This study aims to adapt and validate the Knowledge of Sustainable Development (KSD) questionnaire to measure sustainability knowledge among pre-service secondary teachers in Punjab, India.
This study used a quantitative design with stratified random sampling. Data came from 450 B.Ed. pre-service secondary teachers in Punjab, India. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 250 responses to improve the questionnaire, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on another 200 responses to confirm its structure. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 and AMOS 23.
The revised questionnaire has 12 items covering social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainability knowledge. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the three-factor structure with good model fit (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.92 and RMSEA = 0.033). The instrument showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.707).
Because this study included only pre-service secondary teachers in Punjab, the results of this study may not apply to other groups or regions.
Teacher education institutions can use this validated tool to assess sustainability knowledge, review ESD initiatives and guide curriculum development aligned with SDG 4 and NEP, 2020.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to validate the KSD questionnaire for Indian teacher education, offering a culturally adapted tool to assess sustainability knowledge in pre-service secondary teachers.
1. Introduction
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development published the Brundtland Report, which was the first to formally discuss sustainable development. The rapporteur defined it as “sustainable development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 41). Sustainable development is characterized by three dimensions – economy, environment and society – as outlined in various international texts and approaches (Borg et al., 2012; Olsson et al., 2016). Ensuring the sustainability of these three dimensions simultaneously is essential for sustainable development (Sandell et al., 2006). In 2015, the United Nations developed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a plan we cannot afford to overlook. This comprehensive plan guides us towards achieving global peace, prosperity and environmental sustainability. At its core are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, an urgent call to action to end poverty, protect the environment and improve the quality of life. Central to these goals is Quality Education (SDG 4), which supports the achievement of all other Sustainable Development Goals by providing individuals with the essential knowledge, skills and values needed to address complex global issues. To promote this transformative approach to education, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) empowers learners to take responsible actions that contribute to environmental, social and economic sustainability.
1.1 UNESCO’s framework for education for sustainable development competencies
UNESCO, a leading advocate for ESD, plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable development principles across educational systems worldwide. Its comprehensive framework includes essential competencies such as critical and systemic thinking and collaborative decision-making, empowering students to effectively address sustainability challenges. UNESCO’s efforts not only provide a roadmap for integrating sustainability into education but also ensure students are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to contribute to a more sustainable future. UNESCO’s framework highlights eight essential cross-cutting competencies for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
Systems thinking: It is the ability to recognise and understand relationships; to analyse complex systems; to think of how systems are embedded within different domains and different scales; and to deal with uncertainty.
Anticipatory thinking: It is the ability to understand and evaluate multiple future scenarios – possible, probable and desirable; to create personal visions of the future; to apply the precautionary principle; to assess the consequences of actions; and to handle risks and changes.
Normative competency: It is the ability to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie one’s actions and to negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals and targets, within a context of conflicting interests, trade-offs, uncertain knowledge and contradictions.
Strategic competency: It is the ability to collectively develop and implement innovative actions that further sustainability at the local level and further afield.
Collaboration: It is the ability to learn from others; to understand and respect the needs, perspectives and actions of others (empathy); to understand, relate to and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership); to deal with conflicts in a group; and to facilitate collaborative and participatory problem-solving.
Critical thinking: It is the ability to question norms, practices and opinions; to reflect on one’s own values, perceptions and actions; and to take a position in the sustainability discourse.
Self-awareness: It is the ability to reflect on one’s own role in the local community and (global) society; to continually evaluate and further motivate one’s actions; and to deal with one’s feelings and desires.
Integrated problem-solving: It is the overall ability to use various problem-solving frameworks to address complex sustainability issues and develop viable, inclusive and equitable solutions that promote sustainable development, integrating the above-mentioned competencies. These competencies are interconnected, cross-cutting, multifunctional, content-neutral and essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (UNESCO, 2017). UNESCO, a leading advocate for ESD, plays a vital role in promoting sustainable development principles across educational systems worldwide. UNESCO’s efforts not only provide a roadmap for integrating sustainability into education but also ensure that students acquire the skills and knowledge needed to contribute to a more sustainable future. Among its central concepts are the idea that “needs”, particularly the basic needs of the world’s poor, should be prioritised and that the environment’s ability to supply existing and future needs is constrained by the level of social organisation and technology [United Nations (UN), 1987]. Developed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21 (the Sustainable Development Action Plan) is intended to be implemented by governments and organisations worldwide at the local, national and international levels. According to Giddings et al. (2002), the phrase “three pillars of sustainable development” refers to the three equally important but hierarchical aspects of the environment, the economy and society.
1.2 Pillars of sustainability
Environmental sustainability: The preservation of ecological integrity and the balance of all environmental systems is maintained by consuming natural resources at a rate that allows them to regenerate.
Economic sustainability: In human societies around the world, people can live freely and access the material and non-material resources they need to fulfil their needs.
Social sustainability: Everyone, including educators, policymakers and researchers in education and sustainable development, has a role in promoting sustainable development. It is our shared responsibility to ensure that all people have access to enough resources to support the safety, well-being and basic human rights of their families and communities.
