ArticleBMC psychology2026
Validation and psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Quality-of-Life Scale (QOLS) with a sample of general and special education teachers.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study was performed to validate the Arabic version of the 15-item Quality-of-Life Scale (QOLS) using a sample of 401 teachers, including 235 general education teachers and 166 special education teachers. The psychometric properties of the QOLS were evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA supported a two factor solution, explaining 55.6% of the total variance, with Factor 1 reflecting personal and social well-being and Factor 2 reflecting leisure and autonomy. Internal consistency was excellent, with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients of .91 and .92 for the total scale, respectively. Convergent validity was established via a strong positive correlation with the WHOQOL-Bref (r = .78), while discriminant validity was confirmed through a moderate negative correlation with the Health and Suffering Scale (r = -.57). CFA demonstrated acceptable model fit indices (CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.085, SRMR = 0.05), supporting the stability of the two-factor structure. Multi-CFA further indicated that measurement invariance was achieved across gender at configural, metric, and scalar levels, whereas full invariance was not supported across educational levels. The findings indicate that the Arabic QOLS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing quality of life among physically active adult populations such as teachers. Implications for its application in educational and research contexts, as well as limitations regarding factor structure differences from the original QOLS, are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.