Pre-Service Teachers’ Competencies in Road Safety Education: Design and Validation of a Questionnaire

Abstract

Although pre-service teachers play a crucial role in promoting safe mobility among children, there are no validated instruments to assess their civic competencies, knowledge, and behaviors in road safety education. Existing questionnaires primarily target the general population or college students, and thus it remains unclear whether future teachers are adequately prepared to deliver road safety education. This study aims to design and validate a tool to assess pre-service teachers’ behavior in situations related to traffic safety and their knowledge of road safety education.. The designed tool is a questionnaire made up of 32 items distributed across five dimensions. The questionnaire’s content was validated through the judgment of eight experts, who ensured the relevance and adequacy of its items. The confirmatory factor analysis of data obtained from a pilot sample was used to examine the questionnaire’s structure, and reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. After analyzing the responses of 388 participants, the results suggest that the questionnaire’s overall structure is adequate and satisfactory reliability coefficients were obtained. The confirmatory factor analysis supported the proposed four-factor structure, indicating good model fit. These findings suggest that a valid and reliable diagnostic tool can identify the road safety training needs of future teachers and inform curriculum design and targeted educational interventions to enhance road safety competencies in schools.

1. Introduction

Traffic accidents are the leading cause of unintentional and fatal injuries among young people aged 15 to 29 years (Riaz et al., 2019). This high incidence has been associated with multiple factors, including limited road safety awareness, non-compliance with traffic laws, and an underestimation of risk (Luchidio, 2015). Young people often display overconfidence in their driving abilities, which increases the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors such as driving while fatigued or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These behaviors are particularly prevalent within university contexts and nightlife settings (Albarracín & Muñoz, 2008). Decision-making in traffic situations is strongly influenced by individuals’ perception of risk (Becoña, 2000). In this regard, most people tend to avoid behaviors they perceive as having negative consequences; however, Ruiz-Olivares et al. (2010) state that young people frequently engage in high-risk behaviors because they perceive death or illness as distant and unlikely outcomes, often dissociated from alcohol or drug use (Jiménez-Muro et al., 2009). This distorted perception contributes to the normalization of dangerous practices such as mobile phone use while driving, even when individuals acknowledge the potential for serious consequences, including accidents and injuries (Harrison, 2011). Moreover, research shows that young people do not demonstrate greater awareness of accidents, even when they have experienced a serious accident first-hand or know someone who has had a life-threatening accident (Fernández et al., 2006).

Given the social impact of traffic accidents, road safety education has been identified as a key preventive strategy. Educational interventions aimed at promoting safe behaviors, responsible decision-making and civic responsibility in traffic environments are particularly relevant during early stages of development. In this regard, teachers play a fundamental role in fostering road safety knowledge, as well as civic attitudes and values among children and adolescents, thus contributing to long-term accident prevention. Understanding future teachers’ behavior in traffic situations and their knowledge of road safety education is essential, given their role as role models and educators in the development of responsible citizenship. However, to what extent do valid tools currently exist to systematically assess pre-service teachers’ preparedness to address road safety education from both a civic and preventive perspective?

2. Literature Review

Previous research on road safety has largely focused on the analysis of high-risk behaviors in traffic situations, particularly among young people and university students, using self-report questionnaires as the primary methodological tool. These instruments have been designed to assess attitudes, perceptions and behavioral patterns related to compliance with traffic regulations, risk perception and decision-making while driving.

Some studies have examined risk perception and speeding behavior among novice drivers. Jariot and Montané (2009) developed an intervention program to determine whether the risk level associated with speed among young people obtaining their driving license could be reduced. To measure this, they used two questionnaires: The QAR–Precon (Risk Assessment Questionnaire for Pre-Drivers) and the ‘Specific Questionnaire for Evaluating Risk Level Related to Speed’. Both tools demonstrated high reliability, as measured by satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Similarly, Baptista and Reyes (2014) created a questionnaire to evaluate behavioral patterns and attitudes towards road safety rules and measures among university students in Mexican cities. This instrument included 50 items distributed across four areas: participants’ attitudes; opinions on the causes of accidents; types of prevention messages; and sociodemographic data. The instrument’s description provided in their research, however, does not include reliability and validity data.