The primary goal of the United Nations’ 2015 implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals is to create a more sustainable world for all nations and people. A key step towards sustainable education is India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasises the integration of the SDGs into the curriculum. This policy aims to prepare students to tackle global issues by fostering a curriculum that promotes sustainability and holistic development. The 2030 Agenda underscores education’s vital role in achieving the SDGs, especially SDG 4 (Quality Education), which seeks to provide inclusive, equitable, quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for everyone. However, there is limited research on how well pre-service teachers understand sustainable development, particularly in higher education and teacher training pro Papergrams. While various tools exist to assess knowledge of sustainable development (KSD), they often do not target teacher candidates specifically and tend to focus on adults or school students. Additionally, teacher education has received less attention, with most research focusing on primary and secondary education. This study addresses the knowledge gap by adapting and validating Michalos et al.’s (2014) Knowledge questionnaire for the Indian context. The questionnaire uses a five-point Likert scale to assess social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. It specifically examines pre-service teachers in Punjab, a region with significant socioeconomic and environmental challenges, where education plays a vital role in fostering sustainable practices.
In India, the National Education Policy 2020 aligns national educational goals with the SDGs by fostering holistic, multidisciplinary learning and promoting sustainable lifestyles (Government of India, 2020). Teacher education is particularly important because teachers act as catalysts for sustainability literacy. Despite this emphasis, few reliable instruments are available in the Indian context for measuring sustainability-related knowledge among pre-service teachers. Most global tools, such as those by Michalos et al. (2014), Gericke et al. (2019), Borges (2019) and Crespo‐Martín et al. (2025), were developed in Western contexts and require cultural and linguistic adaptation to ensure validity. Unlike these studies, this study provides a streamlined 12-item tool specifically adapted and validated for the linguistic and environmental realities of the Indian B.Ed. context. Punjab, an Indian state, faces urgent sustainability challenges, especially air pollution from stubble burning and vehicle emissions, which impact cities like Amritsar and Ludhiana. Excessive groundwater extraction for paddy farming has led to a significant decline in the water table, threatening the long-term sustainability of farming. These environmental problems are directly connected to SDG 6 (Clean Water), SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
Teacher education plays a crucial role in promoting sustainable development, as teachers are key disseminators of sustainability knowledge in society. Pre-service teachers enrolled in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) programmes are future educators responsible for embedding sustainability concepts into school curricula and classroom practices. Therefore, assessing their understanding of sustainable development is vital to determine whether teacher education programmes adequately prepare educators to support SDG 4. Despite this significance, tools specifically designed to assess sustainability knowledge among Pre-service secondary teachers are scarce, especially in developing countries such as India.
Incorporating local environmental concerns into educational research enhances the construct validity of such tools and aligns the teacher education curriculum with national imperatives and global Sustainable Development frameworks. Pre-service teachers often lack contextual knowledge of these SDG-related concerns despite policy efforts. This study aims to provide a robust framework for assessing pre-service teachers’ KSD by presenting empirical data on the validity and reliability of the modified instrument. Michalos et al.’s (2014) tool has been widely used and validated in multiple international studies across diverse populations, including university students, secondary school students and pre-service teachers. Its proven psychometric properties ensure that it effectively measures knowledge towards Sustainable Development.
Unlike previous studies, which were primarily conducted in Western educational contexts, this research examines the cultural and educational adaptation of a sustainability knowledge tool for pre-service teachers in India. Under India’s National Education Policy (NEP, 2020), sustainability education has become an essential component of teacher training. However, the absence of validated measurement tools restricts teacher education institutions from accurately assessing sustainability literacy among future educators. By adapting and validating the KSD scale for Pre-service Teachers in Punjab, this study contributes to the global discourse on ESD by offering a context-specific instrument that addresses regional environmental challenges and supports national educational reforms.
1.3 Research gap
Although sustainability education has gained increasing global attention, significant gaps remain in its assessment within teacher education. Existing studies mainly focus on environmental awareness, curriculum analysis or student perceptions, with limited emphasis on pre-service teachers as key agents of change. Moreover, most sustainability assessment tools have been developed in Western contexts and are not directly applicable to the Indian educational system. In India, research on sustainable development in education largely relies on adapted instruments or self-developed questionnaires without rigorous psychometric validation. Additionally, the cognitive dimension of sustainability – particularly knowledge across environmental, social and economic domains – has not been systematically measured among pre-service teachers. Given the central role of teachers in implementing ESD, there is a need for a validated, context-specific instrument to assess sustainability knowledge in teacher education programmes. The present study addresses this gap by adapting and validating a knowledge scale suitable for pre-service secondary teachers in India.
2. Literature review
Education is a fundamental element in building sustainable societies, providing individuals with the knowledge, skills and values needed to tackle complex global challenges. The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development highlights the crucial role of education in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 4: Quality Education, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for everyone (United Nations, 2015). At the heart of this agenda is ESD, an educational approach that enables learners to make informed decisions and take responsible actions for environmental health, economic sustainability and a fair society. In this context, assessing Pré-Service Teachers’ KSD is vital, as they play a key role in teaching sustainability to future generations. The conversation around sustainability has grown, highlighting the links between social justice, economic progress and environmental preservation (Giddings et al., 2002; Summers and Childs, 2007). The significance of education in advancing sustainability is widely recognised (UNESCO, 2017). The tools developed to measure sustainability-related concepts are shown in Table 1.
