Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in rehabilitation psychology: navigating conflicting evidence and client values to formulate an effective treatment plan. The professional must balance the rigor of evidence-based practice with the individual needs and preferences of the client, all while adhering to professional standards and ethical guidelines. The difficulty lies in synthesizing disparate information sources and translating them into actionable clinical pathways that are both effective and ethically sound. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a systematic and transparent process of evidence synthesis that explicitly incorporates the client’s values and goals. This begins with a comprehensive review of the available research literature, identifying high-quality studies relevant to the client’s specific presentation and rehabilitation goals. Crucially, this synthesis must then be discussed collaboratively with the client, presenting the evidence in an accessible manner and exploring how different treatment options align with their personal values, life circumstances, and desired outcomes. The clinical decision pathway is then co-constructed, prioritizing interventions with the strongest evidence that also resonate with the client’s preferences and capacity for engagement. This approach is ethically justified by principles of autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence, as it respects the client’s right to self-determination, aims to maximize benefit, and minimizes potential harm by avoiding interventions that are likely to be rejected or ineffective due to a mismatch with client values. It aligns with professional guidelines that emphasize shared decision-making and individualized care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing a single, highly cited study without considering its limitations or the broader evidence base. This fails to meet the standard of comprehensive evidence synthesis, potentially leading to the adoption of an intervention that is not robustly supported or may not be the most appropriate for the individual. It neglects the ethical obligation to provide the best available care based on a thorough understanding of the evidence. Another incorrect approach is to solely rely on the clinician’s prior experience and intuition, disregarding the need for systematic evidence synthesis. While clinical experience is valuable, it should inform, not replace, the integration of current research. This approach risks perpetuating outdated practices or overlooking more effective, evidence-based interventions, potentially violating the principle of beneficence. A third incorrect approach is to present the client with a predetermined treatment plan based on a superficial review of evidence, without actively engaging them in the decision-making process or exploring their values. This undermines client autonomy and can lead to poor adherence and treatment outcomes, as the plan may not be perceived as relevant or desirable by the client. It fails to uphold the ethical imperative of informed consent and shared decision-making. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured decision-making process that begins with a thorough assessment of the client’s needs, goals, and values. This is followed by a systematic search and critical appraisal of the relevant scientific literature. The synthesized evidence is then communicated transparently to the client, facilitating a collaborative discussion about potential treatment pathways. The final decision on the clinical pathway should be a shared one, reflecting both the best available evidence and the client’s informed preferences and circumstances. This iterative process ensures that interventions are evidence-informed, ethically sound, and tailored to the individual.

The investigation demonstrates a scenario where a psychologist, Dr. Anya Sharma, is working with a client, Mr. Erik Johansson, who has a history of substance abuse and is currently experiencing significant distress related to his rehabilitation progress. Mr. Johansson has expressed a desire to share personal details about his struggles with his former employer, believing it might aid his case for re-employment. This situation is professionally challenging because it pits the psychologist’s duty of care and confidentiality against the client’s expressed wishes and potential perceived benefit, all within the framework of the Nordic rehabilitation psychology practice. The core tension lies in balancing client autonomy with the ethical and legal obligations to protect sensitive information and avoid harm. The approach that represents best professional practice involves Dr. Sharma engaging in a thorough, collaborative discussion with Mr. Johansson about the potential consequences of sharing his personal rehabilitation details with his former employer. This approach prioritizes informed consent and client well-being. Dr. Sharma should clearly outline the risks and benefits, explore alternative strategies for Mr. Johansson to address his re-employment concerns that do not involve disclosing sensitive health information, and document the discussion and the client’s final decision meticulously. This aligns with the ethical principles of respecting client autonomy, promoting well-being, and maintaining confidentiality, as generally understood within professional psychological practice frameworks in Nordic countries, which emphasize client-centered care and the importance of informed decision-making. An incorrect approach would be for Dr. Sharma to immediately agree to Mr. Johansson’s request without exploring the implications or alternatives. This would fail to uphold the psychologist’s responsibility to ensure the client fully understands the potential negative repercussions of such a disclosure, such as further stigmatization or impact on future