Driver personality and impulsiveness have also been analyzed through validated questionnaires. Pearson et al. (2013) assessed impulsivity traits in university students using a 59-item questionnaire measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha values were above 0.79 across all dimensions. The study also used an adaptation of the Driving Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ), consisting of 24 items distributed across three dimensions (errors, lapses and violations), which were measured using a six-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘almost all the time’. This tool was also used in another study in which the number of items was reduced to nine (Martinussen et al., 2013). Although the adapted version maintained acceptable psychometric properties, its reliability coefficients were lower than those reported for the original instrument.

Mobile phone use while driving has been another area of interest in road safety research. Harrison (2011) investigated the risks associated with texting while driving among university students using a short questionnaire with five-point Likert scale items. The study highlighted the dangers this behavior poses not only to drivers but also to other road users, although no psychometric data regarding the reliability and validity of the instrument were provided.

The relationship between substance use and high-risk driving has also been widely explored. Jiménez-Mejías et al. (2015) examined drug use unsafe driving practices among 559 young people aged 18–30 who were in their first year of university, using a 373-item questionnaire. This questionnaire covered drug consumption frequency over the past year, types of drugs consumed, exposure to hazardous driving situations, and involvement in 18 potentially risk-prone driving behaviors during the month before the survey, among other aspects. It was created using items from the EDADES survey and the MATCA questionnaire (Mobility, Traffic Accidentality, and Associated Circumstances). The latter underwent a validity study that identified weaknesses. Similarly, Wechsler et al. (2003) created a brief questionnaire on alcohol consumption and driving practices among university students. The questionnaire description does not include reliability and validity data for the instrument. The results of this study show that students living in states with stricter laws against reckless behavior consume less alcohol. This ties in with the findings of similar research in different contexts. For instance, strengthening safety measures was one of the conclusions drawn from a study conducted with Indian university students by Kulkarni et al. (2013), who analyzed the road safety knowledge and practices of 260 university students using a questionnaire. They found that the students had low levels of awareness regarding the dangers of drinking and driving, not wearing a seatbelt, and using a mobile phone without a hands-free device. However, participants demonstrated broad knowledge of traffic signs.

In addition to motor vehicle drivers, some studies have focused on traffic behavior among non-motorized road users. Hezaveh et al. (2018) created the BRBQ (Bicycle Rider Behavior Questionnaire). This consisted of 34 items distributed across five dimensions: stunts and distractions; traffic violations; ignoring warnings; control errors; and signaling violations. All of these had a Cronbach’s Alpha value between 0.70 and 0.84. Similarly, Wang et al. (2019) developed a 24-item questionnaire, completed by 547 participants, which assessed unusual behavior and self-reported accidents among bicycle users in China. The CCBQ (Chinese Cycling Behavior Questionnaire) included five dimensions that distinguished between three concepts: rule violations, errors and distractions. Rule violations are deliberate deviations from practices that are necessary to maintain safety and can be either aggressive or ordinary. Errors complement violations and arise due to failure, while distractions are unintentional deviations. This study found that the gender and age of cyclists predicted aberrant behaviors, which were more prevalent among young men.

Although these instruments have contributed substantially to understanding unsafe traffic behaviors in different populations, they primarily assess individuals as road users rather than as educators. Research specifically addressing road safety education and teacher-related competencies remains scarce. One notable exception is the ACOM–Form (Trainer Competence Assessment Questionnaire), developed by Jariot and Rodríguez (2007) to evaluate the competencies and predisposition of road safety instructors, which demonstrated high reliability. However, this instrument was designed for professional driving instructors and does not address the broader educational role of future teachers in promoting civic competencies and preventive road safety education in early and compulsory schooling. Overall, the literature reveals a limited availability of validated instruments designed to assess future teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to road safety education.

3. Aims and Research Questions

Despite the recognized importance of education in promoting road safety, research on road safety has primarily focused on risky traffic behaviors among general populations, particularly young drivers and university students. While these instruments have provided valuable in-sights into traffic-related behaviors and risk factors, considerably less attention has been paid to the assessment of future teachers’ preparedness to address road safety education from a civic and preventive perspective. Addressing this gap is of socio-educational relevance and contributes to strengthening preventive strategies through formal education.

