The theoretical and empirical literature on the profile and practice of school psychologists has been discussed, especially in the last 15 years, profiles and professional practices of school psychologists, in different scenarios, from basic education to higher education. In the theoretical field, Martínez (2010), when proposing a conceptual reflection on the emerging forms of the psychologist’s practice, pointed out that clarity about theoretical-epistemological concepts, creativity, reflection and decision-making capacity, awareness and social commitment would be a few important characteristics for the school psychologist to enhance the contribution of Psychology in the school institution. Dazzani (2010), when offering reflections on inclusive education, associated the professional profile of the school psychologist to actions that contemplate the prevention and promotion of well-being at school, integrating teams and multidisciplinary work groups. For example, when theorizing about school violence, more specifically bullying, Freire and Aires (2012) suggested that, in order to prevent and deal with this phenomenon, the school psychologist should be able to analyze, reflect, mobilize and encourage reflections, in the educational players, about the interactions and conflicts that involve the school dynamics.

More recently, in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, Guzzo (2015) reflected on how psychology can act, based on a critical perspective, to overcome the social and psychological impacts of the crisis caused by the pandemic in Brazil. The authors argue that the psychologist must mobilize knowledge to enhance the commitment for the struggle to ensure students’ rights, listening and reflecting to build collective and collaborative actions that give priority to demands and needs, especially the affective ones, that grew in the subjects of the school.

The investigations by Medeiros and Aquino (2011) and Aquino et al. (2015), in public schools in the state of Paraíba, indicated that this professional must invest in theoretical skills and act as a mediator of the educational process in order to be recognized as part of the school community. Chioldi and Facci (2013), in a study in the State of Paraná, considered that the school psychologist should be prepared to work in institutional and pedagogical relationships associated with the teaching and learning process.

The ability to work in partnerships within the school (with administrators, teachers, students, parents and the school staff) was identified as a psychologist’s professional competence for the promotion of collective actions in the study by Petroni and Souza (2014), carried out in the state of São Paulo. Also in this state, Guzzo et al. (2012) argued that psychologists should involve themselves in educational policies, aiming to assume an ethical-political commitment with the change of the social reality in which they operate.

Nasciutti and Silva (2014), in Minas Gerais, suggested the need for conceptual and technical appropriation and development of critical thinking on the part of school psychologists. The study by Giongo and Oliveira-Menegotto (2010), in Rio Grande do Sul, also emphasized the critical commitment with the changes in the school environment, fostering actions developed collectively, as a competence to be enhanced by school psychologists.

Focusing on the theme of the school psychologist’s profile indicators specifically, the investigation by D. C. O. Santos et al. (2017) and D. Santos et al. (2019) advanced in the development of a map of competences of this professional. The studies carried out based on interviews with school psychologists who worked in the state of Pará described the competences assessed as necessary for this professional’s performance which include: clinical service, psychological assessment, health care, work with the family, preventive work, de-pathologizing school failure, special education, recruitment and selection, individual guidance, professional guidance, theoretical and practical updating, among others. The conclusions point to the need for further studies on school psychologists’ competences in order to offer guidelines for their practice.

Marinho-Araujo (2014c, 2016a) and collaborators (Marinho-Araujo & Almeida, 2017; Galvão & Marinho-Araujo, 2018, 2019; Feitosa & Marinho-Araujo, 2018, 2021; Feitosa et al., 2020; Nunes & Marinho-Araujo, 2020) conducted investigations regarding the profile and competences of school psychologists. The authors developed theoretical and empirical studies focused on the investigation and construction of these professionals’ profile indicators and competences, with conceptual and methodological proposals for their development and evaluation.