Description of the scales used to measure knowledge of sustainable development
| Author | Year | Country | Instrument | Dimensions | Sample | Items | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michalos et al. | 2014 | Canada | Knowledge, attitude and behaviour scale | Knowledge, attitude, behaviour | High school students | 50 | α = 0.91 |
| Olsson et al. | 2015 | Sweden | Sustainability consciousness questionnaire | Knowingness, attitudes, behaviour | School students | 50 | α = 0.88 |
| Al-Naqbi and Alshannag | 2018 | UAE | SD knowledge and attitude questionnaire | Knowledge, attitude, behaviour | Undergraduate students | 70 | α = 0.75 |
| Borges | 2019 | Portugal | Adapted the Michalos scale | KAB | 168 Prospective Teachers | 41 | α = 0.84 |
| Sunthonkanokpong | 2019 | Thailand | Sustainability awareness survey | Awareness, attitudes, actions | Pre-service teachers | 51 | α = 0.90 |
| Gericke et al. | 2019 | Sweden | Sustainability consciousness questionnaire (SCQ-S) | Knowingness, attitude, behaviour | School students | 27 | α = 0.72 |
| Imran et al. | 2024 | Pakistan | Environmental education perception scale | Knowledge and perception | Teachers | 40 | α = 0.84 |
| Crespo-Martín et al. | 2020 | Spain | SCQ tool (by Gericke et al., 2019) validated and adapted in the Spanish context | Knowingness, attitude and behaviour | University students | 27 | α = 0.766 |
| Crespo-Martín et al. | 2025 | Spain | Revalidated and modified it as the KAB tool | KAB | University students | 39 | α ≥ 0.80 |
However, they often differ in what they focus on, how they are structured and how well they perform across different settings. The Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) by Olsson et al. (2016) and subsequent versions (Gericke et al., 2019) use a “knowingness–attitude–behaviour” framework. This method aims for a broad view of sustainability. Still, it tends to focus more on attitudes and actions than on knowledge. Similarly, the tools by Al-Naqbi and Alshannag (2018) and Borges (2019) use the Knowledge–Attitude–Behaviour (KAB) model. While this model covers several areas, it can make it harder to measure knowledge in isolation. On the other hand, the KSD tool by Michalos et al. (2014) offers a more focused and reliable way to measure what people know about sustainability. Its emphasis is on social, economic and environmental areas. This makes it a good fit for teacher education, where a strong base of knowledge is needed to teach ESD. Also, while many tools have been tested in Western schools, this study adapts the KSD tool for use in India. The adaptation takes into account local culture, language and context as recommended by the National Education Policy (NEP, 2020). Michalos et al.’s tool was chosen because it is reliable, valid, flexible and well-suited for measuring sustainability knowledge among future secondary teachers in a developing country. More recent studies (2021–2025) show a growing trend towards contextual adaptation rather than developing new instruments, particularly in developing countries. In India, research has largely focused on curriculum analysis and awareness studies, with limited emphasis on psychometric validation. Additionally, most instruments continue to prioritize attitudes and behaviours, while the knowledge dimension remains underexplored, especially in teacher education.
2.1 Education for sustainable development (ESD)
ESD enables learners to promote environmental integrity, economic viability and social justice (UNESCO, 2017). Core competencies associated with ESD include systems thinking, anticipatory competence and collaborative decision-making (Brundiers et al., 2021). Teacher preparation programs that integrate ESD foster more reflective and proactive educators (Borg et al., 2014; Keles, 2017). Nevertheless, significant barriers to implementation persist, such as limited faculty expertise, inflexible curricula and insufficient assessment frameworks (Cotton et al., 2007; Ambusaidi and Al Washahi, 2016). Recent research underscores the pivotal role of pre-service teachers as agents of change. For example, Chen et al. (2022) identified a strong correlation between sustainability literacy and self-regulated learning strategies among Chinese undergraduates. Similarly, Al-Naqbi and Alshannag (2018) reported positive associations between sustainability knowledge and pro-environmental behaviours in students from the United Arab Emirates. As educators facilitate the development of sustainability-oriented mindsets in students, their contribution to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 is critical. Despite global initiatives, a persistent gap in sustainability education within teacher training programs remains, particularly in developing countries. To address this, Türer developed the Sustainable Development Awareness Questionnaire, which assesses social science and science teacher candidates’ awareness of sustainable development across three sub-dimensions: social, economic and environmental. This instrument comprises 21 items. Chow and Chen introduced a corporate sustainable development scale to evaluate the alignment of management strategies with sustainable development principles. Like Türer’s instrument, this scale contains 22 items focused on social, economic and environmental sustainability, reflecting common research dimensions. In contrast, Doğan et al. (2015) concentrated on sustainable consumption behaviours, developing a 20-item scale to assess practices such as environmental awareness, avoidance of unnecessary purchases, savings and reusability. Research on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of sustainable development and ESD highlights ongoing challenges, including insufficient institutional support, inadequate faculty training and limited interdisciplinary integration (Cotton et al., 2007; Ambusaidi and Al Washahi, 2016). Keles (2017) found that science teachers demonstrated greater awareness of environmental sustainability but lacked knowledge regarding social and economic dimensions. Borges (2019) similarly observed that university students’ disciplinary backgrounds significantly influenced their perceptions of sustainability, emphasizing the necessity of integrating sustainable