Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Modified Adult Attachment Scale for the Use of Medically Ill Patients
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.
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 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".