Introduction

The concept of Quality of Life (QoL) is broad, with many different meanings, and it was investigated in multiple and varied disciplines (Batool et al., 2019; Sirgy et al., 2006). There is no one specific and agreed-upon definition for the concept of QoL; it varies based on the situation and perspective (Post, 2014). However, one of the most commonly used definition for this concept is the definition from the World Health Organization (WHO), which defined it as follows “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns (WHOQOL Group, 1998). Numerous aspects of individuals’ lives, including health, education, society, family, and economy, are associated with their QoL. A recent systematic review revealed that only a limited number of studies have explored the QoL among high-school students with deafness, highlighting the need for further research in this area (Madhesh, 2024).

For instance, Schick et al. (2013) found that deaf students enrolled in mainstream schools reported a slightly lower QoL compared to their peers attending schools specifically designed for the deaf. In addition, Qi et al. (2020) found no significant differences in the QoL between adolescents with hearing impairments and their hearing peers. They also suggested that students in specialized schools for the deaf experience higher QoL than those in mainstream settings. Moreover, their study emphasized the positive impact of peer relationships, academic performance, and access to rehabilitation services on the QoL among deaf adolescents. In contrast, Borujeni et al. (2015) reported that deaf students in mainstream high schools were found to have better QoL than those attending schools specifically designed for the deaf. In addition, students with moderate hearing loss generally experienced better QoL outcomes than those with more severe hearing impairments. Their study also showed that female students tended to report higher QoL levels than their male counterparts.

Although Quality of School Life (QoSL) is considered an integral part of QoL in general, this study focused on the single aspect of QoSL because of the importance of investigating this concept in depth, especially in high-school students with deafness. Epstein and McPartland are believed to have introduced QoSL in 1976 in the United States (Thien, 2020). QoSL has many different meanings owing to the diversity of disciplines and researchers who have investigated this concept. For example, Leonard (2002) defines QoSL as a compilation of good and bad experiences with many aspects of school life, as well as other emotions. Huebner et al. (2004) argued that QoSL is a psychological trait that should be the top priority when promoting good education in general and when encouraging students to perceive their schools positively because they spend the majority of their time there with teachers and other peers. Furthermore, Wang and Degol (2016) outlined QoSL as a comprehensive assessment of students’ experiences in a learning environment, considering their performance in class, connections with others, emotional stability, physical safety, and participation in extracurricular activities. It includes both subjective and objective metrics to gauge how fulfilled and content students generally are with their lives in school settings.

Furthermore, some studies have identified multiple dimensions that contribute to QoSL. For instance, Epstein and McPartland (1976) conceptualized QoSL into three main dimensions: students’ attitudes towards teachers, their commitment to schoolwork, and their satisfaction with school in general. Williams' (1981) model comprises four main dimensions: positive affect, negative affect, general satisfaction, and domain-specific to education. While a study conducted by Ainley et al. (1986) identified seven dimensions, these were positive affect, negative affect, identity, status, teacher-student relations, achievement, and opportunity. Recently, the Directorate-General for Education of the European Commission defined QoSL as a multidimensional construct that “involves students’ sense of opportunity and achievement, the quality of their interpersonal relationships with their teachers, their exposure to a safe and cooperative learning environment, and their overall sense of belonging to the school and school community” (European Commission: Directorate-General for Education et al., 2021).

Many factors influence QoSL, such as social integration (Crosnoe et al., 2004), student perceptions and attitudes towards schools and teachers (Hallinan, 2008), and teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards students (Goddard et al., 2009; Xuan et al., 2019). Other factors that impact QoSL are students’ engagement and achievements (Mitra, 2009), structural and compositional school characteristics (Van Maele and Van Houtte, 2011), school environment and climate (Allen and Kern, 2017), and parental involvement (Epstein, 2018). While many other factors may play a significant role in students’ QoSL, some studies have linked students’ QoSL to their satisfaction with their daily lives at school (Erlianti et al., 2023; Maba, 2022; Raufelder and Kulakow, 2022).

Although many studies have investigated QoSL for students without disabilities (Morgan et al., 2010; Puister, 2019; Sagawa et al., 2013; Teimourifard et al., 2021; Toussaint et al., 2021), few studies have focused on the QoSL of students with disabilities. For example, Watson and Keith (2002) compared the QoSL of children with and without disabilities. The findings of this study suggest that no parity in QoSL has been achieved between students with and those without disabilities. Additionally, Tangen (2009) investigated the role of the voices of students with disabilities in enhancing QoSL and concluded that considering the experiences and viewpoints of students with special needs in a schooling system can be very helpful in gaining a better understanding of how to attain good QoSL.

