This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires a sport and performance psychologist to navigate the ethical and regulatory landscape of translational research, specifically concerning the implementation of novel interventions derived from research findings into practice. The psychologist must balance the potential benefits of innovation with the imperative to ensure client safety, informed consent, and adherence to professional standards and regulatory frameworks governing research and practice. Careful judgment is required to distinguish between evidence-based practice, emerging practices with preliminary support, and speculative interventions. The best professional approach involves a systematic and ethical integration of translational research findings. This entails rigorously evaluating the evidence base for any new intervention, ensuring it has undergone appropriate pilot testing or has demonstrated preliminary efficacy in controlled settings. Crucially, it requires obtaining explicit, informed consent from clients, clearly outlining the experimental nature of the intervention, potential risks and benefits, and alternative approaches. The psychologist must also maintain detailed records of the intervention’s implementation and outcomes, and be prepared to share this data responsibly for further research and validation, adhering to data protection regulations and ethical guidelines for research dissemination. This approach prioritizes client welfare, upholds scientific integrity, and aligns with the principles of responsible innovation in applied psychology. An incorrect approach would be to immediately implement a novel intervention based solely on promising preliminary research findings without further validation or client consultation. This fails to adequately assess the risk-benefit profile for the individual client and bypasses the essential step of informed consent regarding the intervention’s experimental status. Such an action could expose clients to unproven or potentially harmful techniques, violating ethical duties of care and potentially contravening regulations related to the responsible application of psychological interventions. Another incorrect approach is to withhold potentially beneficial innovative interventions from clients due to an overly cautious interpretation of research readiness, thereby limiting access to potentially effective support. While caution is necessary, a complete refusal to engage with emerging evidence can stifle progress and deny clients access to advancements that could significantly enhance their performance and well-being, provided ethical safeguards are in place. This approach neglects the psychologist’s role in facilitating evidence-informed practice and contributing to the ongoing development of the field. A further incorrect approach involves disseminating preliminary research findings about a novel intervention to clients without the necessary context or without having personally validated its efficacy in practice. This can lead to clients seeking out or attempting unproven techniques independently, potentially with adverse consequences, and blurs the lines between research and practice without appropriate oversight or ethical consideration for the client’s engagement with the intervention. Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes a continuous cycle of evidence appraisal, ethical consideration, and client-centered application. This involves staying abreast of current research, critically evaluating the strength of evidence for any intervention, understanding the regulatory requirements for research and practice, and engaging in transparent communication with clients about the nature and evidence base of any proposed intervention. When considering novel approaches, a phased implementation, starting with pilot studies or carefully monitored trials with informed consent, is essential before widespread adoption.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the sensitive nature of a young athlete’s mental health and the potential for misinterpreting developmental stages as psychopathology. The sport psychologist must navigate the athlete’s distress, the coach’s concerns, and the ethical imperative to act in the athlete’s best interest while respecting confidentiality and professional boundaries. A misdiagnosis or inappropriate intervention could have significant negative consequences for the athlete’s well-being and performance. Careful judgment is required to differentiate normal developmental struggles from clinical conditions and to determine the most appropriate course of action within the ethical and professional guidelines governing sport psychology practice. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment that integrates biological, psychological, and social factors. This approach acknowledges that an athlete’s distress is likely influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including physiological changes, cognitive appraisals, emotional responses, and environmental influences such as team dynamics, parental pressure, and academic demands. By gathering information from multiple sources (athlete, coach, parents, if appropriate and with consent), observing the athlete in their sport environment, and utilizing appropriate assessment tools, the sport psychologist can develop a nuanced understanding of the athlete’s situation. This holistic perspective is crucial for accurate diagnosis and the development of an individualized intervention plan that addresses the root causes of the distress, rather than just the surface-level symptoms. This aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, ensuring that interventions are evidence-based and tailored to the athlete’s unique needs and developmental stage. