Cross-sectional study establishes the Arabic OPQOL-brief's validity and reliability for older adults, suggesting its use in nursing care.
Background This investigation scrutinises the psychometric qualities of the Arabic version of the Older People's Quality of Life‐Brief (OPQOL‐brief) scale in a sample of Arabic‐speaking older adults to support culturally appropriate assessment of lived experience and person‐centred care in later life and to strengthen gerontological nursing assessment and evaluation across settings. Method A cross sectional study included 539 Arabic‐speaking older Egyptians (50.3% women; 60.7% aged 65–75). Forward–backward translation and cultural adaptation procedures support linguistic and cultural equivalence. Data collection uses a mixed‐mode approach (face‐to‐face and online) to support inclusive participation; procedures were standardised across modes to minimise measurement differences. Results The scale yielded a three‐factor structure reflecting the multidimensional nature of quality of life in older adults. Internal consistency was high for the total score (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega = 0.92). Measurement properties did not differ significantly by gender, supporting cross‐gender interpretability. Concurrent validity showed a strong positive correlation between Arabic OPQOL‐brief and resilience scores ( r = 0.60, p < 0.001), supporting its relevance to nursing care planning and outcome monitoring. Psychometric testing in this study includes factor structure, internal consistency reliability, concurrent validity and measurement invariance. Conclusion This research closes a gap in the literature and supports the Arabic OPQOL‐brief as a robust tool for assessing quality of life in Arabic‐speaking older adults. Implications for Practice The new scale can help support nurse‐led person‐centred assessment, care coordination and evaluation of interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hallit et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: