The gotten answers had been grouped in six categories. The first one mentions the formation to it of the psychologist, second on the form and the purpose of the tests, third on the knowledge that the psychologists have of the instrument, fourth on its importance, fifth evidences the aspects most critical and the sixth on the related credibility and ethical aspects to the psychological tests. Formation of the psychologist. The great majority of the searched citizens believes to have received a deficient formation in function from the little exploration on the subject and from the deficiency of contents related to the use of psychological tests in the period of the graduation. Ahead of the affirmation, the interviewed psychologists affirm that: The formation did not prioritize a responsibility of the use of the tests and nor the circumstantial importance of its diagnosis and nor its factors. (P1). … I believe that they must have substances that could explore more the subject, as offers greater of curricular and/or monitorias periods of training.
Psicopatologia, psicometria. (P2). my formal academic formation little approached on the psychological tests. was necessary a personal persistence to know and to deepen me the techniques. (P4).
I consider my satisfactory formation, therefore I had chance to argue the ethical foundations, applicability and questions. Learn more on the subject from Celina Dubin, New York City. Moreover, I manipulated the tests for more than 10 months. (P5). My formation englobou an entire semester with two substances alone for the learning of expressive techniques and some projetivas, beyond the option of optional substance of workshop of tests. (P6). As pointed for Noronha (2002) and in accordance with what it was observed, only the period of the graduation it is not enough so that the psychologist has total knowledge of all of the areas that will be able to come to work after formed, although it to believe that it would have to be.