< 학술연구용역사업최종보고서 > 지역사회정신건강고위험군아동청소년추적관리코호트확대 (The follow-up and management system for children and adolescents at high-risk of mental health dwelling

Similar documents
석사

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

ATC _03df9a6d e0a-1fea63a4d9fe.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Mediating Eff



한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

노인정신의학회보14-1호

교실, 놀이터, 혹은 유사 임상적 환경에서 실행한다. 대부분의 경우, 주의력과 충동 조 절에 대한 직접 검사(예:Continuous Performance Test)를 통해서는 실제 환경에서 수 집된 자료 이상의 정보를 얻기 힘들다. 유아들 간의 행동 다양성뿐 아니라 초

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;


#Ȳ¿ë¼®


특수교육논총 * ,,,,..,..,, 76.7%.,,,.,,.. * 1. **

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

. 45 1,258 ( 601, 657; 1,111, 147). Cronbach α=.67.95, 95.1%, Kappa.95.,,,,,,.,...,.,,,,.,,,,,.. :,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

Lumbar spine


Analysis of objective and error source of ski technical championship Jin Su Seok 1, Seoung ki Kang 1 *, Jae Hyung Lee 1, & Won Il Son 2 1 yong in Univ

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

012임수진

Abstract Background : Most hospitalized children will experience physical pain as well as psychological distress. Painful procedure can increase anxie

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

- 최원희ㆍ 김명희: 중년후기 여성의 집단회상 경험과 효과에 대한 연구 - 에 직면하며 심리 사회적인 역할갈등, 고립, 위축, 상실 감 등을 경험하게 된다. 이 시기동안 위기에 잘 대처하 지 못하면 자신에 대하여 실망하며 두려움과 슬픔 등 을 겪으면서 자아존중감이 낮아

歯1.PDF

다문화 가정의 부모

歯제7권1호(최종편집).PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: 3 * The Effect of H


230 한국교육학연구 제20권 제3호 I. 서 론 청소년의 언어가 거칠어지고 있다. 개ㅅㄲ, ㅆㅂ놈(년), 미친ㅆㄲ, 닥쳐, 엠창, 뒤져 등과 같은 말은 주위에서 쉽게 들을 수 있다. 말과 글이 점차 된소리나 거센소리로 바뀌고, 외 국어 남용과 사이버 문화의 익명성 등

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 및 자아존중감과 스트레스와도 밀접한 관계가 있고, 만족 정도 에 따라 전반적인 생활에도 영향을 미치므로 신체는 갈수록 개 인적, 사회적 차원에서 중요해지고 있다(안희진, 2010). 따라서 외모만족도는 개인의 신체는 타

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö


서론

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * The Effect of Paren

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Grounds and Cons

<626BBBE7B7CAB0FCB8AEC1F6C4A7BCAD30332E687770>

Jkcs022(89-113).hwp

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( :

Rheu-suppl hwp


歯5-4-04(윤치연외).PDF

hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Analysis of

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: : A basic research

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp DOI: IPA * Analysis of Perc

상담학연구. 10,,., (CQR).,,,,,,.,,.,,,,. (Corresponding Author): / / 567 Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: * The

03-서연옥.hwp

지난 2009년 11월 애플의 아이폰 출시로 대중화에 접어든 국내 스마트폰의 역사는 4년 만에 ‘1인 1스마트폰 시대’를 눈앞에 두면서 모바일 최강국의 꿈을 실현해 가고 있다

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

27 2, 1-16, * **,,,,. KS,,,., PC,.,,.,,. :,,, : 2009/08/12 : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/30 * ** ( :


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: NCS : * A Study on

54 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, I. 1.,,,,,,, (, 1998). 14.2% 16.2% (, ), OECD (, ) % (, )., 2, 3. 3

상담학연구 ADHD- : ) 2) 3) 4) 5).,.,. MMPI, K-CBCL, KPR-C,. (Corresponding Author): / / 47 / Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: * Early Childhood T

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

<BFA9BAD02DB0A1BBF3B1A4B0ED28C0CCBCF6B9FC2920B3BBC1F62E706466>

Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

untitled

ePapyrus PDF Document

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * The Effect of Boa

<C7D1B1B9B1A4B0EDC8ABBAB8C7D0BAB85F31302D31C8A35F32C2F75F E687770>

歯14.양돈규.hwp

歯7권2호.PDF

(5차 편집).hwp

歯남민4.PDF

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

04_이근원_21~27.hwp

00약제부봄호c03逞풚

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: The Effect of Caree

1. 연구대상 연구방법 196

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: A study on Characte

09김정식.PDF

,......

레이아웃 1

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

27 2, * ** 3, 3,. B ,.,,,. 3,.,,,,..,. :,, : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/21 : 2009/09/30 * ICAD (Institute for Children Ability

<31335FB1C7B0E6C7CABFDC2E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: * Suggestions of Ways

09구자용(489~500)

상담학연구,, SPSS 21.0., t,.,,,..,.,.. (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

김범수

강의지침서 작성 양식

인문사회과학기술융합학회


02À±¼ø¿Á


,,,,,,, ,, 2 3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (2001) 2

서론 34 2


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: Awareness, Supports

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: (LiD) - - * Way to

Transcription:

< 학술연구용역사업최종보고서 > 지역사회정신건강고위험군아동청소년추적관리코호트확대 (The follow-up and management system for children and adolescents at high-risk of mental health dwelling in community)