development across all teacher education specializations. Several studies have focused on developing and validating reliable scales to measure sustainability awareness and attitudes within the social sciences. For instance, one study examined the immediate impact of education and awareness on students’ knowledge, values and attitudes towards a sustainable future, with a particular emphasis on environmental education (EE). In this study, 87 high school teachers were randomly selected and administered a two-point Likert-scale questionnaire to assess how education contributes to a sustainable future. “The results, analysed through multiple regression analysis, the chi-square test, the t-test, and Cronbach’s alpha value tests, underscore EE’s urgent and significant role in preparing children for a secure future.” (Imran et al., 2024). These studies contribute significantly to the field by providing validated tools for assessing sustainability-related knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, thereby enhancing the reliability of research on sustainable development. Despite the recognized importance of sustainability education, research assessing pre-service teachers’ knowledge remains limited, especially in the Indian context. Most existing measurement tools are designed for primary and secondary school students rather than pre-service teachers. Although several instruments are available, few specifically target pre-service teachers in India (Martin and Jamieson-Proctor, 2020).
The present study addresses this gap by measuring sustainability-related knowledge among teacher candidates in India using a modified version of the Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour questionnaire developed by Michalos et al. (2014). This research uses standardized assessments of students’ behaviours, attitudes and knowledge regarding sustainable development, examining the premise that positive attitudes and knowledge foster positive actions. The tool’s psychometric properties include the 20-item Index of KSD, which demonstrates excellent internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.91. The Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour model is a widely recognized framework for assessing cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude) and behavioural (practice) dimensions, making it well-suited for evaluating pre-service teachers’ understanding and engagement with ESD (Núñez et al., 2024).
2.2 Measurement tools and psychometric validation
Psychometric instruments are critical for assessing cognitive understanding of sustainable development. The instrument demonstrated high content validity, as confirmed by a panel of experts in environmental education and sustainability studies. Construct validity was established through exploratory factor analysis, which verified that the items aligned with key sustainability domains, including ecological literacy, local environmental issues and global sustainability challenges. The 20-item Index of KSD achieved a Cronbach’s alpha (α) of 0.91, indicating excellent internal consistency and surpassing the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70. The mean scale score was 1.96, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.17, reflecting low variability among participants’ responses. Item-total correlations ranged from r = 0.461 (item KSD 20) to r = 0.639 (item KSD 10), with an average of r = 0.54, demonstrating strong positive associations between most items and the overall knowledge score. No items exhibited negative item-total correlations, further supporting the scale’s internal coherence. These results collectively indicate that the Knowledge Index is a psychometrically robust measure of knowledge related to sustainable development within the Michalos questionnaire framework. Comparisons with previous studies (Michalos et al., 2010, 2011) revealed that respondents in 2014 outperformed those in 2010 and 2011, suggesting an improvement in KSD. Michalos et al. (2014) developed the Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour (KAB) instrument, which demonstrated excellent reliability (α = 0.91). Subsequent adaptations have confirmed the presence of similar constructs across diverse populations (Olsson and Gericke, 2017; Imran et al., 2024). However, in the Indian context, validation efforts have been limited and have primarily focused on attitudes rather than knowledge (Singh, 2022). To address this gap, the present study applies rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) to establish the factorial validity of the adapted KSD Research.
2.3 Objective of this study
The objective of this study is to validate the KSD tool developed by Michalos et al. (2014) in the Indian context.
3. Methods
3.1 Participants
A quantitative cross-sectional research design was used to validate pre-service teachers’ responses to the KSD questionnaire. The sample comprised 450 pre-service teachers from Teacher Education Institutions in Punjab, with 250 assigned to an EFA and 200 to a CFA. The sample size was selected to maintain a subject-to-item ratio of 10 respondents per item, which enhanced the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity as indicators of sampling adequacy. Increasing the sample size also improved the accuracy of CFA fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root mean square error of Approximation (RMSEA), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) and Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI). The number of respondents was sufficient to support the generalisability of the findings. All participants were considered to be at minimal risk, and ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee.
3.2 Instrumentation
Permission to use the scale was obtained from the original developer via email to ensure ethical compliance. The questionnaire was administered to pre-service teachers using both online and offline methods. Online distribution was conducted through secure survey platforms, while offline administration involved distributing printed questionnaires during class sessions. The use of both methods increased accessibility and encouraged higher participation rates by accommodating respondents’ preferences.