employment prospects, and could be seen as a breach of the duty of care by not adequately safeguarding the client’s interests. Another incorrect approach would be for Dr. Sharma to refuse Mr. Johansson’s request outright, citing confidentiality without exploring the client’s motivations or potential benefits he perceives. While confidentiality is paramount, an overly rigid stance without attempting to understand the client’s perspective and explore collaborative solutions can undermine the therapeutic alliance and disregard the client’s autonomy in decision-making regarding their own life and rehabilitation journey. A further incorrect approach would be for Dr. Sharma to disclose information about Mr. Johansson’s rehabilitation to his former employer without his explicit, informed consent, even if she believes it might be beneficial for his re-employment. This would be a clear violation of confidentiality and professional ethics, potentially leading to severe professional and legal repercussions. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve a systematic assessment of the client’s request, a thorough understanding of the relevant ethical guidelines and legal obligations, a collaborative discussion with the client to explore their motivations and potential outcomes, and a careful consideration of alternative strategies that prioritize the client’s well-being and autonomy while upholding professional standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of assessing and intervening with an individual experiencing significant distress, potentially impacting their daily functioning. The challenge lies in accurately identifying the underlying psychopathology, understanding its interplay with developmental factors, and ensuring that the chosen intervention aligns with the principles of a biopsychosocial model, all while adhering to the ethical and professional standards expected within the Nordic rehabilitation psychology practice framework. Careful judgment is required to avoid oversimplification or misdiagnosis, which could lead to ineffective or even harmful interventions. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that integrates biological, psychological, and social factors, considering the individual’s developmental history. This approach acknowledges that psychopathology is rarely caused by a single factor but rather by a complex interplay of influences. By systematically gathering information across these domains, including developmental milestones, significant life events, and current stressors, the practitioner can develop a nuanced understanding of the client’s presentation. This aligns with the core tenets of rehabilitation psychology, which emphasizes holistic care and functional improvement within the individual’s context. Ethical guidelines in Nordic countries strongly advocate for client-centered, evidence-based practice that respects individual autonomy and promotes well-being through a thorough understanding of the person’s lived experience. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to focus solely on the biological or psychological symptoms without considering the broader social and developmental context. This fails to acknowledge the interconnectedness of factors influencing psychopathology and rehabilitation outcomes, potentially leading to a superficial understanding and an intervention that does not address the root causes or contributing factors. This approach risks violating ethical principles of comprehensive assessment and client welfare. Another incorrect approach would be to attribute the client’s difficulties solely to a specific developmental stage or a single psychological diagnosis without exploring other contributing biopsychosocial elements. This oversimplification can lead to a narrow intervention that overlooks crucial aspects of the individual’s current functioning and potential for recovery. It neglects the dynamic nature of psychopathology and the importance of a multi-faceted understanding. A further incorrect approach would be to implement an intervention based on a generalized understanding of psychopathology without tailoring it to the individual’s unique biopsychosocial profile and developmental trajectory. This can result in an ineffective or inappropriate treatment plan, failing to meet the client’s specific needs and potentially causing distress or hindering progress. This disregards the ethical imperative to provide individualized and evidence-informed care. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a structured, yet flexible, assessment process that begins with a broad exploration of the client’s presenting concerns. This should be followed by a systematic gathering of information across biological (e.g., medical history, physical symptoms), psychological (e.g., mood, cognition, coping mechanisms), and social (e.g., relationships, work, environment) domains. Crucially, developmental history should be integrated throughout this process to understand how past experiences and developmental trajectories may be influencing current functioning. This comprehensive understanding then informs the development of a tailored intervention plan that is consistent with the biopsychosocial model and ethical standards. Regular review and adaptation of the intervention based on client progress and evolving needs are also essential components of professional decision-making.