Análisis crítico de las limitaciones del Código Deontológico del Psicólogo Ecuatoriano desde la psicología forense
Palabras clave:
psicología forense, ética profesional, código deontológico, Ecuador, peritajes psicológicosResumen
La psicología forense en Ecuador opera en un marco ético fragmentado y desactualizado, con normas sanitarias generales, regulación gremial débil y referencias parciales a estándares internacionales. El Código Deontológico del Psicólogo Ecuatoriano, de orientación clínica generalista, no incorpora condiciones coercitivas, exigencias probatorias ni tensiones propias del ámbito judicial. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo analizar críticamente sus limitaciones normativas y operativas e identificar los aportes de unos Lineamientos Éticos Operativos aplicados de forma piloto en el sistema judicial de Chone. Se empleó un enfoque cualitativo descriptivo–exploratorio, con diseño de casos múltiples. Participaron 15 psicólogos que realizaron 45 evaluaciones periciales durante 2025 y registraron su experiencia mediante fichas estructuradas. Los hallazgos muestran: dificultades para operacionalizar confidencialidad, consentimiento informado e imparcialidad en escenarios forenses complejos; ausencia de criterios específicos para la actuación pericial en el código; y tensiones entre demandas judiciales y deberes éticos. La aplicación piloto se asoció con mayor claridad del consentimiento, delimitación explícita de la confidencialidad, mejor manejo de presiones externas y mejoras en la estructura de los informes. Se concluye que se requiere una actualización deontológica con protocolos operativos contextualizados.
Palabras claves: psicología forense, ética profesional, código deontológico, Ecuador, peritajes psicológicos.
ABSTRACT
Forensic psychology in Ecuador operates within a fragmented and outdated ethical landscape shaped by general health regulations, weak professional oversight, and partial references to international standards. The Ecuadorian Deontological Code, grounded in a general clinical perspective, does not adequately address coercive conditions, evidentiary requirements, or tensions inherent to judicial contexts. This study aimed to critically examine the code’s normative and operational limits and to assess contributions from Operational Ethical Guidelines piloted in the Chone judicial system. A qualitative descriptive–exploratory approach with a multiple case study design was used. Fifteen psychologists conducted 45 forensic evaluations in 2025 and recorded their experience using structured forms. Findings indicate: difficulties translating confidentiality, informed consent, and impartiality into complex forensic scenarios; lack of practice-specific criteria for expert work; and persistent tensions between court demands and ethical duties. The pilot guidelines were associated with clearer consent procedures, explicit confidentiality boundaries, improved management of external pressures, and better-structured forensic reports. The study concludes that Ecuador requires an updated deontological framework that integrates principles with context-specific operational protocols.
Keywords: forensic psychology, professional ethics, deontological code, Ecuador, psychological expert reports.
Información del manuscrito:
Fecha de recepción: 07 de octubre de 2025.
Fecha de aceptación: 15 de diciembre de 2025.
Fecha de publicación: 20 de enero de 2026.
Descargas
Citas
American Psychological Association. (2021). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
American Psychological Association. (2023). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? Quality practice in thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Buchanan, A., & Norko, M. (2021). Ethics, law, and forensic mental health practice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-051120-012430
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. (2023). Qualitative inquiry and research design (5th ed.). Sage.
DeMatteo, D., & Scherr, K. C. (2022). Forensic ethics and professional responsibility. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(2), 183–197.
DeMatteo, D., Edens, J. F., & Hart, S. D. (2021). Ethical issues in forensic psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 33(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000971
DeMatteo, D., Scherr, K. C., & Morgan, R. D. (2020). Ethical challenges in forensic psychology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 465–492. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071119-115455
Drogin, E. Y., Dattilio, F. M., & Sadoff, R. L. (2022). Ethical decision-making in forensic mental health evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 50(4), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.220012-22
EFPA. (2023). Meta-code of ethics. https://www.efpa.eu
Fisher, C. B., & Vacanti-Shova, K. (2021). Ethics in applied psychological science: Protecting rights in forensic contexts. Ethics & Behavior, 31(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1859271
Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Grisso, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2021). Ethics and forensic psychology practice. Oxford University Press.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, M. (2024). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data. Sage.
Heilbrun, K., & Brooks, S. (2023). Forensic mental health assessment: Ethics, bias, and professional responsibility. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 54(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000468
Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., & Goldstein, A. (2020). Professional standards in forensic assessment. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000832
Knoll, J. L., & Packer, I. K. (2022). Ethics and objectivity in forensic evaluations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 50(1), 5–15.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2020). Naturalistic inquiry (Updated ed.). Sage.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2021). Psychological evaluations for the courts (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2023). Managing ethical conflicts. Law and Human Behavior, 47(2), 89–101.
Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2021). Ethical dilemmas in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 1–12.
Neal, T. M. S., & Slobogin, C. (2022). Ethical reform in forensic psychological practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000352
Neal, T. M. S., et al. (2022). Ethical identity in forensic psychology. Psychological Assessment, 34(9), 823–835.
Otto, R. K., DeMier, R. L., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2020). Ethical challenges in court-ordered psychological evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(5), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2483
Packer, I. K. (2020). Ethics and professional practice in forensic psychology. APA.
Packer, I. K., & Grisso, T. (2022). Ethical standards and specialty guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(4), 321–330.
Sullivan, K., & Packer, I. K. (2023). Bias management and ethical safeguards in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 47(5), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000509
Ward, T., & Connolly, M. (2020). Ethics and values in forensic psychology: A framework for practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(4), 536–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2019.1702931
Ward, T., & Hauser, M. (2022). Integrity in forensic mental health practice. Ethics & Behavior, 32(5), 357–371.
Ward, T., & Syverson, K. (2021). Professional judgment in forensic mental health. Ethics & Behavior, 31(6), 433–447.
Zapf, P. A., Roesch, R., & Pirelli, G. (2021). Ethical issues in competency and responsibility evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 39(6), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2557
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria HEXACIENCIAS. ISSN: 3028-8657
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
