大韓不姙學會誌 : 第 27 卷第 4 號 2000

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "大韓不姙學會誌 : 第 27 卷第 4 號 2000"

수애 범
4 years ago
Views:

1 Korean Hand Type and Representative Hand Mannequins Soo-chan Jee, Yongmin Kim, Jiyoun Han, and Myunghwan Yun 1 1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, ABSTRACT Some tools or interfaces designed not to fit the size of individuals make users experience discomfort and lower productivity. Previous studies on hands tend to focus only on measuring lengths and reporting the distribution of these measurements. In order to overcome this, we aim to distinguish major factors that determine hand shapes and categorize the hand shapes of Koreans. 321 people (167 males and 154 females). 21 hand dimensions including length, breadth, and circumference of the hand were measured. T-value and correlation coefficients were compared to identify the difference of measurement values and the relation between hand measurements and heights. Factor and clustering analysis was conducted to identify hand shape types of Korean. Descriptive statistics of Korean hand dimension were presented. 78.3% of the variance of hand shape was explained by 3 major factors (factor 1: hand breadth, factor 2: palm length, factor 3: finger length). We also distinguished 4 hand shape types and found that wide hand and short finger type (type 1) was the most common in males, but narrow hand and short finger type was the most common in females. Using factor analysis and boundary condition method, we also derived representative hand mannequins, which accommodate 95% of Korean hands. Korean males and females had wider hands and shorter fingers than the people of 8 other nations. We expect products and interfaces to be designed based on these understandings on the characteristics of Korean hands that the result of our study suggest. Keywords: Trend analysis, Publication, Research papers, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea 1. Introduction 사람들은일상생활에서일을하기위해여러가지 hand tool 과같은장비를사용하고, interface 를조작하여기계를컨트롤한다. 사람들이자주사용하게되는장비나인터페이스의경우, 간혹신체사이즈에맞지않게설계된경우가있는데, 이러한경우사용자들은불편함을느끼고, 결국작업의생산성도떨어지게된다. 또한전세계적으로무역이활발해짐에따라이제많은기업들이전세계국가의소비자들을대상으로제품을제작하는경우가늘어나고있다. 그런데해당국가의소비자의신체치수정보를정확히알수없다면해당국가소비자들이만족할수있는제품을만드는데에한계가있을것이다. 따라서최근제품생산이나서비스분야에있어인체의다양한부위에대한정확한사이즈를측정하여활용하는 anthropometry 를제품및서비스설계에있어중요한과정으로인식하고있으며, 그중요성이점차부각되고있다. 특히여러신체부위중손은인간이가장빈번하게사용하는부위중하나이다. 또한손은 27 개의뼈와 15 개의관절로구성되어다른신체부위에비해많은치수정보들을가지고있어, 이러한치수들을활용하여, hand tool 같은제품들을설계할필요가있다. 손이가지고있는이러한중요성에착안하여, 기존연구에서는세계의다양한인종의손치수에대한이연구들이수행되었다. UK female (1980), Nigerian rural workers (2000), Indian agricultural workers (2001), Mexican (2005), Bangladesh (2006), Filipino (2007) 등이수행되었다. Mandahawi 는 Jordanian population 에대해서손가락의길이와너비, 손의길이, 너비, 두께를측정하여보고하였으며, 방글라데시, 나이지리아, 베트남인과세부치수를비교하는연구를수행하였다. Cakit 등은터키치과대학생을대상으로손가락, 손바닥, 손목의길이와너비, 두께를측정하여이를보고하였으며, 타인종과의비교를통해터키인들의손특징을제시하였다. Garcia-caceres 는콜럼비아노동자들의 hand tool 제작을위해손가락과관절의길이, 너비를측정하고 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 percentile 수치를제시

한바있다. 한국인손에대한연구는 Kwon 등이한국인손의형태및장갑치수설정에대한연구를수행하였고, Ki 는한국인의대표적손치수특성과 scale 에대해서보고한바있다. 한국인손과관련된기존연구들은주로손의여러부위에대한길이를재고, 치수분포를보고하는데에만치중한경향이있었다.

