Portuguese Translation, Validity and Psychometric Evaluation of the Healthcare Professional Knowledge of Radiation Protection Scale

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate the Portuguese version of the Healthcare Professional Knowledge of Radiation Protection (HPKRP) scale to assess knowledge of radiation protection among healthcare workers exposed to ionizing radiation. The increasing use of radiation in medicine raises concerns about potential side effects, not only for patients but also for professionals operating the equipment. Appropriate and well-constructed instruments are essential to generate structured and interpretable findings and quantifiable outcomes that support improvements in knowledge, attitudes, and practices.&#xD;Methods: A descriptive correlational cross-sectional study was conducted electronically using a Google Forms survey between March 2025 and July 2025. Participants included nurses, doctors, dentists, and radiographers who use a personal dosimeter. The Portuguese version of the HPKRP was developed using translation and back-translation procedures, followed by statistical validation. Internal consistency, item-total correlations, and regression analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (version 30).&#xD;Results: A total of 247 valid responses were analysed. The scale demonstrated very high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.983). Item-total correlations ranged from 0.568 to 0.890, confirming strong internal consistency. Radiographers reported the highest perceived knowledge, while nurses scored lowest. Knowledge gaps were identified particularly in areas related to radiation physics (formulas and units of measurement) and reporting of adverse events. Training in radiation protection was significantly associated with higher scores (p < 0.001).&#xD;Conclusions: The Portuguese version of the HPKRP scale demonstrates high internal consistency and provides preliminary evidence of reliability for assessing healthcare professionals' self-perceived knowledge of radiation protection. However, as a subjective measure, it does not reflect objective knowledge or clinical competence and should be interpreted with caution. The instrument may be useful for identifying perceived knowledge gaps and supporting educational strategies when used in combination with objective assessment methods.&#xD.