Despite searching all available databases, we could not find any study that investigated QoSL for students with deafness. Numerous studies have explored various aspects of education and schooling systems for children with deafness; however, none have specifically focused on QoSL. Tangen (2009) argued that while published work on QoL is comprehensive in general, it lacks emphasis on QoSL, which might be because school life is not perceived as a ‘real’ life. Another reason may be related to the diversity of factors involved in QoSL for students with deafness, the characteristics of these students, and their educational requirements, which make the task difficult and complex.

Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, and within the scope of our research, we have not found a specific scale or instrument to measure QoSL for students with deafness, at least in English or Arabic. However, several instruments have been developed to investigate QoSL in general. One well-studied instrument is the QoSL scale developed by Ainley et al. (1986), which was built to comprehensively investigate QoSL; it comprises seven dimensions: positive affect, negative affect, status, identity, teacher-student relations, opportunity, and achievements (Ainley et al., 1986), which will be defined later in the “Methods” section.

The validity and reliability of this scale as a QoSL assessment tool for students without disabilities have been confirmed and translated into different languages (Mo Ching Mok, 2002; Thien, 2020; Thien et al., 2020; Winheller et al., 2013), but not Arabic. However, there are very limited resources investigating the general concept of QoL for people with deafness or hard of hearing in Saudi Arabia (Alsabei, 2020), and none that investigate the specific aspect of QoSL for students with deafness. Therefore, the local adaptation of the QoSL scale in the Saudi context and for students with deafness can provide insights into the QoSL of these students. Consequently, this study aimed to translate and adopt a QoSL scale into Arabic for high-school students with deafness in Saudi Arabia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate QoSL in this population. Moreover, this is the first study to assess the QoSL for students in Saudi Arabia. Translating and validating an instrument to assess the QoSL for students with deafness in Arab countries will enable researchers and educational authorities in Arabic-speaking countries to evaluate the QoSL for these students. This assessment tool will help identify areas for improvement within the overall education system and in specific schools.

Methods

Study design, participants’ characteristics, and ethical approval

A national, cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted to investigate QoSL among high-school students with deafness in Saudi Arabia. This study also investigated the impact of the students’ demographic characteristics on their QoSL. The target population for this study was high-school students with deafness enrolled in mainstream or specialized schools for students with deafness across Saudi Arabia. A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit participants. The study included students (>16 years) who were previously diagnosed with deafness, enrolled in a Saudi Arabian high school (grades 10–12), and were willing to participate in the study. Students who were hard of hearing were excluded from the study, as we believe that these students face different challenges than students with complete deafness and combining them in one study may affect the study findings. The Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Shaqra University reviewed and approved the study design and survey (Approval No. ERC-SU-F-202300007).

In 2022, the General Authority for Statistics in Saudi Arabia estimated the number of people living with hearing difficulty to be around 193,000, which represents about 0.6% of the Saudi population. About 43.5% of these people had hearing disability (~84,000; represent about 0.26% of the population) (General Authority for Statistics in Saudi Arabia, 2022); but it is not clear what is the proportion of these people with complete deafness or people using hearing aids. Therefore, based on the best available data from the Ministry of Education (MoE), there were 481 high-school students with deafness attending MoE schools, either mainstream or specialized schools, at the time of the study. Many of these students were invited to participate in the study, and 269 students agreed to participate and completed the survey, representing more than half of the high-school students with deafness in Saudi Arabia (269/481, 55.9%). The mean age for the students was 17.9 ± 1.6 years, and the participants were evenly distributed between males and females (52.8% vs. 47.2%, respectively). The majority of the students were Saudis (90.3%) attending mainstream schools (72.5%), almost evenly distributed between school grades, and from all five main regions of Saudi Arabia. Among participants, 43.1% (116/269) indicated that they had at least one sibling with deafness, whereas 12.3% (33/269) reported that at least one parent was deaf. The participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Participants characteristics (n = 269).
Full size table

Instrument and data collection

The data in this study were collected as part of a national project that investigated multiple aspects of the lives of high-school students with deafness. Data were collected using a comprehensive questionnaire comprising five sections with closed-ended questions. The first section [seven items] collected general demographic data about the students, including age, gender, nationality, type of school (mainstream or specialized), current school level, region, and whether they had at least one parent or sibling with deafness. The second section [42 items] collected data about students’ QoSL, the main objective of the study, and is described in detail in the following subsections. The third [12 items], fourth [seven items], and fifth [nine items] sections collected data about these students’ feelings of stigma, anxiety, and depression, respectively, as part of the national project; the items from these sections and their related results will not be presented in this manuscript, but was published elsewhere (Madhesh and Almohammed, 2025).