2 한바있다. 한국인손에대한연구는 Kwon 등이한국인손의형태및장갑치수설정에대한연구를수행하였고, Ki 는한국인의대표적손치수특성과 scale 에대해서보고한바있다. 한국인손과관련된기존연구들은주로손의여러부위에대한길이를재고, 치수분포를보고하는데에만치중한경향이있었다. 따라서대부분의기업에서는손길이, 손너비, 손둘레치수만을장갑이나인터페이스설계의중점항목으로선정하고평균치중심의설계를통해제품을제작하여한국인손모양의차이가제품설계에반영되지못한경우가많았다. 따라서본연구에서는한국남성과여성의손치수를좀더세분화하여, 너비, 둘레차원의변수들도측정하고, 통계적방법을이용하여, 손의모양을결정하는주요인자들을식별하고, 이인자들의조합을이용하여한국인의손모양을유형별로분류해보고자한다. 본연구의결과물이손과관련된제품의설계및개발에기초자료로활용되기를기대한다. Weight (kg) 2.2 Measurement 본연구에서는기존연구들에서주로측정되었던 21 개의 hand dimension 이측정되었다. 측정된부위들은 Appendix1 와같다. 손과손가락의길이, 너비, 두께를측정하기위해서는디지털캘리퍼가사용되었으며, 정확도는 0.01mm 였다. 손과손가락관절의둘레를측정하는데는인체측정용줄자가사용되었다. 무게를잴때는체중계를, 키를잴때는신장계를사용하였다. 측정요원들은모두과서신체측정경험이있었으며, 18 시간이상의측정교육을이수했다. 2. Method 2,1 Subjects 본연구의인체측정 data 는국립과학기술표준원주도로수행된한국인손치수측정프로젝트의결과물이사용되었다. 피실험자들은남성 167 명, 여성 154 명이었으며, 자발적으로측정에참여하였으며, 참여자에게는소정의보상이주어졌다. 321 명의피실험자들은과거에손과척추에관련된병력이없는사람들이없는사람들이었다. 또한모든피실험자들은모두한국에서태어나고자란동일인종이었다. 피실험자들은직업 ( 사무직 / 생산직 ), 지역 ( 도시 / 농촌 ), 나이에따라균등하게구성되었다. 피실험자들의인구통계적특성은다음표 1 과같다. Table 1: Subject Characteristics Male Female Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Age Stature (cm) Data analysis 모든 data 는 MS EXCEL 과 SPSS 21 statistical package 를사용하여분석되었다. 각 hand dimension 수치의 Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD and various percentile) 이계산되어제시되었다. 남녀간손치수별차이를비교하기위해서는 T-test 가사용되었다. 또한손치수와신장과의관계를알기위해 pearson correlation coefficient 가비교제시되었다. 한국인남성, 여성의손모양유형을파악하기위해측정된 21 개의변수들을대상으로요인분석을실시하였으며, varimax 회전을적용하였다. 요인분석결과도출된요인점수를이용하여, 비슷한특성을지닌자료들을하나의그룹으로묶어주는군집분석을실시하여, 한국인손의유형을 4 개로구분하고, 각유형의신체적특성을식별하였다. 또한요인분석결과를이용하여