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the psychologist to balance the immediate need for intervention with the ethical and regulatory imperative to use assessments that are valid, reliable, and appropriate for the client’s specific context and presenting concerns. The psychologist must navigate the potential for misdiagnosis or ineffective treatment if assessment tools are not carefully selected and psychometrically sound. This requires a deep understanding of psychometric principles and the limitations of various assessment instruments. The best professional practice involves a systematic approach to test selection that prioritizes psychometric integrity and clinical utility within the Nordic rehabilitation psychology framework. This means carefully reviewing the available assessment tools, considering their established reliability and validity for the target population and specific rehabilitation goals, and ensuring they align with the client’s cultural background and presenting issues. The psychologist should also consider the practical aspects of administration and scoring, as well as the interpretability of the results in the context of rehabilitation planning. This approach is supported by ethical guidelines that mandate competence and the use of appropriate assessment methods, as well as regulatory frameworks that emphasize evidence-based practice and client welfare. An incorrect approach would be to select an assessment tool based solely on its popularity or ease of administration without a thorough review of its psychometric properties. This fails to uphold the professional obligation to use valid and reliable measures, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions and inappropriate interventions. Such a choice could violate ethical principles of competence and due care, and potentially contravene regulatory requirements for evidence-based practice. Another incorrect approach would be to use an assessment tool that has not been validated for the specific rehabilitation context or the client’s cultural or linguistic background. This risks introducing bias and misinterpreting results, which can have detrimental effects on the client’s rehabilitation journey. This practice disregards the importance of cultural and contextual appropriateness in psychological assessment, a key consideration in Nordic rehabilitation psychology. Finally, relying on anecdotal evidence or the opinions of colleagues without consulting psychometric data or established guidelines for test selection is also professionally unsound. This approach prioritizes subjective information over objective evidence of a test’s quality and suitability, undermining the scientific basis of psychological assessment and potentially harming the client. Professionals should adopt a decision-making process that begins with a clear understanding of the client’s needs and the goals of rehabilitation. This should be followed by a comprehensive review of potential assessment tools, focusing on their psychometric properties (reliability, validity, standardization), clinical utility, and appropriateness for the specific client population and context. Consultation with professional literature and ethical guidelines should inform the final selection, ensuring that the chosen assessments are both scientifically sound and ethically defensible.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the stated goals of a qualification with the practical realities of applicant backgrounds and the need for robust professional standards. The core tension lies in ensuring the qualification genuinely reflects applied Nordic rehabilitation psychology practice without creating undue barriers for otherwise qualified individuals. Careful judgment is required to interpret eligibility criteria in a way that upholds the integrity of the profession while remaining accessible. The best professional approach involves a thorough, individualized assessment of each applicant’s prior experience and training against the specific learning outcomes and practice domains outlined for the Applied Nordic Rehabilitation Psychology Practice Qualification. This approach acknowledges that diverse pathways can lead to equivalent competence. It prioritizes a qualitative evaluation of how an applicant’s existing knowledge, skills, and supervised practice align with the qualification’s objectives, rather than a rigid, checklist-based exclusion. This is ethically sound as it promotes fairness and recognizes individual merit, aligning with principles of professional development and competence assessment. It also adheres to the spirit of the qualification’s purpose, which is to ensure practitioners are equipped for applied Nordic rehabilitation psychology practice. An incorrect approach would be to strictly adhere to a predefined list of specific Nordic institutions or training programs for eligibility, without considering equivalent international qualifications or extensive relevant work experience. This fails to recognize that high-quality rehabilitation psychology training and practice can occur in various contexts. It creates an arbitrary barrier that may exclude highly competent individuals who have gained substantial, relevant experience and skills elsewhere, thereby undermining the qualification’s aim of fostering a broad base of skilled practitioners. Another incorrect approach would be to grant eligibility solely based on the applicant’s self-declaration of having “worked in rehabilitation psychology” without any verification or assessment of the nature, depth, or context of that work. This approach risks compromising the qualification’s standards by potentially admitting individuals who lack the specific applied Nordic rehabilitation psychology competencies the qualification is designed to certify. It bypasses the necessary due diligence required to ensure practitioners meet the expected level of proficiency and ethical understanding relevant to the Nordic context. A further incorrect approach would be to interpret “applied Nordic rehabilitation psychology practice” so narrowly as to exclude individuals whose experience, while extensive and directly relevant, might have been gained in a slightly different but functionally equivalent area of applied psychology within a Nordic context, such as a specialized clinical psychology role with a strong rehabilitation component. This overly restrictive interpretation would fail to capture the breadth of relevant expertise and could unnecessarily limit the pool of qualified candidates, contradicting the goal of promoting applied practice. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a clear understanding of the qualification’s stated purpose and eligibility criteria. This framework should then involve a systematic process of evaluating applicant credentials against these criteria, using a combination of documentary evidence, potentially interviews, and a qualitative assessment of experience and training. The focus should always be on demonstrating competence and alignment with the qualification’s objectives, allowing for flexibility and professional judgment where justified by evidence of equivalent experience or training.