All items on the study instrument were translated into the sign language by a certified Arabic sign-language expert to avoid any confusion by participants in understanding these items. The questionnaire and its sign-translated version were then revised by two high-school teachers, who were previously trained for four years at university on using sign language to teach students with deafness, to ensure the clarity of the items, validity of the sign translation of these items, and its appropriateness for students with deafness. The questionnaire was then administered to students electronically through a secure online platform (Google Forms®), which allowed a wider reach of students and anonymity for the participants. The use of the electronic data collection method facilitated the presentation of each item to participants in text format, along with sign translation for each item, which minimized the risk of confusion by the students in understanding the study items.

The MoE approved the implementation of this study in schools nationwide. The majority of schools in Saudi Arabia with dedicated classes for high-school students with deafness were contacted by the study authors to obtain permission for data collection. Almost all contacted schools agreed to participate in the study, and their students were included if they agreed to participate. An invitation to participate in the study, along with a link to the electronic questionnaire, was sent to students through their school administrators. Participation in the study was voluntary, and the students were informed about the purpose of the study and requested to provide their consent to participate in the study before filling out the online questionnaire. Data were collected from students between 22 January and 21 May 2024.

QoSL scale translation, adaptation, and validation

The study adopted items on the QoSL scale developed by Ainley et al. (1986), which originally comprised 40 items examining seven dimensions. These dimension include (1) Positive affect: students’ general satisfaction and overall positive perception of their school life, (2) Negative affect: students’ overall negative experiences or perceptions of their schools, (3) Status: students’ sense of self-worth and importance at school, (4) Identity: students’ sense of belonging to their school, (5) Teacher-student relationship: students’ perceptions of their capability of interacting with their teachers at school, (6) Opportunity: students’ belief in the importance of schoolwork for their future and in providing them with professional options, and (7) Achievement: students’ confidence in their abilities to succeed in school (Ainley et al., 1986). The validity and reliability of this scale for QoSL assessment have been tested and confirmed in different settings (Mo Ching Mok, 2002; Thien, 2020; Thien et al., 2020; Winheller et al., 2013), but have never been tested among students with deafness. All items were measured using a four-point Likert scale ranging from definitely disagree [1] to definitely agree [4]. However, the items for the negative affect dimension [NA1-NA5] were reverse-scored. The total QoSL scores range from 42 to 168, with higher scores indicating better QoSL.

The 40 items from the original scale were first adopted with minimal changes to make them more relevant to our population of high-school students with deafness. The adopted version of the scale had two additional questions that were added to differentiate between feelings about other deaf peers and normal peers in school; thus, the adopted version of the scale had a total of 42 items. The adopted items [42 items] were forward translated into Arabic by two bilingual authors, and the translated version was revised multiple times to ensure the accuracy of the translation until a consensus was reached between the authors. Three researchers in the field then revised the translated Arabic version, and their comments were revised and incorporated into the translated version. Another three high-school teachers of students with deafness revised the translated Arabic version of the questionnaire to ensure the clarity of the instrument from the students’ perspectives. The teachers suggested minimal changes at this stage, which were incorporated into the instrument. To summarize, the two authors adopted and translated the QoSL scale into Arabic, which three researchers revised, and three high-school teachers ensured its clarity. The final Arabic version was backwards translated into English by a bilingual researcher in the field whose native language was English.

The authors revised the final Arabic version of the translated QoSL scale to check face and content validity, and they both approved it after observing no significant differences between the original and backwards translated versions of the QoSL scale. The final Arabic version of the questionnaire, along with the sign-translated videos for each, was then pilot-tested among 15 students, and none of them complained about a lack of clarity or poor understanding of any item on the questionnaire. The full process of adopting the scale was visually described in Fig. 1. The adopted version of the QoSL scale and the Arabic-translated versions of these items are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Fig. 1: The process of adopting, translating, and validating the quality of school life (QoSL) instrument.
figure 1

The figure visualizes the steps conducted including the adoption, Arabic forward-translation, validation, revisions, English backward-translation, sign-language translation, and pilot testing the QoSL instrument.

