Psychometric Evaluation of the Safe Road-crossing Behaviors Scale: A Study among Iranian University Students

Document Type : Original Article


1 Social Development & Health Promotion Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Research Center for Environmental Determinants of Health Research Institute for Health, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran


Background: Millions of pedestrians are seriously injured, disabled, or lose their lives in road traffic accidents annually. The availability of a standard scale specifically for predicting road-crossing behaviors would be beneficial in research applications and in tailoring interventions.
Objectives: The purpose of the current research was to psychometrically evaluate the safe road-crossing behaviors scale based on the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM) among college students.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a purposive and multi-stage sampling method was used to select 315 students from Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS) during 2018. The studied social-cognitive determinants from the PWM included attitude, subjective norms, prototype, intention, and willingness. Participants completed a written self-report questionnaire. Data was analyzed using SPSS (ver. 20.0). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with VARIMAX rotation was applied to determine the number and composition of constructs.
Results: Five factors were extracted. The calculated Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.806. Overall, the PWM constructs explained 64.39% of the variance in the hypothesized model. Cronbach’s alpha for the measured constructs of attitude, subjective norms, prototype, intention, and willingness were 0.87, 0.81, 0.68, 0.71, and 0.61, respectively.
Conclusion: The present study provides some support from among students at an Iranian university for the internal validity and reliability of the safe road-crossing behaviors scale. This scale could be used in planning interventions for the promotion of safe road-crossing behaviors among pedestrians.


  1. Gururaj G, Uthkarsh PS, Rao GN, Jayaram AN, Panduranganath V. Burden, pattern and outcomes of road traffic injuries in a rural district of India. International journal of injury control and safety promotion. 2016; 23(1):64-71.
  2. Haagsma JA, Graetz N, Bolliger I, Naghavi M, Higashi H, Mullany EC, et al. The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013. Injury prevention. 2016; 22(1):3-18.
  3. Azami-Aghdash S, Gorji HA, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Shabaninejad H. Epidemiology of road traffic injuries in Iran: based on the data from Disaster Management Information System (DMIS) of the Iranian Red Crescent. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2017; 19(1): e38743
  4. Montazeri A. Road-traffic-related mortality in Iran: a descriptive study. Public health. 2004; 118(2):110-3.
  5. Duperrex O, Bunn F, Roberts I. Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Bmj. 2002; 324(7346):1129.
  6. Liu YC, Tung YC. Risk analysis of pedestrians’ road-crossing decisions: Effects of age, time gap, time of day, and vehicle speed. Safety Science. 2014; 63:77-82
  7. Balasubramanian V, Bhardwaj R. Pedestrians’ perception and response towards vehicles during road-crossing at nighttime. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2018; 110:128-35
  8. King MJ, Soole D, Ghafourian A. Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections: incidence and relative risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009; 41(3):485-90.
  9. Tabibi Z, Pfeffer K, Sharif JT. The influence of demographic factors, processing speed and short-term memory on Iranian children's pedestrian skills. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2012; 47:87-93
  10. Zhou R, Horrey WJ, Yu R. The effect of conformity tendency on pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions in China: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009; 41(3):491-7.
  11. Zhou R, Rau PL, Zhang W, Zhuang D. Mobile phone use while driving: predicting drivers’ answering intentions and compensatory decisions. Safety science. 2012; 50(1):138-49
  12. Demir B, Özkan T, Demir S. Pedestrian violations: reasoned or social reactive? Comparing theory of planned behavior and prototype willingness model. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour. 2019; 60:560-72
  13. Rivis A, Abraham C, Snook S. Understanding young and older male drivers' willingness to drive while intoxicated: The predictive utility of constructs specified by the theory of planned behaviour and the prototype willingness model. British journal of health psychology. 2011; 16(2):445-56
  14. Nemme HE, White KM. Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2010; 42(4):1257-65.
  15. Xu Y, Li Y, Zhang F. Pedestrians’ intention to jaywalk: Automatic or planned? A study based on a dual-process model in China. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013; 50:811-9
  16. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Houlihan AE, Stock ML, Pomery EA. A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review. 2008; 28(1):29-61.
  17. Mirzaei-Alavijeh M, Vaezi M, Jalilian F. Psychometric Evaluation of a Theory Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Questionnaire with Uptake of Fecal Occult Blood Test. GOVARESH. 2018; 23(2):77-83
  18. Knapp TR, Brown JK. Ten measurement commandments that often should be broken. Research in Nursing & Health. 1995; 18(5):465-9.
  19. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2014; 47(1):79-86.
  20. Paris H, Van den Broucke S. Measuring cognitive determinants of speeding: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2008; 11(3):168-80.
  21. Elliott MA, Thomson JA. The social cognitive determinants of offending drivers’ speeding behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2010; 42(6):1595-605.
  22. Jiang K, Ling F, Feng Z, Wang K, Guo L. Psychological predictors of mobile phone use while crossing the street among college students: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Traffic injury prevention. 2017; 18(2):118-23.
  23. Evans D, Norman P. Predicting adolescent pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions: an application and extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health education research. 2003; 18(3):267-77.
  24. Fruhen LS, Flin R. Car driver attitudes, perceptions of social norms and aggressive driving behaviour towards cyclists. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2015; 83:162-70
  25. Jalilian M, Mostafavi F, Mahaki B, Delpisheh A, Rad GS. An application of a theory of planned behaviour to determine the association between behavioural intentions and safe road-crossing in college students: perspective from Isfahan, Iran. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65(7):742-6.