Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Modified Adult Attachment Scale for the Use of Medically Ill Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Modified Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-M36) scale was developed for medically ill, older individuals in 2008 (Toronto, Canada, department of psychosocial oncology and palliative care, Princess Margaret Hospital). The scale has displayed satisfactory reliability and validity. This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Korean version of Modified Experiences in Close Relationships (K-ECR-M36) questionnaire in female patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 199 post-operative breast cancer patients completed the K-ECR-M36 as well as other psychological measures including the Revised Adult Attachment Scale (RAAS), World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale Abbreviated Version (WHOQOL-BREF), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The reliability and validity of the K-ECR-M36 were evaluated. Explorative factor analysis was conducted to identify the factor structure of the K-ECR-M36. RESULTS: The K-ECR-M36 showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.87) and reasonable test-retest reliability (r=0.752, p<0.001). The total as well as avoidance and anxiety subscales demonstrated construct validity with the RAAS, the HADS, and the WHOQOL-BREF. Factor analysis revealed four-factor structure which was originally proposed by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998). CONCLUSION: These findings support that the K-ECR-M36 has satisfactory reliability, validity and factor structure among patients with breast cancer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it