Full size image

Statistical analysis

Although the original QoSL scale was developed and validated to have seven dimensions, its adoption in our population may have resulted in different behaviors. Thus, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine whether the seven dimensions still existed when the scale was adopted in our population, which is systematically different from the original population (Sousa and Rojjanasrirat, 2011). Furthermore, the construct validity of the Arabic-translated version of the QoSL scale in our population was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) techniques with orthogonal or oblique rotations to determine the actual number of factors or dimensions in the translated version of the QoSL scale. In addition, the best EFA model, with factors explaining at least 5% variation on the scale, was extracted (Finch, 2013; Suhr, 2006). The internal consistency between items within each dimension of the translated QoSL scale was checked using Cronbach’s alpha method (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

Descriptive statistics (i.e., means with standard deviations or frequencies with percentages) were used to describe participants’ characteristics and the study findings. Multiple linear regression was conducted to explore the relationship between QoSL scores and different participants’ demographics, such as age, gender, nationality, type of school (mainstream or specialized schools), current school level, and having at least one parent or sibling with deafness. All statistical analyses were performed at a significance level of α < 0.05, using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Participants scores including all items in the adopted scale

Overall, the students had a good QoSL as they scored on average 144.2 ± 17.7 points out of 168 points (85.8%), with a minimum score of 42 points. The highest mean total score on a single domain among the seven original domains was on the teachers (21.5 ± 2.8/24 points; 89.6%) and the positive affect (17.7 ± 2.7 points; 88.5%) domains, followed by the opportunity and achievements domains. The lowest mean total score was on the status (19.3 ± 3.4/24 points; 80.4%) and the negative affect (16.3 ± 3.4/20 points; 81.5%) domains. The adopted items on the scale, the mean score for each item, and the mean total score for each domain of the adopted QoSL scale are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Mean score for the items on the scale.
Full size table

Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses (CFA and EFA) for the adopted QoSL

The CFA showed that the seven domains or factors did not fit the data, as the p-value for the chi-square test was <0.0001, which was lower than the cut-off value of 0.05. Using EFA, six domains were extracted from the Arabic version of the QoSL scale when we retained factors that explained at least 5% of the variation in the data and used the oblique rotation technique. During the EFA examinations for the best model that fit the data, we needed to drop nine items that loaded on multiple factors (ST3, ST4, ID1, ID2a, ID2b, ID3a, ID3b, AC2, and AC3) to improve the model. Two other items (AC5 and AC6) were excluded because they diminished the internal reliability of the items in one domain.

Five of the six extracted domains on the adopted scale were similar to five domains in the original scale. Among these five domains, three domains included all items in these domains (i.e., positive affect, negative affect, and teachers), while two domains (i.e., status and identity) included only four out of six and three out of eight items in these domains, respectively, on the adopted scale. The last domain in the EFA combined items from two domains in the adopted QoSL scale: opportunity and achievement. Of the 12 items on these two domains in the adopted scale, eight were included, while four were excluded from the final model; two items loaded on multiple factors, and two items affected the internal reliability of the items on the extracted domain. The six extracted domains explained approximately 47% of the variation in the Arabic QoSL scale, and the opportunity/achievement domain alone explained 10.30% of the variation in the final Arabic QoSL scale. Cronbach’s alphas for the positive affect, negative affect, teachers, status, identity, and opportunity/achievement domains were 0.89, 0.90, 0.85, 0.80, 0.82, and 0.83, respectively. The loading of each included item on the respective domain (factor), Cronbach’s alpha for the items in each extracted domain, and the variation explained by each domain are summarized and presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Extracted factors and its internal reliability from the Arabic version of the scale for the included items.
Full size table

Participants’ scores including items in the extracted domains from the EFA

Similar to the results from the adopted scale that included all items, the students had a good QoSL as they scored on average 107.2 ± 13.4/124 points (86.5%) on the final Arabic QoSL scale, noting that the minimum score on the new scale was 31 points. The highest mean total score on a single domain among the six extracted domains was again on the teachers (21.5 ± 2.8/24 points; 89.6%) and the positive affect (17.7 ± 2.7/20 points; 88.5%) domains, followed by the opportunity/ achievements and identity domains. The lowest mean total score was on the status (13.0 ± 2.4/16 points; 81.1%) and the negative affect (16.3 ± 3.4/20 points; 81.5%) domains. The adopted items and their respective domains, the mean score for each item, and the mean total score for each extracted domain of the adopted QoSL scale are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Mean score for the included items in the adopted scale after the factor analysis.
Full size table