3 한국인 95% 를수용할수있는대표손모델마네킨을도출하고자한다. 3.1 Descriptive statistics 3. Results 한국인남성과여성의손치수의평균과표준편차는 Appendix 2 와같다. 모든손치수에있어남성은여성보다통계적으로유의하게컸다. (p<0.001) 21 개의측정부위중손길이가가장큰수치였고, 소지의관절너비의수치가가장적은수치였다. 남녀간의손치수차이를비교하기위해 T-test 가수행되었는데, metacarpal 의둘레에서남녀간차이가가장컸다. 약지의 PIP 관절너비나손목둘레에서도남녀간차이가컸다. 한국인의손모양유형을식별하는데있어키의영향을분석하기위해키와손치수간의상관관계를비교해보았다. 남성은모든손부위치수에서키와양의상관관계가있었고, 여성은일부너비와둘레관련치수를제외한 11 개변수에서양의상관관계를보였다. 모든손부위의키와의상관계수에있어남성의수치가여성의수치보다더컸다. 한국인손의모양을식별하기위해서측정된 21 개의변수에대하여요인분석을실시하여, 3 개의요인을식별하였다. 앞의기술통계와상관계수를비교시에남성의모든손치수와여성의 11 개손치수에서키와양의상관관계가있었다. 따라서키가큰사람의경우거의모든손부위에서도큰수치를보일수있어, 손모양유형을식별하는데에는한계가있었다. 따라서, 요인분석시에각피실험자의손부위별치수를피실험자의키로나눈수치를이용하였다. 이를통해키의영향을배제하고, 대상인원의손형상및특성을비교할수있었다. 표 6 에서도알수있듯이, 손의형상은 3 개의주요요인 (factor 1 : hand breadth, factor 2 : palm length, factor 3 : finger length) 에의해전체분산의 78.3% 가설명되었다. The factor analysis result for the hand dimensions Hand dimension Factor and factor loadings Comm unality Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at metacarpal Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Wrist breadth Wrist circumference Hand depth Hand breadth at metacarpals Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Palm length Center of wrist crease to root digit Hand length Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit % Total variance explained (cumulative) Factor 1 은 PIP joint 의너비, pip joint 의너비, metacarpal 의너비, 둘레, 손목너비, 손목둘레가포함된변수로손모양의수평적길이 ( 너비 ) 와관련된특성으로볼수있다. 이 Factor 는 Hand breadth factor 로명명되었다. Factor 2 는 center of wrist 에서각손가락 root 에이르는길이다. Palm length, 손길이변수가포함되었다. 이 factor 는손바닥의길이와관련된수직적길이와관련된특성으로볼수있으며, Palm length factor 로명명되었다. Factor 3 에는각손가락의길이변수들이포함되었으며, 수직적길이 ( 세로 ) 를반영하는특성으로볼수있다. 이 factor 는 finger length 로