The aim of this study is to design and validate a tool for evaluating future teachers’ behavior in traffic situations and their knowledge of road safety education. This will be achieved by ensuring scientific rigor through content validity and internal consistency analysis. To guide this process, the study addresses the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are the underlying dimensions and structure of the RSQ-PST as a tool for evaluating pre-service teachers’ behavior and knowledge in traffic situations?
• RQ2: Does the RSQ-PST demonstrate adequate internal consistency and reliability for assessing these dimensions?
• RQ3: Does the factor structure of the RSQ-PST adequately represent the intended theoretical dimensions, confirming its suitability as an evaluation tool?

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants

This study involved 388 students (85 men and 303 women) enrolled in the Early Childhood Education and Primary Education degree programs at the University of Extremadura (Spain).

Table 1. Distribution of participants.

Academic Year	Gender	N	Total
1st year	Men	41	135
	Women	94
3rd year	Men	31	139
	Women	108
4th year	Men	13	113
	Women	100

presents the final distribution of the sample.

4.2. Instrument and Procedure

The questionnaire was developed based on established models and previous research into the construction of psychometric instruments (Hernández-Ramos & Martínez-Abad, 2021; Hurtado & Madueño, 2017). The process followed the phases described below.

• Phase 1: Construction and validation of the instrument. The Road Safety Questionnaire for Pre-Service Teachers (RSQ-PST) was designed based on theoretical frameworks of pedestrian (Mcllroy et al., 2019) and driver (Hezaveh et al., 2018) behaviors. The dimensions were defined according to specific indicators, as shown in

  Table 2. Definition matrix of the RSQ-PST indicators.

  Dimensions	Indicators
  D2. Knowledge and understanding of road safety education	Road safety education sparks their interest. They are aware of the importance of road safety education.
  D3. Pedestrian Behavior and Conduct	Complies with pedestrian rules. Understands the dangers and risk patterns of misusing public roads. Walks on the right-hand side of the pavement. Feels safe when walking on the university campus.
  D4. Behaviors and conduct as a user of vehicles, bicycles or scooters	Uses a means of transport habitually. Knows traffic signs and road markings. Understands the dangers and risk patterns associated with misusing vehicles, bicycles, or scooters. Applies traffic rules in daily life. Uses a seat belt and other approved safety restraints.
  D5. Training of future teachers in road safety education	Able to work in a team to improve road safety education. Promotes safe habits and road safety values. Familiar with road safety education tools and resources. Able to develop teaching materials and activities for road safety education.

  .

After defining the dimensions that generated the various indicators, 49 items were drafted. Out of these, only 32 were included in the final version of the questionnaire (see Appendix A).

Table 3. RSQ-PST dimensions and items.

Dimensions	Items	Total	Type
D1. Sociodemographic data	1–4	4	Closed-ended, dichotomous questions of nominal type (e.g., gender) and polytomous, interval-type questions (e.g., age).
D2. Knowledge and understanding of road safety education	5–8	4	Closed-ended polytomous question of nominal type with 5-point Likert scale response options (ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’)
D3. Pedestrian behaviors and conduct	9–15	7
D4. Behaviors and conduct as a user of vehicles, bicycles, or scooters	16–26	11
D5. Training of pre-service teachers in road safety education	27–32	6
Total		32

shows the dimensions and the number and type of items in the final version.

Although sociodemographic items are presented in Table 3 for descriptive completeness, they do not constitute a theoretical dimension of the RSQ-PST. These items were included solely to characterize the sample and provide contextual information and were therefore excluded from all reliability and factor analyses.

• Phase II: Content validity through expert judgment. To validate the content and structure of the questionnaire, a new form was designed using a five-point Likert scale consisting of the initial 49 items across five dimensions. Twenty-five experts in education and psychology at the University of Extremadura and the National Police Force were invited via email to participate in the content validation. The expert panel included university lecturers in teacher education and educational psychology, as well as professionals with experience in road safety training and prevention. All experts had prior experience in curriculum design, assessment, or road safety education. Eight responses were received and analyzed to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each item and dimension of the questionnaire. Experts were asked to rate each item in terms of adequacy and relevance for assessing pre-service teachers’ competence in road safety education. Adequacy referred to the clarity, wording, and suitability of the item for the target population (future teachers), while relevance referred to the extent to which the item was considered essential and representative of the construct of road safety education competence, understood as the integration of knowledge, attitudes, behavioral tendencies, and pedagogical preparedness. Ratings were provided using a five-point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high).
• Phase III: Analysis of the instrument’s internal consistency with a pilot sample. The questionnaire’s reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The questionnaire was administered to 388 students (85 men and 303 women) enrolled in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education degree programs at the University of Extremadura. Additionally, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted based on the responses of the pilot sample to assess the reliability and validity of each item. This analysis confirmed that the questionnaire consisted of four dimensions (excluding the sociodemographic dimension, which were not considered part of the theoretical construct and were therefore removed from the analysis). Some items were regrouped based on the results. During the pilot study, issues regarding the clarity and comprehension of some of the items were identified and addressed to ensure that the questionnaire was suitable for the target population. Scoring was based on a 1–5 Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge of safe behaviors or stronger competencies in road safety education. All procedures were conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