The association between participants’ characteristics and their QoSL score

In the multivariate linear regression, female students had a slightly higher QoSL compared to male students (107.04 vs. 106.1 points; β = 0.922; p = 0.6207) and non-Saudi students compared to Saudi students (107.90 vs. 105.25; β = 2.648; p = 0.3539); however, these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, we noticed a non-significant trend towards better QoSL among students in the mainstream schools compared to those in the specialized schools (108.05 vs. 105.10; β = 2.953; p = 0.1485). Furthermore, students in the 11th grade had a significantly lower QoSL compared to students in the 12th grade (103.92 vs. 108.53; β = 4.609; p = 0.0281) and a non-significantly lower score compared to students in the 10th grade. Among all regions in Saudi Arabia, students in the Eastern region had the highest mean total QoSL score (110.68), and students in the Northern region had the lowest mean total QoSL score (103.54); the difference between the two was statistically significant (β = 7.146; p = 0.0170). Finally, students with at least one sibling with deafness had higher QoSL scores than students without siblings with deafness, while students with at least one parent with deafness had lower QoSL scores than students without parents with deafness; however, none of these were significant in the multivariate linear regression model, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Multiple linear regression for the association between participants QoSL and participants’ characteristics.
Full size table

Discussion

Over the past decades, academics and researchers have shown great interest in designing and preparing scales to measure QoL in general. This has resulted in several scales in this field, including, but not limited to, the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF QoL Assessment, Health-Related QoL questionnaire, and the Adolescent QoL instrument (WHOQOL Group, 1998). However, little effort has been made to create and prepare scales and instruments to measure the QoL for people with deafness. Here are some examples: Youth QoL–Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Patrick et al., 2011), Hearing Loss Related QoL (Punch et al., 2019), and the hearing‐related QoL questionnaire for adolescents (Rachakonda et al., 2014).

Similarly, measurements, scales, and instruments for measuring QoSL are scarce, with the current study finding only a few of them, such as the QoSL Scale by Epstein and McPartland (1976). This scale has three dimensions: (1) satisfaction with school, (2) commitment to schoolwork, and (3) attitudes towards teachers. Although it has been adopted and implemented in some studies (El-Hassan, 2021; Ghotra et al., 2016; Lazar, 1999; Weintraub and Bar-Haim Erez, 2009), the current study excluded this scale from adaptation and translation because of its limited number of dimensions. Instead, we chose the QoSL scale developed by Ainley et al. (1986) because it contains more dimensions and, therefore, was expected to be more likely to explain and understand our unique population. This QoSL scale was previously adopted and translated into Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil languages (Thien, 2020).

The current study conducted and presented the translation and cultural adaptation of the scale to become a QoSL scale for high-school students with deafness. The adopted version of the scale was translated while maintaining the robustness of its psychometric properties. This was reflected in the accepted scores in the EFA with good factorial loads of the items on the factors, but with six rather than seven dimensions in the original scale. Moreover, the calculations of the Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability of the items on each dimension were good, ranging between 0.80 and 0.94, which reflected the internal consistency of the items in each domain on the adopted scale in our population.

After reviewing the literature, we found that one study had adapted and translated the same scale into several languages, including Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil (Thien, 2020). This study adapted the scale of Ainley et al. (1986) so that all 40 items were used, and 12 additional items were added for the purpose of the study. After adaptation, the number of items in the scale increased to 52. Subsequently, this scale was translated into three languages to suit the ethnicities present in Malaysia, which speak different languages (Thien, 2020). This study differs significantly from the aforementioned study in several respects. First, we adapted the Ainley et al. (1986) scale with 42 items and seven dimensions as presented in the original scale. Second, we adapted this scale to cater to the target population of students with deafness, unlike in the Malaysian study, which focused on hearing students. Third, the current study translated the scale into only one language—Arabic. The current study’s adaptation and translation of the scale resulted in a scale that may serve two purposes after further validation. The first purpose is to measure the QoSL among Arabic-speaking students with deafness, which could be used in Arabic-speaking hearing students after further validation in such a population. Second, this scale can be translated and adapted further by other researchers to measure the QoSL of students with deafness in other languages and cultures. The present study achieved three objectives: (1) translation to Arabic and cultural adaptation of the QoSL scale for Arabic-speaking students with deafness; (2) validation of the translated and adopted version of this scale in our unique population; and (3) application of the validated scale to a representative sample of high-school students with deafness.

