Validation study of the Korean version of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Korean version of McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL-K) for use with 140 palliative care patients in Korea. Our results confirmed the suitability of using the 16 questions of the questionnaire clustered into four domains (physical, psychological, existential and support) as in the original version of the MQOL, although the distribution of items among the domains differed somewhat from the original. The MQOL-K demonstrated moderate to high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha, 0.62-0.90), convergent validity without scaling error, and a good concurrent validity with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, sense of dignity, and general health perception. In addition, we tested the clinical validity of the MQOL-K using a known group comparison to quantify sensitivity. Regression results indicated that the existential and psychological domains had independent effects on the overall quality of life of patients in Korea. Therefore, the MQOL-K is deemed suitable for assessing the quality of life in a Korean palliative care setting.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".