4 명명되었다. 요인분석을통해도출된요인점수는평균 0, 분산 1 인정규분포로표준화되었으며, 요인점수를이용하여유사한손치수특성을지닌사람들을하나의군집으로묶어주는군집분석을실시하였다. 적절한군집의수를계산하기위해제곱유클리디안거리를이용한워드의방법을적용하여, dendrogram 을도출하고, 4 개의군집을선택하였다. 네개의군집은분산분석결과통계적으로서로다른것으로확인되었다 (p<0.05). Bitner 와 Kim&Whang 의방법을적용하여, 한국인 95% 을수용할수있는대표손모델을생성한결과 1 번마네킨은손바닥, 길이, 손너비가모두큰유형이고, 2 번은손가락이 3 번은손바닥이, 4 번은손바닥과손길이가작은모형이었다. 6 번모델은작은손중에두껌고손바닥이큰손이었고, 7 번은손너비와손바닥은작으나손가락이긴모델, 8 번은손바닥, 손길이, 손너비가모두작은모델이었으며, 9 번은평균수치를가진모델이다. (Appendix 3,4 참조 ) 4. Discussion 본연구의목적은한국인남성, 여성의주요손치수를측정하고, 이를분석하여 hand tool 과 interface 설계에사용될수있는 hand dimension 수치들을도출하고, 한국인손의특징을분석하는것이다. 앞서측정된한국인의손치수 data 를기존연구들과비교하여, 타인종과대비한한국인의손특징을식별할수있었다. 한국남성의경우 Turkish 남성보다손가락길이와손의길이는작으나손가락관절의너비나둘레, metacarpal 과손목의너비는 turkish 남성보다더컸다. 손의길이는요르단인이가장컸고, 그다음터키, Mexican, Korean 순이었다. Metacarpal breadth 에있어한국, 요르단, 멕시칸간큰차이는없었으나, Turkish 의경우 hand breadth 가상대적으로작았다. 한국남성의경우는터키, 요르단, 멕시칸에비해상대적으로손이더두꺼웠다. 한국여성의경우에도터키여성과비교시손가락길이, 손길이는짧았으나, 손가락관절너비와둘레 metacarpal 너비, 손목너비의수치들은더컸다. 터키, 인도한국인여성간비교에서터키여성의경우가손길이가가장컸고, 인도여성이손가락길이가가장컸다. 한국여성은손목너비와손두께, metacarpal 의너비가가장컸다. 다른인종과의비교결과를볼때, 한국남성과여성모두터키나인도인, mexican 에비해손의길이는짧으나손의너비가넓은특징을확인할수있었다. 앞서한국인남성과여성이손형상의특징을여러인종간비교를통해확인해볼수있었는데, 손의가로적특성을나타내는 hand breadth at metacarpal(hb) 과손의세로적길이를나타내주는중지손가락길이 (3D length) 를각각 hand length(hl) 로나눈수치를이용하여, 기존연구에서보고되었던 8 개국가남녀 11 개의연구결과에본연구결과를추가하여, 비교해보았다. 타인종과의비교결과한국남성과여성은다른 8 개국가인종에비하여손너비가넓고, 손가락이짧은특징을보였으며, 우측아래에위치하는경향을보였다. 따라서, 한국인을대상으로 hand tool 과손관련제품이나인터페이스를제작시에타인종대비 finger length 가짧고, hand breadth 가넓은특징을고려하여, 제품을설계할필요가있다. 앞서제시된바와같이손의형상을설명하는주요 factor 3 개의요인점수를이용하여, 군집분석을실시하였으며, dendrogram 을토대로 4 개의손모양 type 을식별하였다. 본연구의피실험자집단중해당유형에속하는비율을분석하였다. 남성의경우손이넓고, 손가락이짧은유형 (type 1) 의비율이 38.9% 로가장높았다. 반면에손바닥과손가락길이가긴유형의손형상을가진사람 (type 3) 의비율은 15.6% 로가장적었다. 반면, 여성의경우에는손이좁고, 손가락이짧은유형의사람 (type 4) 은 37.7% 로가장높았고, 손너비가넓고, 손가락이짧은유형의사람 (type 1) 은 15.6% 로가장적었다. 남녀를함께분석시에는긴손바닥길이와손가락길이를가진 type3 의유형을가진사람의비율이 30.9% 로가장높았다. 따라서같은인종임에도불구하고, 한국남성과여성의손모양분포에는통계적으로유의한차이가존재하였으며 (p<0.001), 이러한차이는기존연구에서생물학적, 사회적차이에의한결과로파악하였다. 5. Conclusion 본연구에서는한국인의다양한손치수들을측정하고, 각부위별치수분포를살펴보았다. 또한한국인손형상을결정하는주요인자들을식별하고, 이를이용하여 4 개의주요손유형을도출하였다. 또한타인종과의비교를통하여, 한국인손이타인종대비너비가넓고, 손가락이짧은특징을식별하였다. 따라서본연구결과에도출한이러한특징에대한이해를바탕으로한국인의손특성을고려한제품이나인터페이스설계가이루어지기를기대한다.

