The Validity and Reliability of Korean Version of Lubben Social Network Scale / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, considerable evidence has been accumulated showing that social networks influence health. However few valid and reliable instruments exist for assessing social networks among elderly population. Therefore, we translated the Lubben social network scales (LSNS) and tested the validity and reliability of Korean version. METHODS: Ten items, self-administered questionnaires were translated by multidisciplinary committee members. Also they were reverse translated by bilingual and modified from pretest procedure. Reliability was tested by 4 weeks testretest reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). Validity was tested by factor analysis and construct validity comparison with the Korean version of Duke-UNC and Korean Health Related Quality of Life Scale (KQOLS) were tested for validity testing. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha was 0.75. Four weeks test-retest Pearson coefficient was 0.78 (P < 0.0001). Correlation coefficient with the Korean version of Duke-UNC was 0.58 (P < 0.0001). Correlation coefficient with social function domain of KQOLS was 0.40 (P < 0.0001). Principal components analysis identified 3 factors. Three contents areas are family and friends networks, interdependent social support and living arrangements. CONCLUSION: Korean version of LSNS is both valid and reliable instrument, but fine refinements will be needed to adapt for use in practical settings.

Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine / 가정의학회지

BACKGROUND: Because low quality trials may lead to wrong conclusions, quality assessments are necessary. Thus, this study scrutinizes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine (KAFM) to assess the quantity and the quality. METHODS: Upon extracting randomized controlled trials from all the articles published in the Journal of the KAFM from 1980 to 2005, assessments were made on the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. The selections and assessments were performed independently by two researchers, and adjustment of the differences were done by a third-party researcher. In addition, the factors that may affect the quality levels were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials were included. In 1980s, there were only 1.09% of the total original articles, but in 2000s, 2.63% were RCTs. The mean total Jadad score increased from 1 point in 1980s to 2.17 in 2000s, and the "good quality" trials also increased from 0% to 33.33%. As for the adequate allocation concealment, however, only two studies were observed in 2000s. The most lacking aspect was the appropriate double-blinding. Also, studies intervened by medicine or funded or examined by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) tended to receive higher quality assessments. CONCLUSION: Although RCTs consistently increased in quantity and quality, in future studies, researchers should continue to strive towards achieving adequate allocation concealment and appropriate double-blinding. In addition, researchers must become more interested in receiving funds and examination by IRBs.