Conversely, the application of the adopted scale in the current study revealed some important findings. First, this study found that the QoSL of the participating students was generally good. Despite the lack of studies specifically examining QoSL for students with deafness within the scope of this study, some studies have explored the correlation between school engagement and participation and overall QoL in this population. For instance, Hintermair (2011) emphasized that students with deafness who confirmed that their perceived classroom participation was satisfactory had a higher QoL than other students with deafness. In addition, the literature review by Roland et al. (2016) concluded, through a review of 40 studies, that participation in school activities is important in enhancing the QoL of students with deafness.

This study found that the QoSL of female students with deafness was slightly higher than that of male students with deafness; however, this difference was not significant. This is perhaps because female students have higher levels of engagement in school activities than male students, as noted in previous studies (Fullarton, 2002; Havik and Westergård, 2020). In addition, the present study found no significant differences in QoSL between Saudi and non-Saudi students, with slightly higher QoSL scores among non-Saudi students. This could be attributed to the fact that all students in the Saudi educational system, from primary school to high school, receive free education in public schools and attend the same schools, regardless of their nationality.

This study did not find any decisive differences between the level of QoSL for students with deafness who studied in mainstream public schools or specialized public schools for students with deafness. Similarly, Schick et al. (2013) stressed that there were no differences in the overall QoL among students with deafness, which could be attributed to different school placements. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has measured QoSL in students with deafness based on school placement.

However, students in the 12th grade had significantly higher QoSL scores than students in the 11th grade, who had the lowest QoSL scores. Additionally, the current study found that students with deafness in the Eastern region of SA had the highest QoSL, and this finding was significant when compared to the region with the lowest level of QoSL, the northern region, as a reference in the multiple linear regression analysis. However, researchers have not yet identified a possible reason for these differences. Thus, this is an opportunity for future research to investigate why students in the 12th grade or from the Eastern region of SA had better QoSL than students in other grades or regions, especially students in the 11th grade or those from the Northern region.

Interestingly, students with deafness in the present study who had a sibling with deafness had a slightly higher QoSL than students who did not; however, this finding was not statistically significant. While students with deafness and at least one parent with deafness had a lower QoSL than those with hearing parents; however, this finding was not statistically significant as well. The researchers in this study did not find any study that examines the correlation between QoL or QoSL for students with deafness and that for those with siblings or parents with deafness, which represents a significant research gap that needs further investigation.

Study strength, limitations and future research directions

This study has some strengths, such as the strength of the scale, which is based on the robust methods used during the translation and validation stages. Moreover, this scale is the first of its kind to measure the QoSL for students with deafness in general, in addition to being the first of its kind to be translated into Arabic. That being said, this study has some limitations and areas that were not investigated, which may open the doors for future research. It focused only on students with deafness and not on those with cochlear implants or hard-of-hearing students. Although these groups are usually studied together, we believe that these populations have some significant differences, which would result in a heterogeneous sample and may affect the validity of the translated scale. Alasim (2023) emphasized that deaf and hard-of-hearing students represent a heterogeneous group with different methods of communication and teaching. This reflects our concern regarding the variation between these groups; thus, the translated scale should be used with caution in other populations after further validation.

Although all the participants in the study are deaf and use the sign language as their main communication tool, applying this scale to the hard-of-hearing students may constitute a future research opportunity. All participants in the study were high-school students with deafness, and students from other school levels or with other states of disability can be considered as a research opportunity as well, to better understand the QoSL for these students. In addition, comparing our findings to results for students without disability would be a good addition to the literature to assess the QoSL of these students in comparison to each other to find areas for improvement. Although this study is entirely quantitative, further qualitative studies may open other aspects of QoSL for students with deafness.

Conclusion

This study highlights the significance of establishing a scale that can assist researchers at both the regional and international levels, thereby contributing to the body of knowledge. At the international level, it is considered the first scale of its kind to measure QoSL among students with deafness. Researchers can use it at all stages and evaluate it based on these aspects. It is considered the first Arabic version of any QoSL scale at the regional level, providing a great opportunity for many researchers in Arab countries to measure the QoSL for students with deafness, and possibly without deafness, after validation in their educational systems at various levels. Moreover, this adopted and validated scale measuring the QoSL for students with deafness in high school can contribute to opening other areas of research about the QoSL for students with deafness in educational systems of other countries around the world. Lastly, the scale can be used to assess the impact of these students’ QoSL on other aspects of their lives, such as their health and well-being.

Highlights

  • Translated and validated a quality of school life scale for students with deafness

  • Validity established in high-school students with deafness

  • The first of its kind for students with deafness

  • Potential for use in different sittings or with students with other disabilities