5 References F. Aghazadeh, A. Mital, Injuries due to handtools: Results of a questionnaire, Applied Ergonomics, 18 (1987) R. Karunanithi, A. Tajuddin, K. Kathirvel, Study on anthropometric dimensions of agricultural workers, Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Agricultural Engineering Division, 82 (2001) R.S. Goonetilleke, Designing to minimize discomfort, in: Ergonomics in Design, Citeseer, S. Rok Chang, S. Park, A. Freivalds, Ergonomic evaluation of the effects of handle types on garden tools, I nternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24 (1999) O.O. Okunribido, A survey of hand anthropometry of female rural farm workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria, Ergonomics, 43 (2000) G. Xiao, L. Lei, P.G. Dempsey, B. Lu, Y. Liang, Isometric muscle strength and anthropometric characteristics of a Chinese sample, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35 (2005) R.S. Goonetilleke, E.C.F. Ho, R.H. So, Foot anthropometry in Hong Kong, in: Proceedings of the ASEAN 97 Conference, 1997, pp C.P. Witana, S. Xiong, J. Zhao, R.S. Goonetilleke, Foot measurements from three-dimensional scans: A comparison and evaluation of different methods, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36 (2006) B. Davies, A. Abada, K. Benson, A. Courtney, I. Minto, A comparison of hand anthropometry of females in three ethnic groups, Ergonomics, 23 (1980) S. Imrhan, M. Contreras, Hand anthropometry in a sample of Mexicans in the US-Mexico border region, in: Proceedings of the XIX annual Occupational ergonomics and safety conference, Las Vegas, NV, 2005, pp S. Imrhan, M. Sarder, N. Mandahawi, Hand anthropometry in a sample of Bangladesh males, in: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Clearwater, FL, 2006, pp J.L. Del Prado-Lu, Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers, International journal of industrial ergonomics, 37 (2007) N. Mandahawi, S. Imrhan, S. Al-Shobaki, B. Sarder, Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38 (2008) E. Cakit, B. Durgun, O. Cetik, O. Yoldas, A Survey of Hand Anthropometry and Biomechanical Measurements of Dentistry Students in Turkey, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24 (2014) R.G. García-Cáceres, S. Felknor, J.E. Córdoba, J.P. Caballero, L.H. Barrero, Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the Bogota plateau, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42 (2012) Kwon, ohchae, Jung.kihyo, Sun sunmi, Ryou. heecheon, Kim. heeeun, Determination and Application of Key Dimensions for a Sizing System of Glove by Analyzing the Relationshiops Between Hand Anthropometri, Jounal of the erfonomics society of Korea, 23 (2004) K. Sang ho, K. Doyoung, Classification and Identification of Korean Hand Shapes based on Anthropometric Hand Data Analysis, Jounal of Korea safety management and science, 14 (2012) W. Park, S. Park, Body shape analyses of large persons in South Korea, Ergonomics, 56 (2013) A. Nag, P.K. Nag, H. Desai, Hand anthropometry of Indian women, The Indian journal of medical research, 117 (2003) C.W. Bardin, J.F. Catterall, Testosterone: a major determinant of extragenital sexual dimorphism, Science, 211 (1981)

