박사

장애개념의 다중패러다임과 잠재변수모형을 적용한 장애인스포츠인식척도 개발

서은철 2015년
논문상세정보
    • 저자 서은철
    • 기타서명 Developing a Scale for Measuring the Disability Sports Awareness through Multi-Paradigm of Disability Concept and Latent Variable Modeling
    • 형태사항 삽화: viii, 216장: 30 cm
    • 일반주기 단국대학교 학위논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다, 지도교수 : 김지태, 참고문헌 : 175-185장
    • 학위논문사항 학위논문(박사)-, 단국대학교 대학원, 체육학과 체육학전공, 2015. 2
    • DDC 796.087, 22
    • 발행지 용인
    • 언어 kor
    • 출판년 2015
    • 발행사항 단국대학교 대학원
    유사주제 논문( 0)

' 장애개념의 다중패러다임과 잠재변수모형을 적용한 장애인스포츠인식척도 개발' 의 참고문헌

  • 한국교육평가학회. 『교육평가용어사전』
    서울: 학지사 [2004]
  • 한국 통합교육의 현황과 해결과제
    민천식 특수교육저널: 이론과 실천, 14(3), 49-69 [2013]
  • 특수체육학의 정체성 탐색
    오광진 한국특수체육학회지, 16(2), 75-100 [2008]
  • 특수체육론
    김지태 서울: 진영인쇄사 [2011]
  • 통합적 개념으로서의 구인타당도
    오수학 한국체육측정평가학회지, 2(2), 67-77 [2000]
  • 타당도와 신뢰도
    성태제 서울: 학지사 [1995]
  • 타당도에 대한 통합적 관점
    이원석(Wonsuk Lee) 교육평가연구, 21(4), 67-79 [2008]
  • 타당도에 대한 개념,정의,검증 방법의 변화와 교육적 함의
    성태제 교육평가연구, 13(2), 1-11 [2000]
  • 컴퓨터 기반 검사에서 소규모수험자 집단에 대한 문항반응이론 적용
    정희영 경기: 한국 학술정보 [2008]
  • 집단범주에 대한 고정관념 , 감정과 편견
    김혜숙 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 13(1), 1-33 [1999]
  • 장애학의 다중 패러다임에 따른 한국 장애인운동의 성격 분석
    이동석 재활복지, 8(1), 34-67 [2004]
  • 장애인복지 서비스 프로그램의 패러다임 동향 분석 - Priestly의 다중 패러다임의 적용 -
    박경수 한국장애인복지학, 6, 161-182 [2007]
  • 장애등급의 문제를 넘어서 -장애의 정의․분류․측정-
    조한진 재활복지, 15(4), 1-26 [2011]
  • 장애개념의 제 경향과 정치경제적 관점에서의 장애의 개념
    문상민 사회복지와 노동 , 8, 149-176 [2004]
  • 장애개념의 변화와 사회복지실천 현장 함의
    김용득 한국사회복지학, 51, 157-182 [2002]
  • 장애 개념 재정립을 통한 지원체계 개발
    박승희 박은혜 박지연 박현숙 이소현 현장특 수교육, 12(2), 52-56 [2005]
  • 요인분석의 기초
    이순묵 서울: 교육과학사 [2000]
  • 사회심리학
    홍대식 서울: 양영각 [1995]
  • 구조방정식 모형의 적합도 지수 선정기준과 그 근거
    홍세희 한국심리학회지: 임상, 19(1), 161-177 [2000]
  • 구조 방정식 모형의 원리와 응용
    홍세희 서울: 이화여자대학교 경영연구소 [2003]
  • Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
  • Yates, A. (1987). Multivariate exploratory data analysis: A perspective on exploratory factor analysis. NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Woods, C. M. (2009). Evaluation of MIMIC-Model Methods for DIF testing with comparison to two-group analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(1), 1-27.
  • Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1994). The importance of social imagery in interpreting societally devalued people to the public. The International Social Role Valorization Journal, 1(1), 1-5.
  • Wolfensberger, W. (1992). A brief introduction to social role valorization as a high-order concept for structuring human services. NY: Syracuse University.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. Jr. (2007b). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: PartⅡ-Validation activities. In E. V. Jr. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Rasch measurement: Advanced and specialized applications. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. Jr. (2007a). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: PartⅠ-Instrument development tools. In E. V. Jr. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Rasch measurement: Advanced and specialized applications. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
  • Winnick, J. P. (2005). Adapted physical education and sport (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  • Williams, T. (1994). Disability sport socialization and identity construction. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11(1), 14-31.
  • WHO의 새로운 국제장애분류(ICF)에 대한 이해와 기능적 장애 개념의 필요성
    황수경 노 동정책연구, 4(2), 127-148 [2004]
  • WHO (2001). ICF: International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: Author.