The audit findings indicate a need to review the application of the Blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies within the Applied Nordic Rehabilitation Psychology Practice Qualification. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires balancing the integrity of the qualification’s assessment standards with the individual circumstances of candidates. Careful judgment is required to ensure fairness, consistency, and adherence to the established policies, which are designed to maintain the quality and credibility of the qualification. The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the candidate’s performance against the established Blueprint weighting and scoring criteria, considering any documented extenuating circumstances that may have impacted their performance. This approach prioritizes adherence to the qualification’s established policies while allowing for a fair and objective assessment. Specifically, the qualification’s guidelines likely stipulate that the Blueprint weighting and scoring are the primary determinants of success. However, they may also include provisions for reviewing exceptional circumstances that are demonstrably linked to performance, provided these are supported by appropriate documentation. This ensures that the assessment remains robust and that retake policies are applied equitably, preventing arbitrary decisions. An incorrect approach would be to disregard the Blueprint weighting and scoring entirely based on a subjective assessment of the candidate’s overall potential or perceived effort. This fails to uphold the standardized assessment framework, undermining the validity of the qualification and potentially creating an unfair advantage for the candidate. It also bypasses the established retake policies, which are in place to provide opportunities for candidates to demonstrate competence after initial assessment. Another incorrect approach would be to automatically grant a retake without a proper review of the initial performance against the Blueprint and without considering whether the candidate has met the criteria for a retake as outlined in the qualification’s policies. This can lead to a dilution of standards and may not address the underlying reasons for the candidate’s initial performance, potentially setting them up for further failure. A further incorrect approach would be to apply a different scoring or weighting system for this candidate compared to others, even if the intention is to be accommodating. This violates the principle of equal treatment and can lead to accusations of bias or unfairness, compromising the integrity of the qualification’s assessment process. The professional reasoning process for similar situations should involve: 1) Clearly understanding the qualification’s Blueprint, weighting, scoring, and retake policies. 2) Objectively assessing the candidate’s performance against these established criteria. 3) If extenuating circumstances are presented, evaluating their documented impact on performance in relation to policy provisions. 4) Making a decision that is consistent with the policies, fair to the candidate, and upholds the integrity of the qualification.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the candidate to balance the need for thorough preparation with the practical constraints of time and available resources. Over-reliance on a single, potentially outdated resource or underestimating the breadth of the qualification’s scope can lead to inadequate preparation and ultimately, failure. The pressure to pass, coupled with the investment in the qualification, can lead to anxiety and poor decision-making regarding study strategies. Careful judgment is required to select a balanced and effective preparation plan. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach to candidate preparation, integrating current official qualification materials with a structured timeline that allows for progressive learning and revision. This includes utilizing the most recent syllabi, recommended reading lists, and practice assessments provided by the governing body. A structured timeline, broken down into manageable study blocks, ensures that all topics are covered systematically and allows for regular review and consolidation of knowledge. This approach is ethically sound as it demonstrates a commitment to understanding the full scope of the qualification and meeting its standards. It aligns with professional development principles that emphasize continuous learning and evidence-based practice, ensuring the candidate is well-equipped to apply the learned principles in practice. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on a single, potentially outdated textbook, even if it covers the general subject matter, is professionally unacceptable. This approach fails to account for recent developments in the field, changes in assessment methodologies, or specific nuances emphasized by the qualification’s governing body. It risks preparing the candidate with information that is no longer current or relevant to the examination’s specific requirements, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of the qualification’s objectives. Focusing exclusively on practice questions without a foundational understanding of the underlying theoretical principles is also professionally unsound. While practice questions are valuable for assessment familiarization, they do not build the comprehensive knowledge base required for nuanced application and critical thinking, which are essential for a qualification in applied psychology. This approach can lead to rote memorization without true comprehension, making it difficult to adapt to novel scenarios presented in the exam. Adopting a highly condensed, last-minute study schedule without adequate time for reflection and integration of knowledge is professionally detrimental. This approach increases the risk of superficial learning and high levels of stress, hindering effective knowledge retention and recall. It does not allow for the development of the deep understanding and critical analysis expected of a qualified practitioner, potentially leading to an inability to apply learned concepts effectively in real-world situations. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach qualification preparation with a systematic and evidence-based mindset. This involves: 1) Thoroughly understanding the qualification’s objectives and assessment criteria by consulting official documentation. 2) Developing a realistic study plan that allocates sufficient time for each topic, incorporating active learning techniques and regular review. 3) Utilizing a variety of reputable resources, prioritizing those recommended by the qualification provider. 4) Regularly assessing progress through practice questions and self-evaluation to identify areas needing further attention. 5) Prioritizing well-being and managing stress through balanced study habits.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the psychologist to balance the immediate need for intervention with the ethical imperative of obtaining informed consent. The client’s distress and potential for self-harm create a sense of urgency, but proceeding without proper consent risks violating the client’s autonomy and potentially undermining the therapeutic relationship. Careful judgment is required to determine the appropriate course of action that prioritizes client well-being while respecting their rights. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a nuanced approach that prioritizes obtaining consent while acknowledging the client’s immediate distress. This includes clearly explaining the purpose, nature, potential risks and benefits of the proposed assessment, and ensuring the client understands their right to refuse or withdraw consent at any time. If the client is unable to provide full informed consent due to their current state, the psychologist should explore options for supported decision-making or, if legally and ethically permissible, consider the least restrictive intervention necessary to ensure immediate safety, with a clear plan to revisit consent as soon as possible. This aligns with the core ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and non-maleficence, as well as the regulatory framework’s emphasis on client autonomy and the psychologist’s duty of care. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Proceeding with a comprehensive risk assessment without any attempt to obtain consent, even in a crisis, is ethically unacceptable. This approach disregards the client’s right to self-determination and autonomy, potentially leading to a breach of trust and a violation of professional standards. It assumes the psychologist knows what is best for the client without their input, which is a paternalistic stance that undermines the therapeutic alliance. Delaying any risk assessment until full, uncompromised consent can be obtained, even if the client is in acute distress and poses a risk to themselves, is also professionally problematic. While consent is crucial, the psychologist has a duty of care to protect the client from harm. In situations of imminent risk, a complete deferral of assessment could lead to a failure to intervene, resulting in harm to the client, which would be a breach of the psychologist’s ethical and legal obligations. Conducting a brief, informal assessment without clearly explaining its purpose or potential implications, even with the intention of addressing immediate safety, is insufficient. This approach lacks transparency and does not provide the client with the necessary information to make an informed decision about their participation, even in a limited capacity. It blurs the lines of professional boundaries and can lead to misunderstandings about the scope and purpose of the interaction. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough assessment of the client’s capacity to consent. If capacity is compromised, the psychologist must explore the least restrictive means to ensure safety, which may involve seeking consent from a legally authorized representative if applicable, or proceeding with a limited intervention based on a clear and documented rationale of imminent risk. Throughout this process, the psychologist must maintain open communication with the client to the greatest extent possible and strive to obtain their informed consent as soon as their capacity allows. Documentation of all steps taken, the rationale behind them, and any consultations with supervisors or colleagues is paramount.