The KSD scale uses a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5 indicating Strongly Agree, allowing respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements about sustainable development knowledge. The items encompass multiple dimensions of sustainability, including environmental stewardship, social equity and economic responsibility, thus providing a comprehensive assessment of knowledge. This standardised instrument has demonstrated reliability and validity in previous research and facilitates cross-cultural comparisons of sustainability education knowledge levels. Minor contextual modifications were made in consultation with education and sustainability experts to enhance clarity and relevance for Indian pre-service teachers. Terminology was clarified, and contextually appropriate examples were provided to ensure accurate comprehension and responses. These adaptations preserved the original scale’s integrity and psychometric properties, in accordance with established guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments. The original Knowledge scale, developed by Michalos et al. (2014) in Canada for high school students, consists of 20 items related to sustainable development knowledge. Permission to use the English version of the structured scale was obtained from the original author. The five-point Likert scale assesses social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability. Both online and offline administration methods were used. The dimensions of Knowledge questionnaire are mentioned in Table 2.
Dimensions of the knowledge of sustainable development (KSD) scale
| Dimension | Definition/Focus |
|---|---|
| Environmental | Knowledge related to ecological balance, conservation of natural resources, and environmental protection |
| Social | Knowledge related to social equity, human well-being, and community development |
| Economic | Knowledge related to sustainable economic growth, resource management, and responsible consumption |
3.3 Data collection
The survey sample comprised pre-service teachers who completed both offline and online questionnaires in a hybrid format, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity. The research purpose was explained, and participants were invited to contribute using this hybrid approach. After rapport was established, hard copies of the questionnaire were distributed for completion. The sample accounted for participants’ gender, semester and qualification points. Institutional authorities granted permission for the hybrid questionnaire to be administered after regular classes, with participants instructed not to consult one another. The questionnaire was completed within 10–15 min.
3.4 Data analysis
The validity and reliability of the modified KSD scale were evaluated through systematic data analysis. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 was used for exploratory and descriptive analyses, while AMOS version 23 was used for CFA. Consistent with established psychometric research, the analysis followed a standardized process (Hair et al., 2019; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2019). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess central tendency, dispersion and distribution characteristics of individual items. Internal consistency reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha for both the overall scale and its dimensions.
3.5 Item reduction criteria
Item reduction during exploratory factor analysis adhered to established psychometric standards. Items were evaluated using three criteria: factor loadings below 0.50, cross-loadings above 0.40 on multiple factors and communalities below 0.30. Items not meeting these criteria were systematically removed to improve the clarity and stability of the factor structure. When items loaded on more than one factor, the highest loading was retained. As a result, 8 of the original 20 items were eliminated, yielding a final 12-item scale encompassing the social, environmental and economic dimensions of knowledge related to sustainable development.
4. Results
This section presents the validation and psychometric properties of the Knowledge questionnaire, offering a structured overview of the analysis results. The findings are organized into several sections.
4.1 Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis, the data set’s suitability was assessed using the KMO measure of Sampling Adequacy. The KMO value for the data set was 0.768, indicating a moderate-to-good level of sampling adequacy (Hair et al., 2019). The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s Test are presented in Table 3.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
| Test | Statistic | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | – | 0.768 |
| Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Approximately Chi-Square | 345.213 |
| Bartlett’s test of sphericity | df | 66 |
| Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Sig. | 0.000 |
Psychometric guidelines consider KMO values above 0.70 suitable for factor analysis, suggesting that correlations among variables are sufficiently strong to produce reliable factors (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2019). These results confirm the data’s appropriateness for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The data set met the necessary assumptions for factor analysis, providing a robust foundation for examining the underlying dimensions of knowledge related to sustainable development. These preliminary tests ensured that subsequent factor extraction would yield meaningful and interpretable constructs, thereby supporting the psychometric validity of the adapted KSD scale.
4.2 Exploratory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a widely used data reduction technique in social science research for identifying latent dimensions among observed variables when the underlying structure is unknown (Hair et al., 2019). This method was appropriate for the present study, as the tool was adapted for the Indian teacher trainee context and required empirical validation of its construct dimensions. EFA was conducted to investigate the underlying factor structure. Before EFA, the data set’s suitability was confirmed using the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which verified the factorability of the correlation matrix. CFA was subsequently performed in AMOS to validate the identified factor structure and assess model fit indices. The combined use of EFA and CFA provided a robust framework for validating the KSD scale’s construct within Indian teacher education. Data for EFA were collected from a sample of 250 participants using SPSS version 26. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation revealed a three-factor structure with 12 retained items out of 20, after removing 8 items because of low communalities or cross-loadings during multiple iterations of factor analysis, consistent with the theoretical framework. The final model retained 12 items, grouped into three distinct factors, which collectively explained 50% of the total variance. Factor loadings for the retained items ranged from 0.501 to 0.725. During the analysis, eight items were removed because of low communalities, significant cross-loadings or insufficient factor loadings. After several iterations, a stable three-factor structure was established, as shown by the rotated component matrix in Table 4.