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Focusing solely on the athlete’s performance decline and attributing it directly to a psychological disorder without a thorough assessment fails to consider the multifaceted nature of athletic performance and mental well-being. This approach risks oversimplifying the issue and potentially misdiagnosing or pathologizing normal developmental challenges or situational stressors. It neglects the biological and social components of the biopsychosocial model, leading to an incomplete understanding. Advising the coach to implement stricter training protocols and motivational techniques based on the assumption of a psychological deficit overlooks the potential for these interventions to exacerbate the athlete’s distress. This approach prioritizes performance outcomes over the athlete’s mental health and fails to acknowledge that the athlete’s current struggles might be a signal of underlying issues that require a more sensitive and supportive response. It also potentially violates confidentiality by discussing the athlete’s perceived issues with the coach without proper consent. Suggesting immediate referral to a clinical psychologist without conducting an initial assessment by the sport psychologist is premature. While referral may ultimately be necessary, the sport psychologist, with their expertise in sport-specific contexts and the biopsychosocial model, is best positioned to conduct the initial evaluation to determine the nature and severity of the issues and whether a referral is indeed the most appropriate next step. This approach bypasses the sport psychologist’s role in initial assessment and intervention planning within their scope of practice. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic, evidence-based approach that prioritizes the athlete’s well-being. This involves: 1) Conducting a thorough biopsychosocial assessment to understand the interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors contributing to the athlete’s presentation. 2) Differentiating between normal developmental variations, situational stressors, and clinical psychopathology. 3) Collaborating with the athlete, and with consent, other relevant parties (e.g., parents, coaches) to gather comprehensive information. 4) Developing an individualized intervention plan that may include direct intervention, psychoeducation, skill-building, or referral to other professionals as needed. 5) Continuously monitoring the athlete’s progress and adjusting the intervention plan accordingly, always adhering to ethical guidelines and professional standards of practice.

The review process indicates a scenario where a sport psychologist is asked to provide performance enhancement advice to an athlete who is also a close personal friend. This situation presents a significant professional challenge due to the inherent conflict of interest that arises when personal relationships intersect with professional duties. Maintaining objectivity, ensuring client welfare, and upholding professional standards are paramount. Careful judgment is required to navigate the dual roles and prevent personal biases from influencing professional recommendations. The best professional practice involves clearly delineating the professional relationship from the personal one. This means establishing professional boundaries from the outset, including a formal agreement on the scope of services, fees, and confidentiality, even though the individual is a friend. The sport psychologist should assess their ability to remain objective and provide unbiased advice, considering whether the friendship might compromise their professional judgment or the athlete’s perception of impartiality. If objectivity can be maintained and appropriate boundaries are set, proceeding with a formal professional engagement, documented appropriately, is the ethically sound approach. This aligns with professional codes of conduct that emphasize avoiding conflicts of interest and prioritizing client welfare. An incorrect approach would be to provide informal advice without establishing professional boundaries or a formal agreement, simply because the individual is a friend. This failure to formalize the relationship risks blurring lines, potentially leading to misunderstandings about confidentiality, expectations, and the psychologist’s professional responsibilities. It also bypasses essential ethical safeguards designed to protect both the client and the practitioner. Another incorrect approach is to refuse to work with the friend altogether without a thorough assessment of the potential for conflict. While caution is warranted, an outright refusal without considering the possibility of managing the conflict ethically and professionally might be overly restrictive and could deny the athlete access to valuable support. The ethical imperative is to manage conflicts, not necessarily to avoid all potentially conflicted situations if they can be handled appropriately. A further incorrect approach would be to proceed with providing services without disclosing the personal relationship to the athlete and discussing how potential conflicts of interest will be managed. This lack of transparency is a significant ethical breach, as it deprives the athlete of the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether they are comfortable with the arrangement and undermines trust in the professional relationship. The professional reasoning process for such situations should involve a systematic assessment of potential conflicts of interest. This includes identifying the nature of the relationship, the potential impact on objectivity and professional judgment, and the athlete’s welfare. Professionals should consult relevant ethical guidelines and codes of conduct, and if necessary, seek supervision or consultation from peers or professional bodies. The decision-making framework should prioritize transparency, informed consent, and the establishment of clear professional boundaries to ensure the integrity of the professional relationship and the well-being of the athlete.