심리검사 개발에 대한 진단분류모형 적용: 요인분석 결과와의 비교를 중심으로 = Application of Diagnostic Classification Models to the Development of a Psychological Inventory: Based on the Comparison of Diagnostic Classification Models to Exploratory Factor Analysis

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the most frequently used research method for the development of psychological tests, is limited in its usefulness for presenting test results to counselors and clients. Although still relatively unknown to researchers in the field of counseling, diagnostic classification models (DCMs) is an alternative statistical analysis model that presents results based on the diagnosis on subdomains of a psychological test to facilitate understanding of the results. The purpose of this study is to explore DCMs’ applicability in the development of a psychological test. For this, results of EFA and DCMs on the Borderline Personality Disorder Scale developed by Morey (1991) and studied by Hong and Kim (1998) were compared to explore their differences. With EFA, a four-factor model was selected, and the factor loading for Item 17 did not exceed .40, requiring further investigation. With DCMs, a total of seven items (1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20) appeared inadequate based on the base rate, global item discrimination index, attribute-specific item discrimination index information. Pros and cons of DCMs are discussed.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

기존의 심리검사 개발에 있어 가장 많이 활용되는 연구방법론인 요인분석은 검사개발 과정에서는 유용하게 쓰이나 상담자와 내담자에게 심리검사결과를 제시하는데 있어서는 큰 도움이 되지 않는 단점을 갖는다. 아직 상담학 연구자들에게 생소한 분석 방법인 진단분류모형은 심리검사 결과를 측정하고자 하는 하위구인에 대한 진단에 초점을 두어 검사결과를 제시하여 이해를 돕는 통계분석모형이다. 본 연구의 목적은 심리검사개발에 있어 진단분류모형의 적용 가능성을 탐색해보는데 있다. 이를 위해 Morey(1991)가 개발하고 홍상황과 김영환(1998)이 연구한 경계선성격장애 척도에 탐색적 요인분석과 진단분류모형을 적용하여 그 결과에 어떠한 차이가 있는지를 살펴보았다. 경계선 성격장애 척도에 대한 탐색적 요인분석에서는 4요인 모형이 선택되었고 분석결과 17번 문항이 요인부하량 .40을 넘지 않아 검토가 필요한 것으로 나타났다. 진단분류모형에서는 문항의 기저확률, 일반변별도지수, 요인기반 변별도지수 등을 고려해 총 7개 문항(1, 2, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20번)이 문항제외 가능성이 있는 것으로 나타나 요인분석 결과와 차이를 나타냈다. 진단분류모형의 장단점과 연구결과에 대해 논의하였다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이종승, "표준화 심리검사" 교육과학사 2005

2 김성훈, "인지구조모형에 근거한 학생의 지식상태의 진단-규칙장이론(Rule-space theory)의 적용-" 한국교육학회 43 (43): 81-107, 2005

3 한국상담학회, "사단법인 한국상담학회 윤리강령"

4 성태제, "문항반응이론의 이해와 적용" 교육과학사 2001

5 김창대, "다면적 성장잠재력 검사 개발 연구" 서울특별시교육청 2012

6 홍상황, "경계선 성격장애 척도의 타당화 연구 : 대학생을 대상으로" 17 (17): 259-271, 1998

7 Vassend, O., "Validation of the NEO personality inventory and the five-factor model. Can findings from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis be reconciled?" 11 : 147-166, 1997

8 Vassend, O., "The problem of structural indeterminacy in multidimensional symptom report instruments. The case of SCL-90-R" 37 : 685-701, 1999

9 Dorans, N. T., "The effects of violations of unidimensionality on the estimation of item and ability parameters and on item response theory equating of the GRE verbal scale" 22 (22): 249-262, 1985

10 Anderson, J. C., "The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis" 49 (49): 155-172, 1984

11 Ford, J., "The application of factor analysis in applied psychology : A critical review and analysis" 39 (39): 291-314, 1986

12 Browne, M. W., "Testing structural equation models" Sage Publication 136-162, 1993

13 Wang, J., "Structural equation modeling: Application using Mplus" John Wiley & Sons 2012

14 Anderson, J. C., "Structural equation modeling in practice : A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin" 9 : 78-102, 1988

15 McDonald, R. P., "Semiconfirmatory factor analysis : The example of anxiety and depression" 12 (12): 163-172, 2005

16 Costa, P. T., "Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Professional manual" Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc 1992

17 김수진, "Q-행렬 변화에 따른 혼합모형(Fusion Model) 모수 비교" 한국교육평가학회 23 (23): 487-507, 2010

18 Morey, L. C., "Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual" Psychological Assessment Resources 1991

19 Hayash, K., "On the likelihood ratio test for the number of factors in exploratory factor analysis" 14 (14): 505-526, 2007

20 Yates, A., "Multivariate exploratory data analysis: A perspective on exploratory factor analysis" State University of New York Press 1987

21 Muthén, L. K., "Mplus user's guide" Muthén & Muthén 2012

22 Templin, J. L., "Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models" 11 (11): 287-305, 2006

23 Hathaway, S. R., "Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory" University of Minnesota Press 1943

24 Graham, J. R., "MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychotherapy" Oxford University Press 1999

25 Lazarsfeld, P. F., "Latent structure analysis" Houghton Mifflin 1968

26 Magidson, J., "Latent class factor and cluster models, bi-plots and related graphical displays" 31 (31): 223-264, 2001

27 Luke, G. H., "Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models" 10 (10): 21-39, 2005

28 Matsunaga, M., "How to factor-analyze your data right : Do's, don'ts, and how-to's" 3 (3): 97-110, 2010

29 de la Torre, J., "Higher-order latent trait models for cognitive diagnosis" 69 (69): 333-353, 2004

30 Rupp, A. A., "Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications" The Guilford Press 2010

31 Armstrong, J. S., "Derivation of theory by means of factor analysis or Tom Swift and his electric factor analysis machine" 21 : 17-21, 1967

32 Hu, L. T., "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives" 6 (6): 1-55, 1999

33 Eid, M., "Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis : A primer" 34 (34): 195-210, 2003

34 Tatsuoka, K. K., "Cognitively diagnostic assessment" Lawrence Erlbaum 43-71, 1995

35 Leighton, J. P., "Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and Applications" Cambridge University Press 3-18, 2007

36 Roussos, L. A., "Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and Applications" Cambridge University Press 275-318, 2007

37 Gierl, M. J., "Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education" Cambridge University 242-274, 2007

38 Embretson, S. E., "Cognitive assessment: A multidisciplinary perspective" Plenum Press 107-135, 1994

39 Hurt, S. W., "Borderline personality disorder: Prototypic typology and the development of treatment manuals" 20 (20): 13-18, 1990

40 Hambleton, R. K., "Applications of item response theory" Educational Research Institute of British Columbia 71-94, 1983

41 Browne, M. W., "An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis" 36 (36): 111-150, 2001

42 Tucker, L. R., "A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis" 3 (3): 231-251, 1973

43 Tatsuoka, K. K., "A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions in the pattern classification approach" 12 (12): 55-73, 1985

44 Hartz, S. M., "A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality" University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2002