  • WHO (1997). ICIDH-2: International classification of impairments, activities, and participation. A manual of dimensions of disablement and functioning. Geneva: Author.
  • WHO (1980). ICIDH: International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: Author.
  • Velicer, W. F., Peacock, A. C., & Jackson, D. N. (1982). A comparison of component and factor patterns: A monte carlo approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17(3), 371-388.
  • Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Van der Kloot, W. A.(2001). Confirmatory analysisof exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational andpsychological Measurement, 61(5), 777-792.
  • Tripp, A., Rizzo, T. L., & Webbert, L. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: Changing the culture. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(2), 32-36.
  • Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 109-220.
  • Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  • Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52(4), 589-617.
  • Siller, J. (1970). Generality of attitudes toward the physically disabled. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5, 697-698.
  • Sherrill, C., & Williams, T. (1996). Disability and sport: Psychological perspectives on inclusion, integration, and participation. Sport Science Review, 5(1), 42-64.
  • Sherrill, C. (2004). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport:Crossdisciplinary and lifespan (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
  • Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement Issues and Practices, 16(2), 5-8.
  • Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education. Washington, D. C.: Educational Research Association.
  • Scott, R. (1969). The making of blind men. London: Sage Publications.
  • Rothman, J. C. (2003). Social work practice across disability. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Reindal, S. M. (2000). Disability, gene therapy, and eugenics: A Challenge to John Harris. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(2), 89-94.
  • Rasch 모형의 이론과 실제
    지은림 서울: 교육과학사 [2000]
  • Rasch 모형: 서열척도 분석의 대안적 방법
    정혁 코칭능력개발지, 7(3), 133-141 [2005]
  • Priestley, M. (2003). Disability: A life course approach. Cambridge: Policy Press.
  • Priestley, M. (1998). Construction and creations: Idealism, materialism and disability theory. Disability and Society, 13(1), 75-94.
  • Place, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of student with physical disabilities in general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(4), 389-404.
  • Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice. NY: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Nirje, B. (1980). The normalization principle. In R. Flynn & K. Nitsch (Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
  • Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. Washington D. C. : President's Committee on Mental Retardation.
  • Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2013). Mplus 7.11 [Computer software]. http://statmodel.com.
  • Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:Muthen & Muthen.
  • Muthen, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313-335.
  • Muthen, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous population. Psychometrika, 54, 557-585.
  • Muthen, B. O. (1988). Some uses of structural equation modeling in validity studies: Extending IRT to external variables. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Moxley, D. (1992). Disability policy and social work practice. Health and Social Work, 17(2), 99-103.
  • Millsap, R. E., & Everson, H. T. (1993). Methodological review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17(4), 297-334.
  • Messner, M. A. (1988). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 197-211.
  • Messick의 타당도 관점에서 Rasch 측정모형 적용을 통한 대학 강의평가 도구개발의 타당화
    설현수 교육평가연구, 20(4), 31-51 [2007]
  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
  • Messick, S. (1994). Alternative models of assessment, uniform standards of validity. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). NY: Macmillan.
  • Meredith, W., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika, 57(2), 289-311.
  • McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance.London: Longman.
  • McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T. Jr., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. (1996). Evaluating the replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552- 566.
  • Marsh, H. W., Muthen, B., Asparouhov, T., Ludtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 439-476.
  • Marks, D. (1999). Disability: Controversial Debates and Psychosocial Perspectives. London: Routledge.
  • Luo, D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (1994). An exploration of genetic g: Hierarchical factor analysis of cognitive data from the Western Reserve Twin Project. Intelligence, 18, 335-347.
  • Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Linacre, J. M. (2011). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS MINISTEP Rasch-model computer programs. http://www.winsteps.com.
  • Linacre, J. M. (2008). Winsteps 3.65 [Computer software]. http://www.winsteps.com.
  • Lessard, L. M. (2008). Using a Partial-Credit Rasch model to detect social desirability bias. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 21(4), 1134-1135.
  • Lang, R. (2001). Understanding disability from a South Indian perspective. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Disability Studies Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
  • Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41, 1183-1192.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(3rd ed.). NY: Guilford Press.
  • King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79-103.
  • Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum-likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.
  • Jennrich, R. I., & Sampson, P. F. (1966). Rotation to simple loadings. Psychometrika, 31, 313-323.
  • Jennrich, R. I. (2007). Rotation methods, algorithms, and standard errors. In R. C. MacCallum & R. Cudeck (Eds.), Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Jackson, L. A. (1992). In what way is the unfinished mind unfinished? Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 3(2), 163-165.
  • Hutzler, Y., & Sherrill, C. (2007). Defining adapted physical activity: International perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 1-20.
  • Hull, J. G., Lehn, D. A., & Tedlie, J. C. (1991). A general approach to testing multifaceted personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 932-945.
