The Korean Version of the University of California San Diego Performance-based Skills Assessment: Reliability and Validity

OBJECTIVE: The study’s aim was to develop and standardize a Korean version of the University of California San Diego Performance-based Skills Assessment (K-UPSA), which is used to evaluate the daily living function of patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Study participants were 78 patients with schizophrenia and 27 demographically matched healthy controls. We evaluated the clinical states and cognitive functions to verify K-UPSA’s reliability and validity. For clinical states, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale, and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale and Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale-fourth revision were used. The Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale, Short-form of Korean-Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test were used to assess cognitive function. RESULTS: The K-UPSA had statistically significant reliability and validity. The K-UPSA has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.837) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient, 0.381–0.792; p<0.001). The K-UPSA had significant discriminant validity (p<0.001). Significant correlations between the K-UPSA’s scores and most of the scales and tests listed above demonstrated K-UPSA’s concurrent validity (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The K-UPSA is useful to evaluate the daily living function in Korean patients with schizophrenia.

The Korean Version of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale: Reliability and Validity

OBJECTIVE: This study's aim was to develop and standardize a Korean version (SCoRS-K) of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS), which is used to evaluate the degree of cognitive dysfunction affecting the everyday functioning of people with schizophrenia. METHODS: Eighty-four schizophrenia patients with stable symptoms who were receiving outpatient treatment and rehabilitation therapy, and 29 demographically matched non-patient controls, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected, and clinical symptoms, cognitive function, and social function were evaluated to verify SCoRS-K's reliability and validity. Clinical symptoms were evaluated using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia Scale. Cognitive function was evaluated using a short form of the Korean Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Social function was evaluated using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale, and the Social Functioning Scale. RESULTS: Data analysis demonstrated SCoRS-K's statistically significant reliability and validity. SCoRS-K has high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha; patient 0.941, informant 0.905, interviewer 0.964); test-retest reliability [patient 0.428 (p=0.003), informant 0.502 (p<0.001), interviewer 0.602 (p<0.001); and global rating 0.642 (p<0.001)]. The mean scores of subjects were significantly higher than those of the controls (p<0.001), demonstrating SCoRS-K's discriminant validity. Significant correlations between the total scores and global rating score of SCoRS-K and those of the scales and tests listed above (except WCST) support SCoRS-K's concurrent validity. CONCLUSION: SCoRS-K is a useful instrument for evaluating the degree of cognitive dysfunction in Korean schizophrenia patients.

The Effectiveness Evaluation of Helicopter Ambulance Transport among Neurotrauma Patients in Korea

OBJECTIVE: Helicopter ambulance transport (HAT) is a highly resource-intensive facility that is a well-established part of the trauma transport system in many developed countries. Here, we review the benefit of HAT for neurosurgical patients in Korea. METHODS: This retrospective study followed neurotrauma patients who were transferred by HAT to a single emergency trauma center over a period of 2 years. The clinical benefits of HAT were measured according to the necessity of emergency surgical intervention and the differences in the time taken to transport patients by ground ambulance transport (GAT) and HAT. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were transferred to a single university hospital using HAT, of whom 32 were taken to the neurosurgery department. Of these 32 patients, 10 (31.3%) needed neurosurgical intervention, 14 (43.8%) needed non-neurosurgical intervention, 3 (9.4%) required both, and 11 (34.4%) did not require any intervention. The transfer time was faster using HAT than the estimated time needed for GAT, although for a relatively close distance (<50 km) without ground obstacles (mountain or sea) HAT did not improve transfer time. The cost comparison showed that HAT was more expensive than GAT (3,292,000 vs. 84,000 KRW, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In this Korean-based study, we found that HAT has a clinical benefit for neurotrauma cases involving a transfer from a distant site or an isolated area. A more precise triage for using HAT should be considered to prevent overuse of this expensive transport method.