2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11482-013-9244-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychometric Properties of the WHOQOL-BREF Questionnaire among Disabled Students in Malaysian Higher Learning Institutions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Arabic version of the questionnaire was included for data collection [ 22 ]. The Arabic version of the WHOQOL-BREF has well-established reliability and validity [ 23 , 24 ], and it has been extensively used previously to assess QOL among people with physical disabilities as well as in the general population [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Arabic version of the questionnaire was included for data collection [ 22 ]. The Arabic version of the WHOQOL-BREF has well-established reliability and validity [ 23 , 24 ], and it has been extensively used previously to assess QOL among people with physical disabilities as well as in the general population [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The questionnaire assesses physical and psychological quality of life, social relationships, and environment. Psychometric properties were tested internationally and have been reported as high (α = .78, α = .89, α = .70, and α = .80, respectively) (33).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the WHOQOL-BREF. A study [ 20 ] using a sample of disabled students found satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values for the domains of the WHOQOL-BREF covering physical health (0.72), psychological health (0.82) and environmental health (0.80), whereas social relationships received a value of 0.69. The factor analysis found that the social relationship items had poor factor loadings (<0.40), indicating that some items were unsuitable for measuring the social relationships of disabled students.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%