7 Appendix 1 Hand Dimensions Definition 1 Fingertip to root digit 1 The distance from proximal flexion crease of the finger to the tip of the thumb 2 Fingertip to root digit 2 The distance from proximal flexion crease of the finger to the tip of the index finger 3 Fingertip to root digit 3 (3DL) The distance from proximal flexion crease of the finger to the tip of the middle finger 4 Fingertip to root digit 4 The distance from proximal flexion crease of the finger to the tip of the ring finger 5 Fingertip to root digit 5 The distance from proximal flexion crease of the finger to the tip of the little finger 6 Center of wrist crease to root digit 1 The distance from center of wrist crease to the proximal flexion crease of the thumb 7 Center of wrist crease to root digit 2 The distance from center of wrist crease to the proximal flexion crease of the index finger 8 Center of wrist crease to root digit 3 The distance from center of wrist crease to the proximal flexion crease of the middle finger 9 Center of wrist crease to root digit 4 The distance from center of wrist crease to the proximal flexion crease of the ring finger 10 Center of wrist crease to root digit 5 The distance from center of wrist crease to the proximal flexion crease of the little finger 11 Hand length (HL) The distance from the middle of inter stylion to the tip of middle finger 12 Palm length The distance from the middle of inter stylion to the proximal flexion crease of the middle finger 13 Breadth at PIP joint of digit 1 The distance from the most lateral point on thumb proximal joint to the most medial point 14 Breadth at PIP joint of digit 2 The distance from the most lateral point on index finger proximal joint to the most medial point 15 Breadth at PIP joint of digit 3 The distance from the most lateral point on middle finger proximal joint to the most medial point 16 Breadth at PIP joint of digit 4 The distance from the most lateral point on ring finger proximal joint to the most medial point 17 Breadth at PIP joint of digit 5 The distance from the most lateral point on little finger proximal joint to the most medial point 18 Hand breadth at metacarpals (HB) The distance from the most lateral point on the index finger metacarpal to the most medial point on the little finger metacarpal 19 Wrist breadth The distance from the most lateral point on the wrist to the most medial point of wrist 20 Circumference at PIP joint of digit 1 The superficial distance around the edge of proximal joint in thumb 21 Circumference at PIP joint of digit 2 The superficial distance around the edge of proximal joint in index finger 22 Circumference at PIP joint of digit 3 The superficial distance around the edge of proximal joint in middle finger 23 Circumference at PIP joint of digit 4 The superficial distance around the edge of proximal joint in ring finger 24 Circumference at PIP joint of digit 5 The superficial distance around the edge of proximal joint in little finger 25 Circumference at metacarpal The superficial distance around the edge of metacarpal 26 Wrist circumference The superficial distance around the edge of the wrist 27 Hand depth The distance from the lowest part of the thumb interphalangeal joint to the upper most part of the back of hand

9 Appendix 2 Male Female Correlation Hand Dimensions T-value Mean SD Mean SD Male Female Fingertip to root digit ** 0.375** Fingertip to root digit ** 0.424** 8.76 Fingertip to root digit ** 0.436** Fingertip to root digit ** 0.440** Fingertip to root digit ** 0.407** 8.84 Center of wrist crease to root digit ** 0.314** Center of wrist crease to root digit ** 0.430** Center of wrist crease to root digit ** 0.424** Center of wrist crease to root digit ** 0.394** Center of wrist crease to root digit ** 0.371** Hand length ** 0.534** Palm length ** 0.505** Breadth at PIP joint of digit Indicates hand dimension do not show normality, from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (using α = 0.05 level of significance) * Indicates statistically significant using α = 0.05 level of significance ** Indicates statistically significant using α = 0.01 level of significance PIP :PIP: Proximal interphalangeal

10 Breadth at PIP joint of digit ** Breadth at PIP joint of digit * Breadth at PIP joint of digit * Breadth at PIP joint of digit Hand breadth at metacarpals ** Wrist breadth ** Circumference at PIP joint of digit * Circumference at PIP joint of digit * Circumference at PIP joint of digit * Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at metacarpal ** Wrist circumference ** Hand depth *

11 Appendix 3 The hypothetical hands described in percentile format The hypothetical hands (%) Hand dimension Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Hand breadth at metacarpals Wrist breadth Wrist circumference Circumference at metacarpal Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Hand depth Hand length Palm length Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit

12 Appendix 4 The hands manikin families (in mm) Hand dimension Manikins Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Breadth at PIP joint of digit Hand breadth at metacarpals Wrist breadth Wrist circumference Circumference at metacarpal Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Circumference at PIP joint of digit Hand depth Hand length Palm length Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Center of wrist crease to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit Fingertip to root digit

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 - - i - - i - - ii - - iii - - iv - χ - v - - vi - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - 그림 1. 연구대상자선정도표 - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - 그림 2. 연구의틀 χ - 9 - - 10 - - 11 -

大 韓 不 姙 學 會 誌 : 第 27 卷 第 4 號 2000

大韓不姙學會誌 : 第 27 卷第 4 號 2000