Mean, SD and rotated factor matrix for the knowledge of sustainable development items
| KSD items | Mean | SD | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ensuring a long and healthy life for all contributes to Sustainable Development | 4.18 | 0.738 | 0.722 | ||
| 2. Economic development, social development and environmental protection are all needed for SD | 4.32 | 0.701 | 0.544 | ||
| 19. SD requires people to reflect on what it means to improve the quality of life | 4.01 | 0.734 | 0.501 | ||
| 4. Human actions are contributing to changes in our atmosphere and climate systems | 4.08 | 0.81 | 0.556 | ||
| 10. Conservation of fresh water is necessary for SD | 4.3 | 0.736 | 0.713 | ||
| 13. “Maintaining biodiversity” means maintaining the number and variety of living organisms. This is necessary for SD | 4.13 | 0.744 | 0.529 | ||
| 17. SD requires a shift to renewable natural resources | 4.11 | 0.734 | 0.647 | ||
| 6. SD emphasizes gender equality | 3.81 | 0.991 | 0.511 | ||
| 8. Helping people out of poverty is an essential condition to become more sustainable | 4.13 | 0.771 | 0.559 | ||
| 7. Good citizenship is necessary for SD | 4.15 | 0.795 | 0.662 | ||
| 14. Respect for cultural diversity (variety of cultures) is necessary for SD | 4.1 | 0.77 | 0.725 | ||
| 18. SD necessitates that people continue to learn new skills throughout their lives | 4.04 | 0.77 | 0.63 |
Note(s): Factor 1. Social; 2. Environment; and 3. Economic sustainability
The inter-item correlations of the adapted KSD scale were examined to assess its internal consistency and homogeneity. All inter-item correlation coefficients were above 0.50, which meets the commonly accepted threshold for adequate item correlation in psychometric research (Devellis, 2017; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2019). This indicates that the items consistently measure the same underlying construct, namely, knowledge related to sustainable development. The scale purification process, which involves removing items with low correlations, high error variance or weak factor loadings, further improved the instrument’s internal consistency. After purification, the remaining items showed strong factor loadings, demonstrating that they reliably represent the three conceptual dimensions of the scale – environmental, social and economic knowledge. By retaining only items that meaningfully contribute to the construct, the revised scale achieves both simplicity and accuracy, ensuring that the measurement accurately reflects the intended domain without redundancy. The resulting 12-item version provides a solid psychometric foundation, allowing researchers and educators to assess pre-service teachers (B.Ed.) KSD with confidence. This refinement guarantees that the scale is internally consistent, conceptually valid and suitable for further validation through confirmatory analysis. Because the retained items have substantial factor loadings and better reflect the knowledge construct associated with the Sustainable Development tool, the modified and validated questionnaire provides a solid psychometric basis.
4.3 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
CFA was conducted using AMOS version 23 on a separate subset of 200 pre-service teachers to validate the factor structure identified through exploratory factor analysis. CFA assesses the validity of a hypothesised measurement model by determining the degree to which the observed data fit the proposed latent structure (Hair et al., 2019).
Results from the EFA informed the refinement of the original 20-item scale, resulting in the retention of 12 items that demonstrated strong factor loadings and conceptual alignment with the three dimensions of sustainable development knowledge. The CFA model identified three latent factors corresponding to the environmental, social and economic dimensions, with observed items mapped to their respective constructs.
The standardised factor loadings for the 12 retained items ranged from 0.62 to 0.84, demonstrating that each item makes a significant contribution to its respective latent factor. The three dimensions showed moderate inter-factor correlations, suggesting that while related, each dimension represents a distinct aspect of sustainable development knowledge. The CFA results confirm that the refined KSD scale possesses a robust three-factor structure, exhibits strong construct validity and is empirically supported for evaluating pre-service secondary teachers’ (B.Ed.) KSD. This validated instrument is appropriate for use in research and educational assessment to measure knowledge acquisition in sustainability education.
The resulting model comprised three dimensions – social (SOC), environmental (ENV) and economic (ECO) – each represented by 12 items as shown in Figure 1. Several goodness-of-fit indices were used to evaluate the model’s suitability. Error variances (e1–e12) are all significant (p < 0.001); latent variable variances such as Environment and Social are significant; and Economic is marginal (p = 0.079), but still acceptable in the CFA context. The goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the proposed model provided an acceptable fit to the data, as presented in Table 5.
