The lack of care in the preparation of the psychological report has generated complaints against psychologists, requiring studies to improve this professional practice. This study evaluated the storage, the structure and the completion of the documents produced by seven traffic psychologists. The psychological reports of professional drivers who were submitted to a psychological evaluation at an accredited clinic were selected in two phases: upon acquisition of permission (2002) and upon renewal/change of the license five years later (2007). The criteria of quality were defined and operationalized based on the resolutions of the Professional Council. Out of the 839 drivers selected to participate in the study whose reports were evaluated, it was expected an equal amount of psychological reports to be found. Sixty-seven reports were found, both in 2002 and 2007, highlighting problems at storage. The 67 reports elaborated in 2007 were analyzed, and several problems were indicated in the structure (no identification of the psychologist; a final statement was identified, rather than the conclusion; the location of the examinations was not expressed) and completion of the reports (overuse of abbreviations in writing; mistakes while naming the instruments; lack of results and non-integration of data obtained in the evaluation process). A systematic assessment of both the elaboration process and storage conditions of the reports are suggested as indicators of the psychological assessment quality, enabling efficient/effective intervention based on precise criteria.
Psychological report; Traffic psychology; Quality control; Psychologist performance