Cavalcante (2019), understanding the importance of permanent renewal of professional practice, carried out an intervention-research that led to continuing education for a group of school psychologists in the Federal District. The purpose was to contribute to the reconfiguration of professional profiles, especially using methodological strategies linked to the art for the development of transversal competences. The results indicated that aesthetic mediation was qualitatively different in terms of promoting transversal competences and transforming the participating professionals’ conceptions and practices. In a School Psychology literature review study covering the period between 1996 and 2016, Cavalcante and Marinho-Araujo (2020) found, in the papers scrutinized, the support of a school psychologists’ profile composed of competences that lead to critical-reflexive practices, within the context of historical, social and cultural aspects, and that would express those psychologists’ ethical and political role.

Feitosa and Marinho-Araujo (2018, 2021) and Feitosa et al. (2020) discussed role indicators of Brazilian and Portuguese school psychologists who work in higher education institutions. Based on Historical-Cultural Psychology and using virtual ethnography to foster online participation of the professionals, the authors pointed out the relevance of the expanded and institutional intervention of the school psychologist, by proposing technical guidelines based on indicators of technical and cross-sectional competences (Marinho-Araujo, 2014c; Marinho-Araujo & Almeida, 2017), favoring the psychologist’s practice in educational programs, management and construction of the student profile. The profile construction of the professionals who work in this environment must be associated with their intentional theoretical-methodological option and directed to the context of their practice, which must be critical and socially committed (Feitosa & Marinho-Araujo, 2018, 2021; Feitosa et al., 2020).

Galvão and Marinho-Araujo (2018, 2019) innovated with studies on the profile and practice of school psychologists in educational Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Through interviews and observations on the practices of these professionals, the authors argued that the indicators of the psychologist’s professional profile should include knowledge about developmental psychology, learning and school psychology; interdisciplinary understanding of psychological phenomena; critical understanding of Brazilian educational legislation; critical actions; social and professional ethical commitment; political stance; work in integration networks, among others (Galvão & Marinho-Araujo, 2018, 2019).

The contributions of Nunes and Marinho-Araujo (2020) are related to the identification and construction of indicators of the school psychologists’ profile based on professionals who worked in public schools of the Education Secretary of Federal District. The results revealed that psychologists are aware of the critical profile expected for their practice, but they also perceive the need to develop and consolidate professional competences such as: knowledge of developmental psychology, appropriation of the historical-cultural approach, commitment to study and continuing education, appropriation of institutional and collective action, development of psychological listening, mastery of psychological assessment, ability to build interpersonal relationships favorable to professional practice, empathy, clarity in communication, respect for educational players, responsibility with the use of confidentiality and creativity.

Internationally, differences regarding the practices of school psychologists have been investigated. The cross-cultural studies by Jimerson and collaborators (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) deserve to be highlighted; they compared data from several countries: Albania, Germany, Australia, China, Cyprus, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Estonia, Georgia, England, Italy, Russia and Switzerland. Although the investigators recognized the existing differences between the investigated contexts, they converged in pointing out that the main practices of school psychologists were focused on psychoeducational assessments, counseling and clinical services. In the United States, Wneck et al. (2008) also identified psychological assessment, in addition to mental health services, as the areas most reported by school psychologists in that country. Jordan et al. (2009) pointed out that, in Canada, the practices of these professionals also emphasized assessment processes, in addition to services regarding the development of children’s learning.

Similar results were found by D’Amato et al. (2013) and Schalkwyk and D’Amato (2013), who concluded that school psychology services in China were focused on psychological assessment, mental health services, consultation and intervention with children and families. Still in Asia, Chong et al. (2013) revealed that in Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand the actions that came closest to the discussions of school psychology were related to individual educational counseling and guidance to students. Kavenska et al. (2013) mapped the working conditions and practice strategies of school psychologists in the Czech Republic. The results pointed to assessment, diagnosis and guidance services for children with learning difficulties.

In Portugal, Mendes et al. (2014, 2015) identified that Portuguese psychologists also dedicated themselves to the practice of assessment and counseling, but with greater investment in professional guidance, in compliance with the provisions of the country’s legislation. Psychological intervention was also conducted in the field of special education, including assessment, follow-up and support for students’ integration into the regular classroom. The authors also indicated some work fronts for psychologists, under development in the Portuguese scenario, such as prevention and well-being fostering projects, and services to families.

