One of my clients once shared an experience with a previous psychologist who reacted with irritation to what the client disclosed during sessions. At that time, the client was still a minor, and the psychologist contacted the parents and accused them of improper parenting. This situation prompted me to reflect on an important professional question: when, if ever, is it appropriate for a psychologist to adopt an evaluative or “teacher-like” position toward a client?
When a psychologist considers taking an evaluative stance, the issue extends beyond professional competence and enters the realm of ethical boundaries. This requires a clear understanding of one’s role and its alignment with professional standards. According to the Ethical Code of the Psychologist (hereinafter referred to as the Code), a psychologist must operate strictly within their scope of competence, respecting the client’s personality, autonomy, and right to make choices. Evaluation that goes beyond the framework of counseling and turns into judgments, verdicts, or classifications without proper consent poses a serious risk of violating these fundamental principles.
An evaluative position implies that the psychologist functions not only as a facilitator of change or support, but also, to some extent, as a judge issuing conclusions. When is such a role acceptable? First, it is permissible when there is a clearly defined purpose and when the client or an organization has consciously agreed to an evaluation procedure. Examples include psychological assessment, personnel selection, or competency evaluation, where the goals, methods, tools, and conditions are clearly established and the psychologist has appropriate qualifications. The Code explicitly states that psychologists may conduct assessments and issue conclusions only using valid and properly applied instruments, and they are obligated to inform clients about the conditions, limitations, and implications of such procedures. If evaluation occurs outside an agreed framework or without explicit informed consent, it may violate the principles of autonomy, subjectivity, and trust, which are central to ethical psychological practice.
Second, it is critically important not to conflate professional roles. Simultaneously occupying the roles of consultant, therapist, and evaluator is particularly risky. Counseling and psychotherapy are based on trust, equality, empathy, and a nonjudgmental attitude. Ethical standards for psychological counseling emphasize that psychologists should strive to maintain a non-evaluative stance, and that assessment is appropriate only within clearly defined procedures where it is justified. If a psychologist begins to evaluate a client during routine counseling, for example by pointing out personal shortcomings or criticizing parenting, this can undermine the therapeutic alliance and reduce the client’s sense of responsibility and agency within the process.
Another essential consideration concerns responsibility for the use of assessment tools. Only when instruments are valid, standardized, and applied in an appropriate context can a psychologist ethically and professionally provide conclusions. The Code stresses that psychologists must avoid unqualified or inappropriate use of diagnostic methods. Conducting evaluations without adequate training or in unsuitable circumstances directly violates ethical standards, compromises the quality of care, and erodes trust.
A separate but equally serious issue arises with confidentiality. Disclosing to parents what a client shared in therapy, even if the psychologist personally disapproves of the content, contradicts the Code. The confidentiality section clearly states that information obtained by a psychologist in the course of work with a client, within a relationship of trust, must not be intentionally or accidentally disclosed outside the agreed conditions. There are no discretionary clauses allowing such disclosure based on personal moral judgment. The client has a right to privacy, and safeguarding that privacy is a core professional responsibility. Moreover, sensitive disclosures may relate to trauma or deep psychological vulnerabilities. If it were easy for the client to share this information with parents or others, they likely would have done so already. The fact that they disclose it to a psychologist reflects trust in a professional whose role is to understand and help through psychological means, not through judgment, instruction, or breach of confidentiality.
In conclusion, a psychologist may adopt an evaluative position only when there is a clearly defined procedure, informed consent from the client or organization, transparent goals and methods, and appropriate professional training for that specific role. In all other situations, assuming the role of evaluator risks violating principles of equality, autonomy, and psychological support, turning a helping process into one of judgment rather than care. Ultimately, professional ethics require psychologists to choose positions that strengthen the client’s resources and respect their dignity. An evaluative stance can be one such position, but only under clearly defined and ethically sound conditions.