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of clinical interviewing with individuals experiencing significant distress and potential risk. The psychologist must balance the immediate need for rapport-building and information gathering with the critical responsibility of accurately assessing and formulating risk. This requires a nuanced approach that prioritizes client safety while upholding ethical standards of practice. Careful judgment is essential to avoid premature conclusions or overlooking crucial indicators. The best approach involves a structured yet flexible interview process that systematically explores potential risk factors, protective factors, and the client’s own perception of their situation. This includes open-ended questions, active listening, and the use of validated risk assessment tools where appropriate, all within a framework that prioritizes the client’s well-being and autonomy. The psychologist should clearly communicate the purpose of the assessment, including any mandatory reporting obligations, in a way that is understandable to the client. This approach aligns with the ethical guidelines of the Nordic psychological associations, which emphasize the importance of thorough assessment, client-centered practice, and adherence to legal and ethical reporting requirements. Specifically, it upholds the principle of beneficence by actively seeking to understand and mitigate potential harm, and the principle of justice by ensuring a fair and comprehensive evaluation. An approach that focuses solely on immediate symptom reduction without a thorough exploration of risk factors is professionally unacceptable. This failure to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment could lead to an underestimation of danger, potentially resulting in harm to the client or others. It violates the ethical duty to protect and the professional responsibility to formulate an accurate risk assessment. Another unacceptable approach is to prematurely label the client as high-risk based on initial impressions or limited information. This can lead to biased questioning, a breakdown in rapport, and a failure to gather crucial contextual information. It disregards the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing undue distress and stigma to the client. Finally, an approach that avoids discussing potential risks or the psychologist’s reporting obligations due to fear of alienating the client is also professionally unsound. While rapport is important, transparency about the limits of confidentiality and the psychologist’s duty to report is an ethical imperative. Failing to do so undermines trust in the long run and can have serious legal and ethical consequences. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with understanding the ethical and legal obligations relevant to the practice setting. This should be followed by a systematic assessment of the client’s presentation, considering both immediate concerns and potential underlying risks. The process should be iterative, allowing for adjustments based on new information. Open communication with the client about the assessment process, including confidentiality and its limits, is paramount. When in doubt, consultation with supervisors or experienced colleagues is a crucial step in ensuring best practice and mitigating risk.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting client autonomy and ensuring their safety and well-being, particularly when cultural beliefs might influence their decision-making regarding rehabilitation. The psychologist must navigate these complexities with sensitivity, adhering to ethical principles and relevant professional guidelines. Careful judgment is required to balance cultural respect with the duty of care. The best professional approach involves a collaborative and culturally sensitive process. This entails engaging in open dialogue with the client and their family, seeking to understand their cultural perspectives on mental health and rehabilitation. The psychologist should explain the rationale behind recommended interventions, addressing any concerns or misunderstandings arising from cultural differences. This approach respects client autonomy by involving them in the decision-making process while also fulfilling the ethical obligation to provide effective and appropriate care. It aligns with principles of informed consent and cultural competence, ensuring that interventions are not only clinically sound but also culturally relevant and acceptable to the client and their support system. An incorrect approach would be to unilaterally impose a rehabilitation plan without adequate cultural exploration or client involvement. This fails to acknowledge the client’s cultural context and may lead to resistance, disengagement, and a breakdown of the therapeutic alliance. Ethically, it breaches the principle of respect for persons and may not be considered culturally competent practice. Another incorrect approach would be to dismiss the family’s involvement based on a Western individualistic model of autonomy, without first attempting to understand the cultural significance of family roles in decision-making within the client’s community. This can alienate the client and their support network, hindering the rehabilitation process and demonstrating a lack of cultural humility. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to proceed with interventions that are perceived as culturally inappropriate or disrespectful by the client or their family, even if they are standard practice in the psychologist’s own cultural context. This can lead to a loss of trust and may be seen as a violation of the client’s cultural identity, undermining the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes cultural humility, client-centered care, and ethical consultation. This involves actively seeking to understand the client’s cultural background, engaging in open and honest communication, and collaborating with the client and their support system to develop a rehabilitation plan that is both clinically effective and culturally congruent. When in doubt, seeking supervision or consultation with colleagues experienced in cross-cultural psychology is a crucial step.