4.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each item and dimension of the RSQ-PST to analyze the collected data. These statistics included means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed to assess the instrument’s internal consistency, and an “if item deleted” analysis was performed to examine each item’s contribution to overall reliability. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the questionnaire’s factor structure. Model fit was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and fit indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Then, factor loadings were examined to determine the adequacy of each item within its designated dimension and verify the underlying factor structure of the questionnaire.

5. Results

This section presents the results obtained from administering and analyzing the Road Safety Questionnaire for Pre-Service Teachers (RSQ-PST). The results are organized into three complementary subsections, each corresponding to one of the research questions. First, it provides a detailed description of the dimensions and structure of the RSQ-PST. Next, the internal consistency of the instrument is examined, and reliability statistics and item performance are reported. Lastly, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented, including descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis, and factor loadings to evaluate the adequacy of the questionnaire’s underlying factor structure.

5.1. Dimensions and Structure of the RSQ-PST

This subsection presents a detailed description of the content validity assessment conducted to explore the dimensions and structure of the questionnaire. Eight expert judges evaluated the instrument, and the quantitative assessment produced positive results.

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the RSQ-PST Dimensions.

Dimensions	Name	Adequacy		Relevance
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
D1	Sociodemographic data	4.91	0.18	5	0.00
D2	Knowledge and understanding of road safety education	4.63	0.75	4.75	0.67
D3	Pedestrian behaviors and conduct	4.91	0.44	4.93	0.37
D4	Behaviors and conduct as a user of vehicles, bicycles, or scooters	4.95	0.21	4.97	0.18
D5	Training of pre-service teachers in road safety education	4.94	0.32	4.96	0.29

shows that the lowest mean scores for adequacy and relevance were obtained for Dimension 2 (adequacy: Mean = 4.63, SD = 0.75; relevance: Mean = 4.75, SD = 0.67). In short, sociodemographic items were evaluated by experts in terms of adequacy and relevance as background variables, but they were not treated as a substantive dimension of the construct nor included in subsequent psychometric analyses.

Table 5. Descriptive Item Statistics for the RSQ-PST.

Items	Adequacy		Relevance		Items	Adequacy		Relevance
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
1	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	17	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
2	4.88	0.35	5.00	0.00	18	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
3	4.88	0.35	5.00	0.00	19	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
4	4.88	0.35	5.00	0.00	20	4.88	0.35	4.88	0.35
5	4.75	0.46	4.88	0.35	21	4.88	0.35	4.88	0.35
6	4.75	0.71	4.75	0.71	22	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
7	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	23	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
8	4.25	1.04	4.50	1.07	24	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
9	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	25	4.88	0.35	4.88	0.35
10	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	26	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
11	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	27	4.75	0.71	4.75	0.71
12	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	28	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
13	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00	29	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
14	4.88	0.35	4.75	0.71	30	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00
15	4.50	1.07	4.75	0.71	31	4.88	0.35	5.00	0.00
16	4.88	0.35	5.00	0.00	32	5.00	0.00	5.00	0.00

shows that item 11 received the lowest mean scores for adequacy and relevance (adequacy: Mean = 4.25, SD = 1.04; relevance: Mean = 4.50, SD = 1.07). Some of the initially proposed items were removed based on the experts’ observations and their low scores for adequacy and relevance in the analysis. Additionally, some questions were merged based on these observations. Consequently, the original 49-item scale was reduced to 32 items.

5.2. Internal Consistency and Reliability of the RSQ-PST

A pilot administration using a Google Drive form indicate that the questionnaire is sufficiently reliable. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 was obtained for the 28 road safety education items, excluding the four sociodemographic information items from the analysis.

