state or developmental stage, and it fails to consider the potential benefits or detriments of parental involvement from a clinical perspective. It prioritizes a single factor over a holistic understanding of the situation. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process that begins with a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment. This assessment should evaluate the adolescent’s developmental stage, the specific nature and severity of their psychopathology, the risks associated with their substance use, and the potential impact of parental involvement (both positive and negative). Ethical codes and professional guidelines should then be consulted to determine the boundaries of confidentiality and the conditions under which disclosure or parental involvement is warranted or required. Collaboration with supervisors or ethical consultants is advisable when navigating complex ethical dilemmas. The ultimate decision should be guided by the principle of beneficence (acting in the client’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), while respecting the client’s autonomy to the greatest extent possible given their developmental capacity and the clinical context.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the need for program integrity and consistent evaluation standards with the ethical considerations of supporting individuals who may be struggling. The fellowship’s blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies are designed to ensure a high standard of competency for future practitioners in youth substance use psychology. However, rigidly applying these policies without considering individual circumstances can lead to unintended negative consequences for trainees and potentially impact the quality of future care. Careful judgment is required to uphold standards while demonstrating compassion and support. The best approach involves a thorough, documented review of the trainee’s performance against the established blueprint, considering any extenuating circumstances that may have impacted their performance, and then making a decision based on the fellowship’s stated retake policy. This approach ensures that the evaluation is fair, objective, and grounded in the program’s established criteria. It acknowledges that while policies exist, their application should be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the situation. This aligns with ethical principles of fairness and due process, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary but based on evidence and established procedures, while also allowing for consideration of mitigating factors. An incorrect approach would be to immediately deny a retake based solely on the initial score, without any further investigation into the reasons for the performance or consideration of the trainee’s overall progress and potential. This fails to acknowledge the complexities of learning and assessment, and could be perceived as punitive rather than supportive, potentially violating principles of professional development and mentorship. Another incorrect approach would be to grant an automatic retake without a clear understanding of the performance gap or a plan for improvement. This undermines the integrity of the scoring and blueprint weighting, as it suggests that the initial assessment is not a reliable indicator of competency. It also fails to provide the trainee with targeted feedback and support necessary for genuine improvement, potentially leading to a cycle of repeated failures. A further incorrect approach would be to modify the scoring or blueprint weighting retroactively for this specific trainee. This compromises the standardization and fairness of the evaluation process for all trainees. It introduces bias and undermines the credibility of the fellowship’s assessment framework, setting a dangerous precedent. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes a clear understanding of the established policies and their rationale. This involves objectively assessing performance against the blueprint, gathering information about any contributing factors, consulting with relevant program leadership or ethics committees if necessary, and making a decision that is consistent with the fellowship’s stated policies while also being ethically sound and supportive of trainee development. The process should be transparent and well-documented.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the psychologist to balance the immediate need for intervention with the ethical imperative of using validated, culturally appropriate assessment tools. The pressure to provide a diagnosis and treatment plan quickly, especially in a youth substance use context, can lead to the temptation to use readily available but potentially unsuitable instruments. The psychologist must navigate the complexities of adolescent development, potential co-occurring mental health issues, and the specific nuances of substance use patterns within the Mediterranean cultural context, all while adhering to professional standards for assessment. Careful judgment is required to ensure the assessment is both effective and ethically sound, avoiding misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves selecting a battery of assessment tools that have demonstrated psychometric validity and reliability specifically within the target population (adolescents in the Mediterranean region) and for the presenting issue (substance use). This includes considering tools that are culturally adapted or have been validated across diverse cultural groups, and that assess not only substance use patterns but also potential co-occurring mental health conditions and psychosocial factors relevant to adolescent development. The psychologist should prioritize tools that offer a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s situation, allowing for a nuanced interpretation of results in the context of the client’s background. This approach aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate competent assessment, the use of appropriate diagnostic tools, and a commitment to client welfare by ensuring interventions are based on accurate and relevant information. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Using a single, widely recognized but generic adolescent substance use questionnaire without considering its cultural applicability or psychometric properties for the specific Mediterranean youth population is professionally unacceptable. This approach risks misinterpreting results due to cultural differences in how substance use is perceived, reported, or experienced, potentially leading to an inaccurate diagnosis and ineffective treatment. It fails to acknowledge the importance of cultural context in psychological assessment, a key ethical consideration. Relying solely on clinical interview and unstructured observation without the support of standardized, validated tools is also professionally inadequate. While clinical interviews are crucial, they are subjective and can be influenced by interviewer bias. Without standardized measures, it is difficult to objectively quantify the severity of substance use, track progress, or compare findings to normative data, which is essential for evidence-based practice and informed treatment planning. This approach lacks the rigor required for a comprehensive psychological assessment. Employing assessment tools validated for adult populations or for different cultural contexts without any adaptation or justification is ethically and professionally unsound. Adult norms may not be applicable to adolescents, and cultural differences can significantly impact responses and interpretations. This can lead to misdiagnosis, stigmatization, and the provision of inappropriate interventions, violating the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach to assessment selection. This begins with a thorough understanding of the referral question and the presenting problem. Next, they must research available assessment tools, prioritizing those with strong psychometric properties (validity and reliability) for the specific age group and presenting issue. Crucially, they must investigate the cultural appropriateness and validation of these tools within the relevant geographical and cultural context. If no directly validated tools exist, the psychologist should consider culturally adapted instruments or a combination of tools that, when interpreted cautiously and in conjunction with clinical judgment, can provide a comprehensive picture. Ethical guidelines and professional literature should guide this selection process, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive and evidence-based practice.