RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기

    한국어판 Neck Disability Index 번역본의 다양성과 사용 현황: Scoping Review

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T17368522

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    PURPOSE: In the absence of an official, authorized Korean version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and amid the coexistence and mixed use of unofficial translations, this scoping review aimed to systematically map the types, characteristics, and uses of Korean-language NDI translations in Korea to identify key issues.
    METHODS: Following Arksey-O’Malley, Levac et al., and PRISMA-ScR guidance, a single reviewer searched Korean databases (RISS, DBpia, KCI, KoreaMed; 2015-2025), screened records, and charted data (with data extraction verification). A descriptive synthesis was conducted.
    RESULTS: Of 94,404 records, 515 studies were included after screening. We identified four unofficial Korean translations used in 159/515 (30.9%) studies. The remaining 356/515 (69.1%) used questionnaires of unknown origin or modified versions of such questionnaires. Rules for handling missing responses were reported in only 13/515 (2.5%). Unauthorized inclusion of full questionnaires as appendices occurred in 158/515 (30.7%), and arbitrary changes to scoring or scale structure were made in 20/515 (3.9%).
    ​​CONCLUSION: In the absence of an official Korean NDI, unofficial, unknown-source, and modified versions are widely used, resulting in copyright and ethical risks and weakened score comparability and validity. The poor reporting of missing data handling and scoring rules exacerbated these issues. The Mapi Research Trust​, the copy right and licensing body responsible for the NDI, oversees the official Korean version and should adopt a single standard and institutionalize core reporting requirements, including mandatory license verification and restrictions on posting full questionnaires as appendices.
    번역하기

    PURPOSE: In the absence of an official, authorized Korean version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and amid the coexistence and mixed use of unofficial translations, this scoping review aimed to systematically map the types, characteristics, and use...

    PURPOSE: In the absence of an official, authorized Korean version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and amid the coexistence and mixed use of unofficial translations, this scoping review aimed to systematically map the types, characteristics, and uses of Korean-language NDI translations in Korea to identify key issues.
    METHODS: Following Arksey-O’Malley, Levac et al., and PRISMA-ScR guidance, a single reviewer searched Korean databases (RISS, DBpia, KCI, KoreaMed; 2015-2025), screened records, and charted data (with data extraction verification). A descriptive synthesis was conducted.
    RESULTS: Of 94,404 records, 515 studies were included after screening. We identified four unofficial Korean translations used in 159/515 (30.9%) studies. The remaining 356/515 (69.1%) used questionnaires of unknown origin or modified versions of such questionnaires. Rules for handling missing responses were reported in only 13/515 (2.5%). Unauthorized inclusion of full questionnaires as appendices occurred in 158/515 (30.7%), and arbitrary changes to scoring or scale structure were made in 20/515 (3.9%).
    ​​CONCLUSION: In the absence of an official Korean NDI, unofficial, unknown-source, and modified versions are widely used, resulting in copyright and ethical risks and weakened score comparability and validity. The poor reporting of missing data handling and scoring rules exacerbated these issues. The Mapi Research Trust​, the copy right and licensing body responsible for the NDI, oversees the official Korean version and should adopt a single standard and institutionalize core reporting requirements, including mandatory license verification and restrictions on posting full questionnaires as appendices.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • 목 차 ⅰ
    • 표 목 차 ⅲ
    • 그림목차 ⅳ
    • Ⅰ. 서 론 1
    • Ⅱ. 연구 방법 4
    • 목 차 ⅰ
    • 표 목 차 ⅲ
    • 그림목차 ⅳ
    • Ⅰ. 서 론 1
    • Ⅱ. 연구 방법 4
    • 1. 1단계: 연구 질문 규정 5
    • 2. 2단계: 관련 연구의 식별 6
    • 3. 3단계: 문헌 선정 7
    • 4. 4단계: 자료 추출 및 차트화 8
    • 5. 5단계: 결과 통합・요약 및 보고 9
    • 6. 6단계: 자문 10
    • Ⅲ. 연구 결과 11
    • 1. 수치 요약 기술 분석 11
    • 2. 주제별 질적 분석 15
    • 1) 번역본별 NDI의 특성 15
    • 2) 번역본별 NDI 설문지의 사용 빈도 및 변형 검토 17
    • Ⅳ. 고 찰 20
    • Ⅴ. 결 론 24
    • 참 고 문 헌 25
    • 영 문 초 록 29
    • 부 록 31
    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