Despite increasing research into building Islamic educational leadership models, a need remains for rigorous, validated tools for assessing leadership practices in Muslim societies. The present study intends to develop and validate a scale for empirically measuring the Islamic-Oriented Educational Leadership (IOEL) model and its relationships with teacher engagement and school performance. Primary study objectives involved the development and validation of an IOEL measurement scale, and the analysis of relationships between IOEL, teacher engagement, and school performance. IOEL scale validation came via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Using data from 1932 teachers at 72 Kuwaiti public schools, a structural equation model examined relationships between IOEL, teacher engagement, and school performance. The study confirmed IOEL scale validity, with results indicating significant, positive relationships between IOEL and both teacher engagement and school performance. Furthermore, analysis revealed teacher engagement as a mediator in the relationship between IOEL and school performance. This suggests that while IOEL directly influences school performance, its impact is also partially channeled through enhanced teacher engagement. While existing studies on Islamic educational leadership offer limited empirical models, this research presents a robust, evidence-based model. The study not only introduces a validated empirical scale but also provides insight into the partial mediating role of teacher engagement between the IOEL model and school performance.
AbshorMURahmahV (2024) The role of the islamic education section in enhancing student academic performance in yogyakarta. Journal of Islamic Education Management Research2(1): 49–58.
2.
AhmadKOgunsolaOK (2011) An empirical assessment of islamic leadership principles. International Journal Of Commerce And Management21(3): 291–318.
3.
AhmedEI (2023) Systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in muslim societies. Educational Management Administration & Leadership51(1): 52–74.
4.
AlazmiA (2025) School leadership in context: The influence of Islamic values and beliefs on Kuwaiti school principal practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education28(3): 618–638.
5.
AlazmiABushT (2024) An islamic- oriented educational leadership model: Towards a new theory of school leadership in muslim societies. Journal of Educational Administration and History56(3): 312–334.
6.
AlhashemFAlhoutiI (2021) Endless education reform: The case of Kuwait. In: WisemanW (ed) Annual Review of Comparative and International Education. (vol. 40). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited, 345–367.
7.
AnggraeniAMuhaeminMSulistianiI (2025) Prophetic leadership in islamic schools: Transforming teacher performance and student achievement. International Journal of Asian Education6(1): 17–28.
8.
ArarKSawalhiRDeCuirA, et al. (eds) 2023Islamic-based educational leadership, Administration and Management: Challenging expectations through global critical insights. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology3(2): 77–101.
10.
ChenX (2023) Development and validation of a scoring system for hemorrhage risk in brain arteriovenous malformations. JAMA Network Open6(3): e231070.
11.
ChinWW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods For Business Research295(2): 295–336.
12.
ClarkLAWatsonD (2019) Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment31(12): 1412–1427.
13.
EgelEFryLW (2017) Spiritual leadership as a model for islamic leadership. Public Integrity19(1): 77–95.
14.
EmeliazolaESesmiarniZ (2024) The relationship between work motivation and teacher performance in the islamic education environment. Eduprof: Islamic Education Journal6(1): 22–32.
15.
EversAVerboonaPKlaeijsenA (2017) The development and validation of a scale measuring teacher autonomous behaviour. British Educational Research Journal43(4): 805–821.
16.
FabrigarLRWegenerDT (2012) Exploratory factor analysis. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
17.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39.
18.
FullanM (2014) Teacher development and educational change. London: Routledge.
HairJFSarstedtMPieperTM, et al. (2012) The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning45(5–6): 320–340.
21.
HallingerPHeckRH (2010) Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement?Educational Management Administration & Leadership38(6): 654–678.
22.
HallingerPKantamaraP (2001) Exploring the cultural context of school improvement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement12(4): 385–408.
23.
HammadWHilalYYAl-HarthiK (2023) Conceptions of effective leadership: A contextually grounded perspective of Omani school principals. In: Educational Leadership and Asian Culture. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, 62–80.
24.
HenselerJSarstedtM (2012) Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics28(2): 565–580.
25.
HilalYYHammadWGümüşS (2025) Exploring distributed leadership in the muslim world: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Leadership and Policy in Schools: 1–21.
26.
HinkinTR (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management21: 967–988.
27.
HofstedeG (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online Readings In Psychology And Culture2(1): 8.
28.
HoyWKFergusonJ (1985) A theoretical framework and exploration of organizational effectiveness of schools. Educational Administration Quarterly21(2): 117–134.
29.
KlineRB (2023) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
30.
LeithwoodKDayC (2007) Starting with what we know. In: Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change: An International Perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 1–15.
31.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management40(1): 5–22.
32.
MarkusKASmithKM (2010) Content validity. In: SalkindN (eds) Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 238–243.
33.
NayakHSMcDonaldAJKumarV, et al. (2024) Context-dependent agricultural intensification pathways to increase rice production in India. Nature Communications15(1): 8403.
34.
NerstadCGLRichardsenAMMartinussenM (2010) Factorial validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology51(4): 326–333.
35.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
36.
OsborneJWCostelloAB (2009) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis.”. 刊名: Pan-Pacific Management Review.
37.
OthmanAKHamzahMIRidzuanA (2018) Towards the development of universal islamic leadership model: Reviewing the existing islamic leadership theories and models. Journal of Islamic Management Studies1(2): 40–47.
38.
PengDXLaiF (2012) Using partial least squares in operations management research: A practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations Management30(6): 467–480.
39.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
40.
RichardsonPWWattHM (2016) Factors influencing teaching choice: Why do future teachers choose the career?International Handbook of Teacher Education2: 275–304.
41.
SarstedtMRingleCMCheahJH, et al. (2020) Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics26(4): 531–554.
42.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-RomáV, et al. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies3: 71–92.
43.
Schermelleh-EngelKMoosbruggerHMüllerH (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online8(2): 23–74.
44.
SellamiALSawalhiRRomanowskiMH, et al. (2022) Definitions of educational leadership–arab educators’ perspectives. International Journal of Leadership in Education25(5): 767–786.
45.
ShahS (2015) Education, leadership and Islam: Theories, discourses and practices from an Islamic perspective. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
46.
StreukensSLeroi-WereldsS (2016) Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal34(6): 618–632.
47.
Tschannen-MoranMHoyAW (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching And Teacher Education17(7): 783–805.
48.
ValentaRL (2010) Effect of teacher engagement and teacher effectiveness on student achievement. Minneapolis, MN, USA: Walden University.
49.
YousefDA (2001) Islamic work ethic–A moderator between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context. Personnel Review30(2): 152–169.
50.
YulihardiYAlhempiRRAkmalA, et al. (2023) The influence of islamic leadership and self efficacy on teacher performance with job satisfaction. JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia)9(4): 554–562.
51.
ZaimHErzurumEZaimS, et al. (2024) The influence of islamic leadership on work performance in service industry: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Ethics and Systems40(1): 127–152.
