Measure of processes of care (MPOC): Translation and validation for use in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The measure of processes of care (MPOC) is a widely used instrument to assess parents' perception of the extent to which healthcare services they and their child receive are family centred. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Korean translation of the MPOC (Korean MPOC). METHODS: The Korean MPOC was completed by 198 parents of children receiving rehabilitation services in five provinces in South Korea. According to the Canadian validation procedures, analyses for internal consistency, construct and concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability were performed. RESULTS: The Korean MPOC demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .85 to .98. Confirmative analyses of the scale structure support the construct validity of the Korean MPOC. The Pearson correlations r between the MPOC scale scores and Client Satisfaction Inventory score ranged from .60 to .83, supporting the concurrent validity of the Korean MPOC. The intraclass correlation coefficients were greater than .80 for all five scales, demonstrating good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The Korean MPOC has good psychological properties and can be recommended for evaluation of processes of paediatric rehabilitation in Korea.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".