The economic construct has variance 0.05 and connects with K S D 1 at 1, K S D 2 at 1.57, and K S D 19 at 1.89. Their residual terms e 1, e 2, and e 3 have values 0.4, 0.31, and 0.36. The environment construct has variance 0.14 and connects with K S D 4 at 1, K S D 10 at 0.97, K S D 13 at 0.8, and K S D 17 at 1.05. Their residual terms e 4, e 5, e 6, and e 7 have values 0.55, 0.42, 0.42, and 0.33. The social construct has variance 0.22 and connects with K S D 6 at 1, K S D 8 at 0.72, K S D 7 at 0.87, K S D 14 at 0.73, and K S D 18 at 0.71. Their residual terms e 8, e 9, e 10, e 11, and e 12 have values 0.64, 0.42, 0.48, 0.4, and 0.44. Each indicator connects to its residual term with coefficient 1. Covariances between economic and environment, economic and social, and environment and social are 0.08, 0.05, and 0.06.The factor structure of the model with 12 items
Source: Authors’ own work
The economic construct has variance 0.05 and connects with K S D 1 at 1, K S D 2 at 1.57, and K S D 19 at 1.89. Their residual terms e 1, e 2, and e 3 have values 0.4, 0.31, and 0.36. The environment construct has variance 0.14 and connects with K S D 4 at 1, K S D 10 at 0.97, K S D 13 at 0.8, and K S D 17 at 1.05. Their residual terms e 4, e 5, e 6, and e 7 have values 0.55, 0.42, 0.42, and 0.33. The social construct has variance 0.22 and connects with K S D 6 at 1, K S D 8 at 0.72, K S D 7 at 0.87, K S D 14 at 0.73, and K S D 18 at 0.71. Their residual terms e 8, e 9, e 10, e 11, and e 12 have values 0.64, 0.42, 0.48, 0.4, and 0.44. Each indicator connects to its residual term with coefficient 1. Covariances between economic and environment, economic and social, and environment and social are 0.08, 0.05, and 0.06.The factor structure of the model with 12 items
Source: Authors’ own work
Goodness of fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis
| Fit index | Obtained value | Recommended cut-off | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | 0.136 | > 0.05 | Good fit |
| χ²/df (CMIN/DF) | 1.22 | < 3.00 | Excellent fit |
| CFI | 0.94 | ≥ 0.90 | Good fit |
| TLI | 0.92 | ≥ 0.90 | Good fit |
| RMSEA | 0.033 | < 0.06 | Excellent fit |
| PCLOSE | 0.84 | > 0.05 | Close fit |
| GFI | 0.95 | ≥ 0.90 | Good fit |
The confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the proposed model fits the data well. The chi-square value was non-significant (χ2 = 62.18, df = 51 and p = 0.136), and the relative chi-square (χ2/df = 1.22) indicated excellent fit (Kline, 2016). Incremental fit indices (CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.92) exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.90, while the RMSEA value (0.033) and PCLOSE (0.84) suggested a close model fit. Additionally, the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR = 0.029) and the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI = 0.95), both of which meet the recommended criteria (RMR < 0.05 and GFI > 0.90) as outlined by Byrne (2016). Overall, these findings confirm that all 12 items significantly contribute to their respective latent constructs, providing strong evidence of convergent validity. The model’s structure aligns with theoretical assumptions and prior empirical studies (Byrne, 2013; Kline, 2016).
4.4 Reliability and composite reliability of the updated tool
Experts recommend that a reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is sufficient for evaluating the internal consistency of a construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003). This study found Cronbach’s alpha to be 0.707, indicating that the scale’s items demonstrate adequate internal consistency and reasonable reliability. The standardised Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.708 further confirms the scale’s reliability, as SPSS only calculates Cronbach’s alpha, not McDonald’s Omega. Given that the tool has 12 items, the reliability test shows acceptable internal consistency, validating its suitability for measuring Sustainable Development knowledge. Results revealed high internal consistency and acceptable reliability, and CFA supported the tool’s psychometric soundness in the Indian context. The findings from the quantitative analysis showed a significant improvement in the pre-service secondary teachers’ KSD, highlighting the effectiveness of integrating it into the curriculum.
This study’s primary aim was to validate an assessment tool to measure knowledge of the Sustainable Development Goals among Pre-service secondary Teachers. This refined version demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.707) and satisfactory composite reliability. These results indicate that the revised Knowledge Towards Sustainable Development scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the construct and examining the underlying influencing factors. This study verified the tool’s internal consistency. The three-dimensional structure, comprising social, economic and environmental components, was confirmed using EFA, CFA and reliability testing. The findings highlight the tool’s effectiveness in measuring Pre-service Teachers’ knowledge and understanding of sustainability, in line with the goals of SDG 4 (Quality Education).
4.5 Validity of the updated tool
The tool was adapted for Indian Pre-service Teachers by simplifying terminology, revising culturally specific items and ensuring relevance to the B.Ed. curriculum. Several modifications were made concerning grammar, language and cultural appropriateness. First, complex academic expressions were simplified, and technical terms were replaced with student-friendly vocabulary to improve readability. Grammatical adjustments, such as restructuring long sentences and converting passive voice to active voice, were also implemented to prevent confusion. Second, culturally specific references from the original version, which reflected Western educational and social contexts, were revised or replaced with examples familiar to Indian respondents. This process ensured that the items were relatable and aligned with the realities of Indian classrooms. Third, the scale was reviewed in relation to the Indian B.Ed. curriculum and the priorities outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP, 2020), ensuring curricular relevance. Finally, emphasis was placed on maintaining inclusivity by using neutral, accessible language that could be easily understood by students across diverse gender, socio-economic and academic backgrounds. These adaptations enhanced the instrument’s validity by making it linguistically accessible, culturally relevant and contextually appropriate for the Indian teacher trainee population. The corrected version of the adapted tool was reviewed by language experts to verify language accuracy, with no change in the meaning of the items. Construct validity was considered essential for establishing validity among Pre-service Teachers in Punjab, as it is the most critical form of validity. Construct validity ensures that the instrument accurately measures the theoretical constructs it aims to assess and that the factor structure in the Indian sample aligns with or appropriately adapts from the original tool’s structure (Hair et al., 2019). For this tool, construct validity was assessed in two stages: an EFA and a CFA.