The review of the national and international literature pointed to the lack of studies that specifically aim to identify school psychologist’s profile characteristics and competences, from an institutional performance and professional collective perspective, under a complex scenario. This gap was an inspiration factor for the construction of a research instrument, in the form of a self-report scale, with the purpose of investigating profile characteristics and professional competences of the school psychologist as well practice indicators considering from basic education to higher education.

Self-report scales have frequently been used to describe different topics in research with a quantitative approach at the interface between Psychology and Education (Boruchovitch et al., 2022; Casanova et al., 2021; Farias et al., 2022; Fleith et al., 2020; Gomes, 2020; Lucas et al., 2022; Marinho-Araujo et al., 2015; Martín-Antón et al., 2023; Santos et al., 2017). In 2018, a self-report scale was proposed, named the Scale of Profile and Practice of School Psychologists (Marinho-Araujo, 2018), with the purpose of investigating school psychologists’ profile characteristics and professional competences and practice indicators in Brazilian basic and higher education. The scale items were formulated from theoretical constructs arising from the conceptual basis of school psychology with an institutional focus and the competence approach from the perspective of developmental psychology (Marinho-Araujo, 2014c, 2015, 2016b; Marinho-Araujo & Almeida, 2017).

The instrument was developed containing three guiding axes. Axis 1 consists of a brief presentation of the instrument, instructions for answering the questionnaire and six items related to the sociodemographic characterization of the participant. Axis 2, named Profile and Competences of the School Psychologist, contains 40 items to be answered on a four-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “never use” to “always use”; the questionnaire includes several indicators for self-identification of profile characteristics, considering theoretical, technical and transversal competences that are useful to professional practice. Axis 3, labeled Practice in School Psychology, is composed of 30 items to be answered on a four-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “I never do it” to “I always do it”, reporting professional activities related to institutional and collective actions along with other types of more traditional practices (Table 1).

Between 2019 and 2022, several procedures were carried out for the development and validation of the instrument. The initial version of the instrument was reviewed by two groups of expert judges: (i) three School Psychology professors and researchers from public higher education institutions in Brazil; and (ii) three professors and researchers from the areas of Psychology and Education from public higher education institutions in Portugal. These judges conducted are research partners who have produced papers among them and with the Scale’s authors. In addition, they currently participate in networks with school psychologists specially in activities involving intervention and investigation.

The judges’ review led to the removal of items such as: Flexibility in interpersonal relationships; Consideration for diversity (Compliance with differences); Institutional mapping; Scientific knowledge of Psychology necessary for professional performance; Availability to receive different requests from the different educational players; Conflict mediation in the educational context. On the other hand, the following items were included in the judges’ review: Ability to perform collectively and institutionally; Optimism in everyday work; Coordination of team activities; Initiatives with a focus on the institution.

After these adaptations, the version was submitted to pilot studies for theoretical and semantic validation, to ensure its understanding, avoiding ambiguities and inappropriate formulations. Professors and research partners from the fields of Psychology and Education collaborated at this stage; they administered the Scale to school psychologists with whom they work in Brazil and Portugal. School psychologists from the Federal District and the state of Maranhão (in Brazil) and from the district of Porto (in Portugal) voluntarily participated in this analytical validation study. The professionals who made themselves available to contribute to this investigation were invited to attend previous meetings in order to learn about the research. Through the “spoken reflection” methodology, inspired by the “think aloud” method (Duarte & Korelo, 2017; Jaspers et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2019; Lehnhart et al., 2019), psychologists received guidance to review , based on their expertise, each item of the scale in relation to the profile characteristics and competences relevant to professional performance, indicating potential confusing items, focusing specifically on axes 2 and 3 of the “Scale for Research on the Profile and Practice of the School Psychologist” .