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the need to balance the ethical imperative of providing culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate psychological assessments with the practical constraints of resource allocation and the potential for introducing bias. The fellowship exit examination requires demonstrating a nuanced understanding of how to select and design assessments that are both psychometrically sound and relevant to the specific needs of young people in the Mediterranean region, who may have unique cultural backgrounds, linguistic nuances, and developmental trajectories. Careful judgment is required to avoid oversimplification or the imposition of Western-centric assessment paradigms. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic process of needs assessment and instrument validation. This begins with a thorough review of existing, culturally adapted, and psychometrically validated instruments that have demonstrated efficacy with adolescent populations in similar cultural contexts. Where no suitable instruments exist, the approach should involve adapting existing measures with rigorous back-translation and pilot testing, or developing novel instruments based on local qualitative data and expert consultation. The psychometric properties of any selected or adapted instrument must be evaluated for reliability (consistency of measurement) and validity (accuracy of measurement) within the target population. This approach is correct because it prioritizes the scientific integrity of the assessment process while ensuring cultural relevance and ethical considerations for the youth being assessed. It aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate the use of assessments appropriate for the client’s linguistic and cultural background and that are supported by evidence of their psychometric soundness in that context. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the uncritical adoption of widely used, but potentially culturally biased, assessment tools developed for Western populations without any adaptation or validation. This fails to acknowledge the significant impact of cultural context on psychological constructs and response patterns, potentially leading to misdiagnosis, inaccurate interpretation of results, and ineffective interventions. It violates ethical principles that require practitioners to use assessments that are appropriate for the client’s background. Another incorrect approach is to prioritize speed and cost-effectiveness by selecting the first available assessment tool that appears superficially relevant, without conducting a thorough review of its psychometric properties or its suitability for the specific age group and cultural context. This approach disregards the fundamental requirement for psychometric rigor, potentially leading to unreliable and invalid assessments. The ethical failure lies in providing substandard assessment services that do not meet professional standards. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on qualitative data collection methods without any attempt to develop or utilize psychometrically sound quantitative measures. While qualitative data is invaluable for understanding context, it may not provide the standardized, reliable, and valid data needed for comparative analysis, tracking progress, or making diagnostic decisions that require a psychometric basis. This approach risks lacking the precision and objectivity that psychometric assessments aim to provide. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the assessment objectives and the target population’s characteristics, including cultural, linguistic, and developmental factors. This should be followed by an exhaustive search for existing, validated instruments that meet these criteria. If no suitable instruments are found, a process of adaptation or development should be initiated, always prioritizing psychometric validation within the target population. Ethical guidelines and professional standards for assessment practice should serve as the guiding principles throughout this process, ensuring that assessments are both scientifically sound and ethically administered.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent vulnerability of adolescent clients and the sensitive nature of substance use. The psychologist must navigate complex ethical considerations regarding confidentiality, informed consent, and the duty to protect, all within the framework of Mediterranean youth substance use psychology. Balancing the client’s autonomy with the need for potential intervention requires careful judgment and adherence to established professional standards. Correct Approach Analysis: The most appropriate approach involves a thorough assessment of the adolescent’s immediate safety and the severity of their substance use, followed by a direct, age-appropriate discussion with the adolescent about the risks and benefits of involving their parents or guardians. This approach prioritizes the adolescent’s well-being and autonomy while adhering to ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. It acknowledges that while confidentiality is crucial, it is not absolute when there is a risk of harm. The psychologist should explain the limits of confidentiality clearly, as per ethical guidelines, and collaboratively explore options for parental involvement, emphasizing the potential benefits for support and treatment. This aligns with the principle of least restrictive intervention, seeking the adolescent’s consent and cooperation before escalating to parental notification, unless immediate danger necessitates otherwise. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately informing the parents or guardians without first discussing the situation with the adolescent. This violates the adolescent’s right to confidentiality and autonomy, potentially damaging the therapeutic alliance and discouraging future help-seeking. It fails to respect the client’s developing capacity for decision-making and may be perceived as a breach of trust, undermining the therapeutic process. Another incorrect approach is to maintain strict confidentiality regardless of the perceived risk, even if the adolescent’s substance use is severe and potentially life-threatening. This approach neglects the ethical duty to protect the client from harm, which can override confidentiality in situations of imminent danger. It fails to act in the client’s best interest when their well-being is at stake. A third incorrect approach is to solely rely on the adolescent’s self-reporting without seeking any external corroboration or considering the possibility of impaired judgment due to substance use. While respecting the client’s narrative is important, a comprehensive assessment may require considering other factors or, in certain circumstances, seeking appropriate collateral information to ensure the client’s safety and the effectiveness of the intervention. This approach might overlook critical indicators of risk. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a risk-assessment framework that begins with evaluating the immediate safety of the adolescent. This involves understanding the nature, frequency, and impact of the substance use. Following this, a transparent discussion with the adolescent about the limits of confidentiality and the potential benefits of involving their support system is paramount. The decision to involve parents or guardians should be a collaborative one, whenever possible, and guided by the principle of acting in the adolescent’s best interest while respecting their rights and developing autonomy. If immediate danger is present, the psychologist must follow established protocols for duty to protect, which may involve notifying parents or relevant authorities.