William Shakespeare, from Macbeth
Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble. Fillet of a fenny snake, In the caldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting. Lizzard’s leg and howlet’s wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble; Cool it with a baboon’s blood, Then the charm is firm and good.
The public expects clinical psychologists’ opinions to be reliable, valid, and science-based; clinical psychologists are expected to be science practitioners. The College of Alberta Psychologists has the duty to enforce that Alberta psychologists are science practitioners, use the current science, and are not junk science practitioners, pseudo-scientists, charlatans, or witchcraft practitioners toiling over a cauldron interpreting bubbles and steam.
Unfortunately, the top echelons of the College of Alberta Psychologists do not appear to subscribe to the science-practitioner model and hold the view that psychologists’ opinions are not reliable and not scientific, that different psychologists are entitled to arrive to opposite conclusions over the same objective data, and that psychologists need not to rely on the current science but are free to pick and choose what they rely on including even 80 years outdated and obsolete tests, data and norms to justify their opinions. In short, the college believes that clinical psychology is akin to witchcraft where each specific witch chooses their own potions and ingredients, and each witch arrives to a different interpretation of bubbles and steam rising from the boiling brew in their cauldron depending on each witch’s particular predilection, training, and experience, and which book of witchcraft each witch inherited from their predecessors.
College of Alberta Psychologists: Which Opinion One Receives Depends On Which Psychologist One Happens to See
In her response to Ms. T’s four complaints against her, Dr. Mary Westcott (@ Westcott Psychology, @ West Coast Psychological Services, @ LinkedIn) argued that psychologists are more like witchcraft practitioners or tea-leaf readers rather than science practitioners. Dr. Westcott argued that psychologists are free to choose any potion and any ingredients to produce “a brew”, any method to “read” the brew, and any method to “interpret” the steam in formulating their opinions or predicting future, and wrote that it all depends on their choice of “different testing conditions”, their “levels of training and experience”, and which “resources” and “studies” they “have access to.” Verbatim, on November 1, 2021, Dr. Westcott wrote:
Importantly, different psychologists are allowed to arrive at different opinions. A different opinion does not suggest one psychologist breached standards of practice or acted incompetently. There is an endless wealth of literature in psychology, and different professionals will have access to different resources and will rely on different studies in arriving at their opinions. Different professionals will also use different testing instruments and may arrive at different results depending on different testing conditions. Professionals also have varied levels of training and experience, which will also inform the opinion at which they objectively arrive.
Dr. Mary Westcott, November 1, 2021
In Dr. Mary Westcott ‘s view, a psychologist can choose from “an endless wealth of literature” which depends on which literature and studies the psychologist has “access to”, may have a different understanding of that literature depending on their level of “training and experience”, etc.. Accordingly, psychologists need not concern themselves with what the current scientific literature has to say on the topic nor with the fundamental issues whether, for example, the psychologist actually has the necessary knowledge and skills, for example, to conduct formal assessments, to score tests, to interpret test scores, and to locate a correct test manual.
Remarkably, in his response, Dr. John Braxton Suffield also argued that psychologists are more like witchcraft practitioners or tea-leaf readers rather than science practitioners. In Dr. Suffield’s view, the psychologists are free to choose any potion and any ingredients to produce “a brew”, any method to “read” the brew, and any method to “interpret” the steam in formulating their opinions or predicting the future. Verbatim, Dr. Suffield wrote [witchcraft parallels are added in square brackets]:
In conducting fitness-for-duty and other assessments, psychologists may differ in their choice of tests [choice of potions], test norms [frog toes, tongue of a dog, wing of a bat], and their interpretation of test results [bubbles and smoke coming out of their cauldron] in formulating an opinion [a prediction of future]. Similarly, psychologists may rely on different citations [different recipes on how to make a brew] from the scientific [witchcraft] literature in forming and substantiating their opinions [predictions of future]. Often psychological research [cauldron brew and potion recipes] provides but merely one viewpoint [one witch’s view], and dissenting perspectives [other witches’ views] may be found on almost any topic. So long as there is reasonable and/or empirical support for the views offered [bubbles and steam interpretation of at least one witch], these differences do not, in and of themselves, denote incompetence, unprofessional conduct, or malpractice.
Dr. J. Braxton Suffield
In Dr. Suffield’s view, anything goes. Psychologists may choose different tests, different norms, different interpretations of the same scores, different literature/articles to rely on, and as long as they can cite some literature somewhat supporting their opinions, they are competent and professional, even if that literature is 80 years outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant.