Table 6. Item Performance of the RSQ-PST.

Dimensions	Items	Mean If Item Deleted	Scale Variance If Item Deleted	Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted
D2	5	98.59	211.81	0.80
	6	97.55	208.36	0.79
	7	98.27	208.55	0.79
	8	98.40	207.18	0.79
D3	9	98.39	211.30	0.80
	10	99.46	204.54	0.79
	11	99.98	203.60	0.79
	12	99.56	203.66	0.79
	13	100.75	208.44	0.79
	14	100.50	208.69	0.79
	15	98.36	208.55	0.79
D4	16	97.83	216.65	0.80
	17	96.98	202.18	0.78
	18	97.56	197.09	0.79
	19	97.07	201.01	0.78
	20	98.41	177.82	0.77
	21	98.21	175.20	0.76
	22	98.57	169.20	0.76
	23	99.13	165.08	0.75
	24	99.24	163.02	0.75
	25	98.40	177.35	0.77
	26	98.10	179.17	0.76
D5	27	97.93	209.28	0.79
	28	98.00	208.78	0.79
	29	98.70	209.35	0.80
	30	98.42	208.21	0.79
	31	97.64	207.82	0.79
	32	98.18	207.71	0.79

shows that removing the items ultimately included in the final version would not positively affect the questionnaire’s overall reliability, confirming that the questionnaire items adequately measure the intended construct. As a result, the questionnaire demonstrates good internal consistency and reliability.

5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the RSQ-PST

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the RSQ-PST, including 28 items measuring road safety education across four dimensions; sociodemographic items were excluded. After calculating the mean sample adequacy, two tests were applied before conducting a factor analysis: the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.84) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Chi-square = 7.76; p > 0.01).

The CFA was estimated using a diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimator, treating all items as ordinal. The model demonstrated an acceptable fit, with a chi-square of 1905.75 (df = 344; p < 0.001), a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.94, a Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.93, and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.11 (90% CI [0.104, 0.113]). Although the chi-square test was significant, as expected with a large sample, the CFI and TLI indicate good relative fit, while the RMSEA suggests a modest degree of misfit.

Table 7. Descriptive analysis, skewness, and kurtosis of the RSQ-PST items.

Item	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Item	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
5	3.57	0.94	−0.31	−0.16	19	4.09	0.73	−1.17	3.56
6	4.61	0.67	−2.12	6.20	20	3.74	1.87	−0.20	−1.41
7	3.89	0.93	−0.59	−0.01	21	3.94	1.88	−0.33	−1.36
8	3.75	1.06	−0.53	−0.39	22	3.59	2.02	0.04	−1.63
9	3.77	1.12	−0.71	−0.16	23	3.03	2.19	0.45	−1.59
10	2.70	1.34	0.23	−1.14	24	2.91	2.30	0.51	−1.65
11	2.17	1.31	0.77	−0.65	25	3.76	1.96	−0.15	−1.53
12	2.59	1.28	0.24	−1.05	26	4.06	1.67	−0.23	−1.22
13	1.40	0.88	2.45	5.62	27	4.22	0.80	−0.91	0.78
14	1.65	0.97	1.54	1.77	28	4.15	0.84	−0.96	1.19
15	3.80	1.07	−0.71	−0.10	29	3.45	1.16	−0.24	−0.83
16	4.33	0.83	−1.28	1.89	30	3.73	0.98	−0.36	−0.58
17	5.17	0.56	−0.32	1.62	31	4.51	0.70	−1.32	1.50
18	4.59	1.73	−1.03	−0.33	32	3.98	1.06	−0.75	0.05

presents the descriptive statistics, as well as the skewness and kurtosis, of the questionnaire items. Items 22, 23, and 24 had the highest standard deviations, each greater than 2, while items 6, 18, and 31 had the highest mean scores, all above 4.5. Items 6 and 13 showed the greatest deviations from normality in terms of skewness and kurtosis.

The factor loading estimates can be seen in Figure 1. Two loadings in the second dimension of the questionnaire are inadequate (items 5 and 8) because they are below 0.50. In the factor corresponding to the dimension of pedestrian behavior and conduct, all loadings are adequate except for item 14, which is below 0.50. Regarding the fourth dimension, all items have adequate loadings except item 16, which has a loading of 0.35. All loadings are adequate for the fifth dimension. Although some items in the questionnaire have weak loadings, removing them would not affect the instrument’s reliability.