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to understanding and applying the criteria for the Applied Sport and Performance Psychology Proficiency Verification. Professionals must navigate the specific requirements to ensure their qualifications are recognized, which involves careful interpretation of eligibility standards. Misunderstanding these criteria can lead to wasted effort, missed opportunities, and potential ethical breaches if individuals claim qualifications they do not possess. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a thorough review of the official documentation outlining the purpose and eligibility for the Applied Sport and Performance Psychology Proficiency Verification. This includes consulting the governing body’s website, any published handbooks, or official guidelines that detail the specific academic, experiential, and professional requirements. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the need to understand the defined parameters of the verification process. Adhering to these official guidelines ensures that an individual’s application is aligned with the established standards, promoting fairness and integrity in the verification process. This aligns with the ethical principle of competence and the professional responsibility to operate within defined scopes of practice and qualification frameworks. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Relying solely on anecdotal evidence or informal discussions with colleagues about eligibility is an incorrect approach. This method is prone to inaccuracies, as personal interpretations or outdated information can be shared, leading to a misunderstanding of the precise requirements. This fails to meet the professional standard of due diligence and can result in an ineligible individual applying, or an eligible individual being deterred from applying due to misinformation. Assuming that a general psychology degree automatically confers eligibility without verifying specific sport and performance psychology coursework or practical experience is another incorrect approach. The proficiency verification is likely designed to assess specialized knowledge and skills beyond a broad psychological foundation. This approach ignores the specific intent of the verification, which is to identify practitioners with targeted expertise in applied sport and performance psychology, potentially leading to a misrepresentation of one’s qualifications. Attempting to “reverse-engineer” eligibility by looking at the qualifications of currently verified individuals and trying to match them without understanding the underlying principles or specific criteria is also an incorrect approach. While observing others can provide some insight, it does not guarantee an accurate understanding of the requirements. This method lacks a systematic and evidence-based approach to determining eligibility and could lead to misinterpretations of what is truly essential for qualification. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding qualification requirements. This involves prioritizing official documentation from the certifying body, cross-referencing information where necessary, and seeking clarification from the governing organization if any aspect of the requirements is unclear. This methodical process ensures that decisions regarding eligibility are informed, accurate, and ethically sound, upholding professional standards and the integrity of the verification process.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a sport psychologist to navigate the ethical and regulatory landscape surrounding client confidentiality, particularly when a third party (the coach) requests information about a client’s progress. The sport psychologist must balance the client’s right to privacy with the coach’s legitimate interest in the athlete’s performance and well-being, all while adhering to professional standards and potentially legal requirements. Mismanagement of this situation could lead to breaches of confidentiality, damage to the therapeutic relationship, and potential disciplinary action. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves obtaining explicit, informed consent from the athlete before sharing any information with the coach. This approach respects the athlete’s autonomy and right to privacy. The sport psychologist should explain to the athlete what information might be shared, why it is being shared, and with whom, ensuring the athlete understands the implications and has the power to agree or refuse. This aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize client confidentiality and informed consent, such as those found in professional codes of conduct for psychologists and sport psychologists, which mandate that information about a client shall not be disclosed without the client’s consent, except under specific, legally defined circumstances (e.g., imminent harm). Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Sharing general progress updates without the athlete’s explicit consent, even if framed as beneficial for performance, violates the principle of confidentiality and informed consent. This approach disregards the athlete’s right to control their personal information and could erode trust. Providing detailed psychological insights or diagnostic information to the coach without the athlete’s consent constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality. This is ethically unacceptable and could have legal ramifications, as it goes beyond general progress and delves into sensitive personal data. Refusing to communicate with the coach at all, even after discussing potential information sharing with the athlete, might be perceived as uncooperative and could hinder the athlete’s overall support system. While prioritizing confidentiality, a complete refusal without exploring consensual communication options is not the most professionally nuanced approach. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes client welfare and ethical adherence. This involves: 1) Identifying the core ethical principles at play (confidentiality, autonomy, beneficence). 2) Understanding the relevant professional codes of conduct and any applicable legal regulations regarding client information. 3) Engaging in open and honest communication with the client about the situation and their rights. 4) Seeking explicit, informed consent for any disclosure of information. 5) Documenting all communications and decisions made. 6) Consulting with supervisors or professional bodies if uncertainty exists.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between supporting a client’s progress and adhering to the established policies of an educational or certification body. The psychologist must balance their duty of care to the client with the integrity of the assessment process and the institution’s commitment to fair and consistent evaluation. Misinterpreting or circumventing retake policies can lead to accusations of bias, unfair advantage, or even professional misconduct, impacting both the psychologist’s reputation and the client’s standing. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough understanding and strict adherence to the stated blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies of the Applied Sport and Performance Psychology Proficiency Verification. This approach prioritizes fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the certification process. By consulting the official documentation, the psychologist ensures that their advice and actions are aligned with the established standards, preventing any perception of preferential treatment or manipulation of the assessment outcomes. This upholds the credibility of the certification and protects both the client and the certifying body from potential disputes. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Advising the client to focus solely on areas where they performed poorly without considering the overall blueprint weighting and scoring mechanisms is ethically problematic. This could lead to an inefficient study plan, potentially causing the client undue stress and failing to address the most critical components of the verification, thereby not truly preparing them for successful completion. It also risks misrepresenting the nature of the assessment. Suggesting that the client focus on memorizing specific content from past retake attempts, assuming a pattern in the questions, is a direct violation of assessment integrity. This approach undermines the purpose of the verification, which is to assess a broad range of competencies, not to game a system. It could lead to the client gaining an unfair advantage and devalues the certification for all participants. Recommending that the client delay their retake indefinitely until they feel “absolutely perfect” in all areas, without reference to the retake policy’s timeframes or conditions, is professionally irresponsible. This can lead to the client missing crucial deadlines, incurring additional fees, or becoming demotivated. It also fails to acknowledge that proficiency verification often involves demonstrating competence within reasonable parameters, not unattainable perfection, and ignores the policy’s defined process for retakes. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should approach such situations by first seeking clarity on the official policies governing the assessment. This involves consulting the blueprint, scoring rubrics, and retake guidelines. Any advice provided to the client should be grounded in these established parameters. When discussing performance and preparation for a retake, the focus should be on developing a comprehensive study strategy that aligns with the assessment’s weighting and scoring, while also respecting the procedural requirements for retakes. Transparency with the client about these policies is paramount.

This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the sport psychologist to balance the athlete’s immediate desire for performance enhancement with the ethical imperative of ensuring their long-term well-being and adherence to professional standards. The timeline for preparation is not a fixed entity but is contingent on numerous individual and contextual factors, necessitating a nuanced and individualized approach. The best professional practice involves a comprehensive assessment of the athlete’s current state, including their psychological readiness, understanding of performance enhancement strategies, and the specific demands of their sport and upcoming competition. This assessment informs the development of a tailored preparation plan that integrates evidence-based psychological techniques with realistic timelines. This approach is correct because it prioritizes the athlete’s holistic development and safety, aligning with ethical guidelines that mandate competence, informed consent, and the avoidance of harm. It ensures that the athlete is not only prepared for immediate performance but also equipped with sustainable skills and a healthy mindset, thereby respecting their autonomy and promoting their welfare. An approach that focuses solely on the athlete’s expressed timeline without a thorough assessment risks oversimplifying the preparation process. This could lead to the implementation of strategies that are not appropriate for the athlete’s current developmental stage or psychological state, potentially causing undue stress or even psychological harm. Such a failure to conduct a proper needs assessment and tailor interventions would contravene ethical principles of competence and beneficence. Another incorrect approach would be to adopt a generic, one-size-fits-all preparation plan based on common timelines seen in similar sports. This disregards the unique characteristics of the individual athlete, their specific strengths and weaknesses, and the nuances of their competitive environment. This can lead to ineffective interventions and a failure to address the athlete’s actual needs, thereby not upholding the ethical duty to provide competent and individualized care. Finally, an approach that prioritizes rapid, intensive preparation without adequate consideration for the athlete’s recovery and mental well-being is also professionally unacceptable. This could lead to burnout, increased susceptibility to injury (both physical and psychological), and a negative long-term impact on the athlete’s relationship with their sport and performance psychology support. This approach fails to adhere to the ethical principle of avoiding harm and promoting the athlete’s overall welfare. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough ethical and needs assessment. This involves understanding the relevant professional codes of conduct, the athlete’s individual circumstances, and the specific context of their sport. The process should then move to collaborative goal setting, evidence-based intervention planning, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation, with flexibility to adapt the plan as needed. This ensures that decisions are grounded in ethical principles and are tailored to the athlete’s best interests.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent conflict between a client’s perceived immediate needs and the ethical obligation to ensure the client’s long-term well-being and the integrity of the profession. The practitioner must navigate the potential for a client to feel pressured or coerced into a service they may not fully understand or benefit from, while also respecting the client’s autonomy. Careful judgment is required to balance advocacy for the client’s goals with the responsibility to uphold professional standards and avoid exploitation. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough, multi-stage assessment process that prioritizes the client’s understanding and informed consent. This approach begins with a comprehensive initial consultation to establish rapport, understand the client’s stated goals, and assess their readiness for engagement. It then proceeds to a detailed needs assessment, which may involve questionnaires, interviews, and observation, to identify underlying issues and potential barriers. Crucially, this stage includes a clear explanation of the practitioner’s scope of practice, the services offered, their potential benefits and limitations, and the associated fees and commitment required. The client is then given ample opportunity to ask questions and consider their options without undue pressure before agreeing to any formal engagement or program. This aligns with ethical guidelines that mandate transparency, client welfare, and informed consent, ensuring the client is an active and informed participant in their journey. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately designing and presenting a comprehensive, long-term program based solely on the client’s initial enthusiastic statements. This fails to adequately assess the client’s underlying needs, potential contraindications, or their true understanding of the commitment involved. It risks over-promising and under-delivering, potentially leading to client dissatisfaction and reputational damage. Another incorrect approach is to offer a “trial” or “introductory” package at a significantly reduced price without a preceding thorough assessment. While seemingly client-friendly, this can bypass crucial diagnostic steps and may lead to the client engaging in a program that is not optimally suited to their needs, or it could set an unsustainable precedent for future service expectations. Finally, an approach that focuses primarily on securing a long-term contract and payment upfront, before a comprehensive assessment and clear understanding of services, is ethically problematic. This prioritizes financial gain over client welfare and can create a power imbalance, making it difficult for the client to withdraw if the services prove unsuitable. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a client-centered, ethically grounded decision-making process. This involves prioritizing client welfare and autonomy, adhering to principles of informed consent and transparency, and conducting thorough assessments before recommending or implementing interventions. A structured approach, starting with rapport building and comprehensive needs assessment, followed by clear communication of services, costs, and expectations, and culminating in voluntary informed consent, is paramount. Professionals should continually reflect on their practice, seeking supervision or consultation when faced with complex ethical dilemmas, and always acting in a manner that upholds the integrity of their profession.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent responsibility of selecting and administering psychological assessments in a performance context. The practitioner must navigate the ethical imperative of ensuring assessments are valid, reliable, and appropriate for the specific athlete and their sport, while also adhering to the professional standards and guidelines governing the practice of sport psychology. Misapplication or selection of inappropriate tools can lead to misdiagnosis, ineffective interventions, and potential harm to the athlete’s well-being and performance. The need for rigorous psychometric properties and contextual relevance underscores the importance of careful judgment. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a systematic approach that prioritizes the athlete’s specific needs and the performance context. This includes conducting a thorough needs analysis to understand the performance demands and the athlete’s current psychological profile. Following this, the practitioner should research and select assessments with established psychometric properties (validity and reliability) that are specifically designed for or have been validated within sport and performance populations. The chosen assessments must also be appropriate for the athlete’s developmental stage, cultural background, and the specific sport. This approach ensures that the assessment process is scientifically sound, ethically defensible, and maximally beneficial for the athlete’s development. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Using readily available, generic personality inventories without considering their psychometric properties or suitability for a sport context is professionally unacceptable. Such assessments may not capture the nuances of performance-related psychological constructs and could yield misleading results, leading to inappropriate interventions. Relying solely on an athlete’s self-report of preferred assessment types, without independent professional judgment regarding psychometric integrity, is also problematic. While athlete buy-in is important, it should not supersede the practitioner’s ethical obligation to use scientifically validated tools. Employing assessments that have not been empirically validated for sport and performance populations, or those with known psychometric weaknesses, risks generating unreliable data and undermining the credibility of the sport psychology service. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the client’s needs and the performance environment. This is followed by a critical evaluation of available assessment tools, focusing on their psychometric properties, relevance to the sport context, and ethical considerations. The process should be iterative, allowing for adjustments based on initial findings and ongoing athlete feedback, always prioritizing the athlete’s welfare and the integrity of the psychological service.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires the sport psychologist to navigate potential conflicts of interest and maintain professional boundaries while collaborating with a multidisciplinary team. The coach’s direct request for information about a player’s mental state, framed as a performance concern, could inadvertently lead to a breach of confidentiality if not handled with extreme care. The sport psychologist must balance the need for open communication within the team with their ethical obligation to protect the athlete’s privacy and autonomy. This requires a nuanced understanding of their role and the limits of their professional engagement with other team members. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves the sport psychologist facilitating a direct conversation between the athlete and the coach regarding the athlete’s performance and well-being. This approach upholds the athlete’s autonomy and right to self-determination. The sport psychologist’s role is to empower the athlete to communicate their needs and challenges directly to the coach, thereby fostering a more transparent and trusting relationship. This aligns with ethical guidelines that prioritize client welfare and confidentiality, ensuring that any disclosure of personal information is done with the athlete’s informed consent and at their discretion. The sport psychologist acts as a facilitator and advocate for the athlete’s voice, rather than an informant. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves the sport psychologist directly relaying their observations and assessments of the athlete’s mental state to the coach. This constitutes a breach of confidentiality, as such information is typically protected and should only be shared with the athlete’s explicit, informed consent. This action undermines the trust between the athlete and the sport psychologist and violates ethical principles regarding client privacy. Another incorrect approach is for the sport psychologist to refuse any communication with the coach about the athlete, citing confidentiality, without attempting to facilitate a constructive dialogue. While confidentiality is paramount, a complete refusal to engage can hinder effective multidisciplinary collaboration and potentially leave the athlete without necessary support if their performance issues are indeed linked to underlying psychological challenges that the coach could help address with appropriate awareness. This approach fails to balance confidentiality with the practical needs of the team and the athlete’s overall well-being. A further incorrect approach involves the sport psychologist offering a generalized assessment of the athlete’s mental resilience to the coach without any specific details, implying that the athlete is “fine” or “just needs to push through.” This is problematic as it can be misleading, potentially dismissive of the athlete’s actual struggles, and still constitutes an indirect disclosure of professional opinion without the athlete’s consent. It also fails to address the root cause of the performance issue and can create a false sense of security for the coach. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a decision-making framework that prioritizes client welfare and ethical conduct. This involves: 1) Identifying the ethical principles at play (confidentiality, autonomy, beneficence). 2) Assessing the potential risks and benefits of different courses of action for all parties involved, particularly the athlete. 3) Consulting relevant professional codes of conduct and legal requirements. 4) Seeking supervision or consultation if the situation is complex or uncertain. 5) Communicating transparently with the athlete about their rights and the sport psychologist’s professional obligations. 6) Facilitating open and ethical communication channels within the multidisciplinary team, always with the athlete’s best interests and consent at the forefront.