In response to Ms. T’s complaints about Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel, and J. Braxton Suffield, incompetence in multiple areas (including inability to find a correct test manual), Dr. Troy Janzen, the Deputy Registrar, and the Complaints Director, College of Alberta Psychologists, wrote:
The fact that experts disagree on similar data does not constitute evidence that any one opinion was unprofessional. It is common for experts to disagree with one another.
Dr. Troy Janzen
Dr. Janzen unreasonably agreed with Drs. Westcott and Suffield’s psychologist as a witchcraft practitioner view. It does not matter to him which potions and ingredients psychologists choose, how long they mix the brew, as long as they come up with some interpretation of the bubbles and smoke, and as long as they can find at least one or two recipes supporting their brew formation and steam reading. Dr. Janzen wrote:
… I cannot weigh in on their interpretation of the data in this other than to determine if their interpretation could fit within a possible range of interpretations based on the data they had available to them at the time. Indeed, you were able to find other professionals who disputed their interpretation.
Dr. Troy Janzen
Dr. Lorraine Breault, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi and the Complaint Review Committee, the College of Alberta Psychologists, reviewed Dr. Troy Janzen’s dismissal of Ms. T’s complaints, and in effect, confirmed the College of Alberta Psychologists view that different psychologists arriving to different conclusions over the same objective data is competent and professional practice. Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC wrote (the CRC Decision Re Suffield, p. 9-10):
Professionals will reach opinions and opinions may vary among professionals. That variation does not mean that there is incompetence. Professionals may exercise appropriate skills and judgment and comply with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and still reach an opinion that will differ from that of their colleagues. Psychologists use their knowledge and training in terms of test selection, interpretation, and rendering opinions that will fall within a spectrum. A difference of opinion is not evidence of unprofessional conduct. Opinions will be reached based on a review of a multitude of tests and a number of different sources of data… if another psychologist acting reasonably would have done similar testing and if the opinion reached is justified based on the psychologist’s review and assessment of the various data sources, then the conduct is not inappropriate or unprofessional.
Dr. Lorraine Breault, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi, and the CRC
If professionals reach opposite conclusions over the same or similar objective data, the professionals’ opinions are unreliable, that is, they depend on which professional one sees, and thus, are invalid and non-scientific. The stark disagreement among professionals is a strong indication of one or more psychologists being incompetent, and, for example, using junk science or pseudoscience to ground their opinions. Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC concluded that everything Drs. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield did to arrive to their opinions of Ms. T complied with the Code of Ethics, Standards and Practice, and Health Profession Act. Accordingly, in their view, anything goes, anything is reasonable, anything is appropriate, and anything is justified, including the following:
- using norm-referenced testing when criterion-referenced testing was required to be used
- comparing scores on one test to norms for other, different tests
- comparing scores on current tests to norms for outdated obsolete tests normed 80 years ago on different populations in different historical era
- failure to accurately score tests and to accurately present test scores
- misrepresenting non-experimental opinion data as “norms” based on testing “actual workers” in specific occupations
- failure to locate a correct test manual and misrepresenting a test manual for a different test as a manual for the test actually administered to Ms. T
- lying about what the scores represent
- using and interpreting patently unreliable tests and scores
- ignoring unreliability of test scores, not disclosing imprecision of test scores, and not disclosing 95% confidence intervals for observed scores
- ignoring ulti-variate base rates of low scores and cherry-picking low scores to justify their opinions
- misrepresenting opinions and statements authored by others as their own (plagiarism)
- etc.
Thus, according to Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC even dishonesty – lying about tests, test scores, and test manuals, and lying about authorship of opinions (plagiarism) – complies with the Code of Ethics, the Standards of Practice, and the Health Profession Act. Dr. Breault et al. either do not understand what science is, what ethics is, what standards of practice are, and what their duty was, or alternatively, Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi and the CRC did not read Ms. T’s complaints, did not examine evidence before them, and did not notice the conduct enumerated above.
Ergo, the College of Alberta Psychologists psychologists’ opinions are unreliable, invalid, and not scientific, according to the College of Alberta Psychologists. Which opinion an examinee receives from a psychologist depends on which psychologist the examinee happens to see.
Contrary to the College of Alberta Psychologists, Psychologists’ Opinions Ought To Be Reliable, Valid, And Based On Current Science
Consensus among psychologists is that psychologists opinions ought to be reliable, valid, and based on current science, and that psychologists ought to be honest and transparent, and certainly not lying, not misrepresenting, and not causing harm.