5. Discussion
The present study aimed to validate a knowledge-based instrument for assessing sustainable development among pre-service secondary teachers. The results show that the adapted scale demonstrates acceptable reliability and model fit, confirming its suitability for measuring the cognitive dimension of sustainability within the teacher education context. This aligns with previous research suggesting that sustainability knowledge forms a basic component for the development of attitudes and behaviours related to sustainable development. An in-depth examination of the factor structure reveals that items associated with social sustainability exhibited relatively stronger loadings. This suggests that pre-service teachers may be more responsive to issues such as equity, inclusion and cultural diversity. In contrast, comparatively lower emphasis on economic dimensions demonstrates a potential gap in the integrated understanding of sustainability. This disproportion reflects trends identified in earlier studies, in which environmental and social aspects tend to dominate sustainability discourse, while economic issues receive limited attention. These findings show the necessity of a more proportionate integration of sustainability dimensions within teacher education curricula. The results also point to the importance of strengthening the cognitive domain of sustainability within teacher education programmes. Given that teachers have a central role in translating sustainability concepts into classroom practice, insufficient knowledge may limit their ability to effectively implement ESD. Therefore, developing a strong knowledge base among pre-service teachers is key to fostering sustainability-orientated teaching and learning processes at the secondary level. In this context, the validated scale offers important implications regarding both practice and policy. It can serve as a diagnostic tool to assess baseline levels of sustainability knowledge among pre-service teachers, enabling teacher education institutions to identify gaps and design focused interventions. Furthermore, the insights derived from the instrument can shape curriculum design and pedagogical strategies through facilitating the embedding of sustainability concepts across disciplines. The scale also gives a structured mechanism for continuous assessment and programme evaluation, allowing institutions to monitor the effectiveness of ESD integration over time. From a policy perspective, the instrument supports aligning teacher education programmes with national and global priorities, particularly the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). By providing empirical evidence on sustainability knowledge, this study contributes to data-driven decision-making in teacher education and highlights the need for competency-based approaches to sustainability integration. Overall, the findings underscore that strengthening sustainability knowledge among pre-service teachers is a critical step towards achieving the broader goals of quality education and sustainable development. The validated instrument, thus, functions as not only a measurement tool but also an agent for improving the quality and relevance of teacher education in the context of knowledge towards sustainable development. For teacher education to be genuinely sustainable, it must promote critical thinking, empathy, collaboration and the ability to act in complex and uncertain environments (Leicht et al., 2018).
6. Limitations and future research
Although this study provides valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. The research was conducted exclusively in teacher education institutions in Punjab, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions of India. The instrument used assessed only the cognitive dimension of sustainability literacy, without addressing attitudes or behavioural competencies associated with ESD (Waltner et al., 2019) Additionally, this study did not investigate measurement invariance across groups such as gender or academic semester. Future research should validate the scale in diverse educational contexts and use longitudinal designs to examine the development of sustainability knowledge throughout teacher training programmes.
Furthermore, this study did not assess measurement invariance across demographic variables such as gender and academic semester, which could provide additional evidence for the stability and generalizability of the factor structure across subgroups. Meanwhile, the implications of this study emphasize the urgent need for holistic approaches in teacher education that foster sustainable development.
7. Conclusion
This study validated an adapted KSD questionnaire for pre-service teachers in the Indian context, demonstrating its reliability and construct validity through rigorous psychometric analysis. The refined instrument measures the cognitive dimension of sustainability across social, economic and environmental domains and aligns with established frameworks of sustainable development (Michalos et al., 2014). Beyond its methodological contribution, this study underscores the essential role of teacher education in advancing ESD. While the findings indicate that pre-service teachers possess a measurable level of sustainability knowledge, they also reveal the need for a more contextually grounded, practice-oriented understanding, particularly in regions facing significant environmental challenges, such as Punjab. These results reinforce the argument that knowledge acquisition alone does not suffice for fostering sustainability competencies (UNESCO, 2017). The validated instrument offers a systematic, context-sensitive approach to assessing sustainability knowledge, supporting curriculum evaluation, teacher preparation and evidence-based policy development. Its application can facilitate integrating sustainability into teacher education programs and aligning institutional practices with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). However, meaningful transformation in teacher education requires holistic approaches that integrate cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of learning (Leicht et al., 2018). Therefore, this study highlights the importance of incorporating experiential learning and action-oriented pedagogies within teacher education programs. In summary, the validated KSD instrument provides a robust foundation for advancing sustainability-oriented teacher education and emphasizes the necessity of systemic and pedagogical reforms to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice.
Ethics statement
This study poses no risk to participants and guarantees the full confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The research received approval from the university’s Institutional Ethical Committee.