In this stage, several items underwent minor modifications; we sought for greater clarity of the statements and better adaptation to the constructs being evaluated. As an example, the item Optimism was changed to Optimism in daily work; Organization and implementation of projects was replaced by Organization and implementation of psycho-educational projects; Knowledge for institutional action was changed to Capacity to act collectively and institutionally.

Based on these validations, the latest version of the “Scale for Research on the Profile, Competences and Practice of School Psychologists” (see Appendix 1) was prepared for use in Brazil and Portugal. To make the application easier, the instrument was transferred to Google Forms, allowing the forwarding of the link to the participants.

The next step will be to verify evidence of instrument construct validity. In Brazil, the collection of information will initially rely on the partnership of professors and researchers who make up the Working Group on School/Educational Psychology of the National Association for Research and Graduate Studies in Psychology. This Working Group has more than 20 researchers who work at higher education institutions in different states in all regions of Brazil. In Portugal, the register of available school psychologists will be used, covering the country, with the support of the Order of the Portuguese Psychologists.

In this investigation the inclusion criteria were: all the psychologists working in educational institutions who identify themselves with the purposes of the study and are willing to respond voluntarily. The consent to participate in the investigation will begin with the presentation of the free and informed consent form found on the first page of the instrument; to access the other parts of the instrument, psychologists will indicate agreement with the information set out in the form, following the precepts of Resolution nº 510/2016 of the Brazilian National Health Council.

After reviewing the results of the application of the Scale, support is expected for the creation of profile and competence indicators capable of guiding professional development policies for psychologists in both countries, in addition to other relevant research in the field of School Psychology.

The study of the school psychologist’s professional profile and competences necessary to meet the demands of interventions in current contexts has proven to be relevant from the theoretical standpoint to produce knowledge on this subject which is currently lacking in the field of School Psychology, and to help in the development of psychological science. In the methodological scope, the use of a self-report scale, expanding the investigation of indicators of institutional and collective practice, proves to be innovative in relation to what has been published so far in the literature and by research in the area, traditionally carried out through qualitative surveys (interviews, observations, and open-ended questions). From a technical-professional perspective, concerning Brazil and Portugal, this study can be a guideline for continuing education and can cause an impact on the practice of school psychologists, enabling discussions about the development of the necessary competences for a critical and transformative practice. These considerations will necessarily go beyond the two countries where the collection of information from professionals will take place.

In Brazil, there are greater expectations regarding the use of scale support for School Psychology. In 2019, was approved, which provides for the provision of psychology services in public basic education networks across the country. In addition to representing a historic milestone in the decades-long struggles and mobilizations of school psychologists, this achievement also generated the need to build training and intervention proposals for school psychologists to work from a critical perspective, aiming at equal opportunities, access and inclusion in education, with social justice and political emancipation. It is believed that the institutional perspective in the school psychologist’s performance supports and grounds these professionals’ potential practice that has been expanded nationally by Law.

The results of using the scale presented in this paper may foster the development of guidelines for the practice of these professionals who are expected to massively enter the educational domains in Brazil based on this new legislation. Further, contributions are expected that will define the initial and continued academic training of psychologists, especially of those who inspire structural, functional and relational transformations in educational institutions. In particular, this training should privilege teamwork, favoring mediations in the psychological development of different educational players and the institution itself, and with an impact on the awareness, dialectically, of each subject and of the entire collective.

Finally, it is important to point out that the profile, competences and practice indicators resulting from the application of the Profile and Practice Scale of School Psychologists will be useful to school psychologists themselves in their professional development processes, enabling continuous redefinition of practices, conceptions and knowledge. It is believed that this instrument will contribute to the theoretical-conceptual and methodological expansion of the psychologist’s profile, impacting the vision of interventions carried out in educational and academic spaces from an institutional and collective perspective.