Regarding currency, the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CCEP), Principle II.9 requires psychologists to be “up to date” or current:
II.9 Keep themselves up to date with a broad range of relevant knowledge, research methods, techniques, and technologies, and their impact on individuals and groups (e.g., couples, families, organizations, communities, and peoples), through the reading of relevant literature, peer consultation, and continuing education activities, in order that their practice, teaching, supervision, and research activities will benefit and not harm others.
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, Principle II.9
Similarly, the CCEP, Principle III.4 requires psychologists to maintain competence:
III.4 Maintain competence in their declared area(s) of psychological competence, as well as in their current area(s) of activity. (Also see Standard II.9.)
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, Principle III.4
The College of Alberta Psychologists’ Standards of Practice (2022) requires clinical psychologists to base their opinions on “scientific knowledge base of the discipline” and requires them to remain “current in the knowledge”:
5.10 A psychologist shall base an opinion on, and limit an opinion to, reasonable and generally accepted practice standards and the theoretical and scientific knowledge base of the discipline.
6.1 Regulated members on the general register or provisional register must successfully participate in the Continuing Competence Program approved by Council to enhance the provision of professional psychological services by remaining current in the knowledge [emphasis added}, skills, diligence and judgment required to serve the public interest.
College of Alberta Psychologists’ Standards of Practice, Standards 5.10 and 6.1
It is unclear how a long list of PhD level, registered psychologists, members of various professional organizations, such as the Canadian Psychological Association, etc., could consider the use of the 40 to 80 years old, outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant tests, norms. and data as current science and compliant with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. One would think that someone in the College of Alberta Psychologists ought to be able to realize that 80 years old tests, norms, and data are not current but outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant.
Regarding honesty, the CCEP, Principle III.1, requires psychologists not to participate or be associated with “dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation, or misrepresentation”:
III.1 Not knowingly participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, misappropriation, or misrepresentation.
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, Principle III.1
Similarly, one would think that if a test manual states that aptitude level data presented in the manual were not based on testing of any actual workers in specific occupations that someone in the College of Alberta Psychologist would recognize that Dr. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield’s statements that the data were based on “actual workers” were lies — especially if Ms. T’s complaints point it out to them. Of course this recognition would require that someone in the College of Alberta Psychologists — Dr. Janzen, Dr. Acton, Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi — would actually have a look at the manual and be able to comprehend what it states in plain English. Either the College of Alberta Psychologists psychologists did not bother to look, did not comprehend, or they looked and comprehended but chose to look other way.
Conclusions
The College of Alberta Psychologists appears not to understand their obligations to rely on the current science and their duty to enforce the Code of Ethics, the Standards of Practice, and the Health Profession Act.
They appear to be unaware that populations have been changing over the years and decades and that what once may have been current science is no longer current science but outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant science superseded by new findings published in later studies and later “resources”. They appear to be unaware that they have the duty to be honest and transparent rather than lying and misrepresenting facts to their clients and to the public. An alternative explanation for their conduct is that the top echelons of the College of Alberta Psychologists are corrupt and decided to cover up their psychologists’ incompetence and lies rather than enforce the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Practice as they are required under the Alberta Health Profession Act.
If one psychologist opines, over the same data, that Ms. T’s average mental capacity – intelligence, memory, attention, working memory, etc. — does not prevent her from performing her teaching duties but another psychologist opines the exact opposite, that Ms. T’s average intelligence, memory, attention, working memory, etc. prevents her from performing her teaching duties, something is deeply rotten with psychology. Either psychology is free for all witchcraft and not science, or one or more psychologists were incompetent and used irrelevant, unreliable, and invalid (nonscientific) methods and interpretations to arrive to their patently unreasonable conclusions and opinions.
In Ms. T’s case, Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel and Suffield opinions were indeed based on irrelevant and invalid methods; misuse of data from a wrong test manual due to inability or unwillingness of these psychologists to find a correct test manual, inability or unwillingness to accurately score and to present test scores, reliance on multiple outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data, etc.. In short, Dr. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield’s opinions were not based on current science but junk science; they were unreliable, invalid, and not scientific.
Ergo, the College of Alberta Psychologists is either unaware and incompetent to enforce the Health Profession Act, Standards of Practice, and Code of Ethics, or corrupt and deliberately chooses not to enforce them.