Psychometric Properties and Factorial Analysis of the Arabic McGill-QoL Questionnaire in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mohammed TA Omar, Ali H Alnahdi Department of Rehabilitation Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Mohammed TA Omar, Department of Rehabilitation Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, P.O Box 10219, Riyadh, 11344, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966542115404, Email momarar@ksu.edu.saPurpose: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Arabic McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised (MQOL-R) in breast cancer survivors.Patients and Methods: One-hundred-forty breast cancer survivors were recruited and completed the questionnaire. The construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). MQOL-R scores were correlated with Global Health Status/QoL and functional subscales of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for convergent validity. Reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Results: CFA reproduced a four-factor model (ie, physical, psychological, existential, and social) with good fit indices (comparative fitting index = 0.980; root mean square error of approximation = 0.091), with all items significantly loading on their respective subscales. The total MQOL-R scores were correlated with the global health status/QoL and functional subscales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (r = – 0.172, P < 0.01). Known-group validity was proven by different MQOL-R scores according to functional status (50.62 ± 6.35 vs 45.98 ± 7.19, P < 0.01). Reliability was supported by good internal consistency and high test-retest correlation coefficients for the Arabic MQOL-R and its subscales (ICC range, 0.83– 0.95).Conclusion: The Arabic MQOL-R demonstrated adequate construct validity, factor structure, excellent test-retest reliability, and good internal consistency. This tool is valuable for assessing the quality of life in research and physical therapy rehabilitation settings among Arabic-speaking breast cancer survivors.Keywords: breast cancer, quality of life, validity, reliability
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".