6. Discussion

Despite its importance, as mentioned above, a vast amount of research has highlighted the scarcity of instruments designed to evaluate road safety education, particularly tools that assess the preparedness of future teachers to promote safe behaviors among children (Akhyar, 2023; Jariot & Rodríguez, 2007). Questionnaires have proven to be a useful tool for exploring knowledge, attitude, and behavior in traffic situations. However, most do not report reliability and validity information (e.g., Baptista & Reyes, 2014), and some show weaknesses in this regard (Jiménez-Mejías et al., 2015). To address this gap, the present study designed and validated the Road Safety Questionnaire for Future Teachers (RSQ-PST), a Likert-type scale developed ad hoc to assess future teachers’ knowledge and behaviors in road safety contexts. To structure this discussion, the following paragraphs present the main findings in relation to each research question, highlighting their theoretical and practical significance.

Regarding the first research question, which aimed to identify the underlying dimensions and structure of the RSQ-PST, confirmatory factor analysis supported a five-factor structure distinguishing between traffic-related content and sociodemographic information. Most items demonstrated adequate loadings, although a few items (6, 13, 16) exhibited suboptimal values. This variability may reflect differences in participants’ interpretation, levels of exposure to certain traffic situations, or the multidimensional nature of traffic behaviors, which combine cognitive, social, and decision-making components (von Beesten & Bresges, 2025; Wnuk, 2018). These lower loadings provide insight into potential areas where pre-service teacher training may need to be strengthened, suggesting that the RSQ-PST can highlight specific competencies requiring targeted interventions. Although these items show loadings below 0.50, their conceptual relevance outweighs the statistical weakness. These items capture critical aspects of teacher preparedness (such as decision-making in complex traffic situations, integration of cognitive and social factors, and safety-related judgment) that are essential for a comprehensive evaluation of future educators. Retaining them ensures that the RSQ-PST assesses practically meaningful competencies, even if the numerical loading is suboptimal. Expert judgment confirmed that these items were theoretically relevant and practically meaningful, justifying their retention while highlighting opportunities for future refinement in item formulation or instructional scaffolding (Papadakaki et al., 2020). This finding reflects international evidence that teacher preparedness in road safety requires structured, iterative support and practical engagement, and suggests that assessment tools must capture complex, multidimensional competencies.

It is important to clarify that the RSQ-PST was designed to assess comprehensive competence in road safety education, rather than knowledge alone. While a subset of items (e.g., 16, 27–30) explicitly measures knowledge or teaching ability, other items capture attitudes, behavioral tendencies, personal interest, normative beliefs, and emotional assessments. These dimensions are integral to teacher preparedness; a future teacher must not only know traffic rules but also model safe behavior, convey knowledge effectively, and foster positive attitudes toward road safety among children. Consequently, the combination of items provides a multidimensional measure of competence, reflecting both cognitive and affective aspects necessary for effective education in road safety, rather than merely assessing knowledge or isolated behaviors.

The confirmed structure captures both cognitive and behavioral dimensions of road safety education, reflecting the integration of knowledge, practical skills, and safety-related decision-making that is essential in teacher training programs (Akhyar, 2023). By encompassing knowledge, pedestrian conduct, vehicular behavior, and teacher training, the RSQ-PST provides a comprehensive assessment of future teachers’ preparedness to promote road safety in educational contexts. From a practical standpoint, this allows teacher education programs to design targeted interventions (such as workshops, simulations, and field-based exercises) addressing specific areas of weakness identified by the RSQ-PST without overburdening the curriculum. Moreover, the multidimensional insights from the RSQ-PST can guide curriculum adjustments, inform supervision during practicums, and support continuous professional development, ensuring alignment between assessment and training goals.

Building on these structural findings, the second research question examined whether the RSQ-PST demonstrates adequate internal consistency and reliability. Results indicated strong reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 for the road safety education items. This level of internal consistency aligns with psychometric standards for similar instruments, such as the Driving Behavior Questionnaire (Martinussen et al., 2013) and the ACOM–Form (Jariot & Rodríguez, 2007), confirming that the items function cohesively as a scale. The RSQ-PST’s reliability ensures that teacher education programs can confidently use the tool to monitor student progress over time and evaluate the impact of interventions, providing empirical feedback for curriculum improvement.