  • Hu, L. Z., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Hong, S., Malik, M. L., & Lee, M. (2003). Testing configural, metric, scalar, and latent mean invariance across genders in sociotropy and autonomy using a non-western sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 636-654.
  • Hong, S., Kim, B., & Wolfe, M. (2005). A psychometric reversion of the European American Values Scale for Asian Americans using the Rasch model. Measurement and Education in Counseling and Development, 37, 194-207.
  • Hong, S., & Wong, E. (2005). Rasch rating scale modeling of the Korean version of the Beck Depression Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1), 124-139.
  • Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Hively, W. (1974). Introduction to domain-referenced testing. In W. Hively (Ed.), Domain-referenced testing. Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Hayton,J.C.,Allen,D.G.,& Scarpello,V.(2004).Factorretentiondecisionsin exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis.OrganizationalResearchMethods,7(2),191-205.
  • Hattie, J. A. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139-164.
  • Harris, J. (2000). Is there a coherent social conception of disability? Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(2), 95-100.
  • Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407-434
  • Groff, D. G., Lundberg, N. R., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2009). Influence of adapted sport on quality of life: Perceptions of athletes with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(4), 318-326.
  • Green, B. F. (1988). Critical problems in computer-based psychological measurement. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(3), 223-231.
  • Gelin, M. N., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Operating characteristics of the DIF MIMIC approach using Joreskog’s covariance matrix with ML and WLS estimation for short scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(2), 573-588.
  • Fox, C. M., & Jones, J. A. (1998). Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 30-45.
  • Fishbein, H. D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, cultural, and developmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Finkelstein, V. (1996). Modeling disability. Paper presented at the workshop organised for the “Breaking the Moulds” conference, Dunfermline, Scotland.
  • Fabrigar. L. R., Wegener. D. T., MacCallum. R. C., & Strahan. E. J. (1999). “Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.” Psychological methods. 4(3). 272∼299.
  • Eastman, S. T., & Billings, A. C. (2000). Sportscasting and sports reporting: The power of gender bias. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24(2), 192-213.
  • Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(5), 510-540.
  • DeVellis R. F.(2012). Scale development: theory and applications. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
  • DePauw, K. P., & Gavron, S. J. (2005). Disability sports (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  • Cudeck, R., & O’Dell, L. L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 475-487.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  • Costello,A.B.& Osborne,J.W.(2005).Bestpractices in exploratoryfactoranalysis: Fourrecommendationsforgetting themostfromyouranalysis.PracticalAssessmentResearch& Evaluation,10(7),1-9.
  • Cook, L. L., Dorans, N. J., & Eignor, D. R. (1988). An assessment of the dimensionality of three SAT-Verbal test editions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 13(1), 19-43.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cliff, N. (1988). The eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule and the reliability of components. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 276-279.
  • Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 397-412.
  • Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen’s three-dimensional and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93-114.
  • Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189-225.
  • Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J-P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219-251.
  • Chan, D. (2000). Detection of differential item functioning on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory using multiple-group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(2), 169-199.
  • Carver, C. S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 577-585.
  • Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
  • Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456-466.
  • Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. NY: Springer-Verlag.
  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150.
  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY: Guilford Press.
  • Brouwer, D., Meijer, R. R., Weekers, A. M., & Baneke, J. J. (2008). On the dimensionality of the Dispositional Hope Scale. Psychological Assessment, 20, 310-315.
  • Brittain, I. (2004). Perceptions of disability and their impact upon involvement in sport for people with disabilities at all levels. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(4), 429-452.
  • Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2010). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
  • Bludworth, J. L., Tracey, T. J. G., & Glidden-Tracey, C. (2010). The bi-level structure of the Outcome Questionnaire-45. Psychological Assessment, 22, 350-355.
  • Bernell, S. L. (2003). Theoretical and applied issues in defining disability in labor market research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14(1), 36-45.
  • Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 10-17.
  • Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. NY: Marcel Dekker.
  • Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., Zittel, L., Roth, K., & Huettig, C. (2009). Principles and methods of adapted physical education and recreation (11th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397-438.
  • Asch, A., & Mudrick, N. R. (1995). Disability. In R. L. Edwards & J. G. Hopps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work. Washington, D. C.: National Association of Social Workers Press.
  • Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer (Ed.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
  • Anderson,J.C.,& Gerbing,D.W.(1988).Structuralequationmodelingin practice:A review andrecommendedtwo-stepapproach,Psychological Bulletin,103,411-423.
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education(1999). Standards for educational and Psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council onMeasurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
  • Ackerman, T. A. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact,and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal ofeducational measurement, 29(1), 67-91.
  • :장애의 개념과 분류
    나은우 정한영 대한의사협회지, 52(6), 537-544 [2009]