The third research question addressed the factor structure’s adequacy and overall suitability as an evaluation tool. The RSQ-PST structure generally aligned with theoretical expectations, capturing both knowledge and behavior components essential to road safety education. The suboptimal loadings observed in certain items highlight opportunities for improvement, such as rewording or further piloting to increase clarity and discrimination. Importantly, the overall factor structure emphasizes the need for holistic teacher training approaches that integrate theory with practical learning experiences. International evidence demonstrates that combining classroom instruction, simulations, field exercises, and reflective activities enhances not only knowledge but also risk perception, empathy, and safety-related decision-making among teachers (Akhyar, 2023; Papadakaki et al., 2020; von Beesten & Bresges, 2025). Our results extend these findings by showing that a validated, multidimensional assessment tool can provide actionable insights to strengthen both cognitive and practical components of teacher preparation and identify areas where future teachers may need additional support. This perspective situates the RSQ-PST as a practical link between assessment and pedagogical interventions, contributing to international discussions on teacher training in safety education. By encompassing these cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, the RSQ-PST contributes to preparing educators who can effectively promote safe behaviors in children, bridging the gap between knowledge acquisition and practical application, and offering a framework for integrating assessment within teacher training programs internationally.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Road safety education promotes knowledge of traffic rules and the estimation of speed and space in context involving traffic contexts. It also improves attitudes toward road risk (García Ramírez et al., 2018). The latter aspect is particularly relevant because achieving safer driving requires modifying choices and habits that lead to risk-prone behaviors while driving (Lonero, 2008). For this reason, road safety sensitization should begin at an early age in educational settings (Ben-Bassat & Avnieli, 2016) and be reinforced through campaigns aimed at adults, including university students (Baptista & Reyes, 2014).

The present study has shown that the Road Safety Questionnaire for Future Teachers (RSQ-PST) is a valid, reliable, and user-friendly tool for assessing pre-service teachers’ knowledge, behavior, and preparedness in road safety education. The instrument demonstrated adequate content validity, supported by expert input, satisfactory internal consistency comparable to international instruments, and a coherent factor structure, even though a few items exhibited lower loadings. These psychometric properties confirm that the RSQ-PST can effectively evaluate the competencies of future teachers, addressing an important gap in instruments tailored to this population.

The practical implications of these findings are substantial for teacher education programs. By identifying specific strengths and gaps in knowledge and behavior, the RSQ-PST can guide curriculum design, inform targeted workshops, and support continuous professional development in road safety education. For instance, items assessing knowledge of traffic rules and safe pedestrian behavior could be used to tailor classroom modules or simulation exercises, while items related to practical teacher training could inform supervised practicum activities. These applications align with international evidence highlighting the effectiveness of structured, multi-phase teacher training programs that integrate theory, practice, and technology (Akhyar, 2023; Papadakaki et al., 2020; von Beesten & Bresges, 2025). The RSQ-PST provides a mechanism to systematically evaluate whether such programs are enhancing the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral competencies that are necessary for future educators to promote safe traffic practices among children and adolescents. In this sense, the instrument not only supports pre-service teacher preparation but also contributes to broader public health goals by fostering early adoption of safe traffic behaviors.

Nevertheless, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The exclusion of second-year Early Childhood and Primary Education students limits the generalizability of the findings, and responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias. To mitigate these issues in future research, triangulation with observational methods, simulations, peer assessments, or longitudinal designs could be employed. Expanding the sample to include external or multi-university participants would enhance generalizability. In the same way, further refinement of items with lower factor loadings, combined with international benchmarking, could strengthen cross-cultural validity. Although the RSQ-PST demonstrated satisfactory reliability and an adequate factor structure, some items showed suboptimal loadings, highlighting minor areas for refinement in future versions. Looking forward, the RSQ-PST opens several avenues for future research and practical development. Future studies could examine the longitudinal impact of road safety training on pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, compare cohorts across different countries to explore cultural influences, and investigate the effectiveness of integrated training programs that combine classroom instruction, experiential learning, and technological tools. Additionally, RSQ-PST-informed interventions could be evaluated in terms of their impact on student behavior, linking teacher training directly to measurable improvements in road safety outcomes.