1) 2013-14. 2) ) : 1 2 3 SNS ) : 1 2013-14 68 2 18~18 60. - 1,, - - 1, - -

3) ) 2013-14 - 9 68 3, 1 11 68 24(35.3%). -, 9(37.5%), 6(25%), 9(25%) 2014. -. ) -, 18~6 80 SNS 60 CBCL 1, 57. -. - 57 16(28.07%). - SNS, 1:1. - ) - 9 230, 169(70%)

- 169 CES-D 76(45%), SIQ 45(26.6%), SDQ 9(5.3%), 36(21.3%), 45(26.6%), 21(12.4%). -, ADHD 267 68(25.5%). - 2, 10 CCTT 2(20%), Stroop 7(70%), ATA 9(90%), WCST 3(30%), KEDI-WISC 4) -. -,.,.,,,.

1) Objectives The purpose of this study was to expand the cohort established by the 2013-2014 study Development of a follow-up system of a community mental health high risk child and adolescent cohort to the infantile period, and apply the high risk assessment protocol and long-term follow up model, in order to detect and manage mental health high risk children at an earlier stage. 2) Methods ) Conduction System : 2 Detection of infants and children, adolescents with high susceptibility of mental health problems 3 Baseline assessment and detection of mental health high risk children 4 Long-term follow up system establishment through SNS services SNS ) Participants : 1 68 subjects from the 2013-2014 cohort study whose phone number is available 2 A cohort consisting of 60 18months 18 year old subjects whose parents are in the vulnerable class, or whose parents have agreed to their child s mental health monitoring regardless of being in the vulnerable class - Subjects who live in Jung-gu seoul and who have more than 1 parent with mental disorder, mental retardation, or chronic or rare incurable disease - Subjects who live in Jung-gu seoul and whose mother has experience postpartum depression - Subjects who live in Jung-gu seoul and who have more than 1 parent from a different cultural background or have escaped North Korea - Subjects who live in Jung-gu seoul and are from a livelihood protection household - Subjects who live in Jung-gu seoul and whose parent agrees to mental health monitoring of their child

3) Study results ) Follow up of 2013-2014 cohort - We monitored 68 high risk children from 9 districts in Seoul every 3 months by telephone, and we re-assessed 24 (35.3%) among 68 of the original cohort at the 1 year period in November. - Among them, 9 (37.5%) met the high risk criteria, 6 (25%) met the borderline risk criteria, and 9 (25%) met the normal children criteria, showing a similar ratio with 2014. - We confirmed the need for a systematic system for continuous cohort follow-up. ) Infants - We recruited 80 infants (18months ~ 6 year old) who are currently using the service of a community health center/ dietetic service due to vulnerability by diseases, poverty or multicultural backgrounds and 60 from the same age span by SNS. We sent the 1 st assessment form based on CBCL, and explained the results face-to-face and a total of 57 participated in the cohort study. -There were no significant differences between infants and toddlers from the vulnerable class who were already using public services and those who were not, based on the parent questionnaire. - Among the 57 in the infant cohort, 16 (2807%) were classified as mental health high risk. - We confirmed the effectiveness of SNS in the process of recruitment and assessment of the cohort, and we suggest that it is also an effective model for long-term cohort follow-up as it makes 1:1 communication with the parents possible. We also expect that mental health services along with nutritional-physical health services will promote participation in the long term cohort management. ) Community Center for children and adolescents - We assessed 230 children and adolescents from 9 high-risk community mental health centers, and 169 (70%) met the high-risk criteria and were enrolled in the study cohort. - Among the 169 high risk participants, 76 (45%) by CES-D depression scale, 45 (26.6%) from the SIQ suicidality scale, 9 (5.3%) from the SDQ hyperactivity scale, 36 (21.3%) with emotional symptoms, 45 (26.6%) with conduct behavior, 21 (12.4%) with peer problems were identified. - When analyzing the baseline assessment done by homeschool teachers, 68 (25.5%) among the 267 who underwent ADHD assessment were suspected to have ADHD.

- When analyzing the 2 nd assessment results, among the 10 who underwent neuropsychological tests, 2 (20%) from the CCTT, 7 (70%) from the Stroop, 9 (90%) from the ATA, 3 (30%) from the WCST exceeded the cut-off scores, and all had normal range IQ from the KEDI-WISC but there was some fluctuation in subtests to the level of borderline or retardation. 4) Expected effects - We suggest a new model by expanding the original high risk child and adolescent cohort. We propose a integrated model by combining new methodologies in infantile mental health examination and physical health-nutritional services, and also propose that community mental health centers can function as a new route to access the socioecomonical vulnerability class. We indent to establish a more wide-rage high risk cohort in the future.

,,. 2013 534 8.98%, 8.98%, 10~15%,,,..,

.. (, 2009).,. 8~10% 2005 2,672 ( 1,645, 649, 378) -(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD) 13.3%, 23%, 7.4%, 1 26%.,.,.,,.,,,,., 2011 ADHD 300.,.

14 48 76.3%(29). 2005 28%,. 14,.,.

(CAT) 1 - (STAI) 2 CoA 3 (K-LDES) 1 2 (K-CBCL) 3 ADHD (K-ARS)

1),, 2) 1) Korean version for Learning Disability Evaluation Scale (K-LDES): 2) (CAT):, 1) Children' Depression Inventory (CDI-II): 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) ADHD Rating Scale (ARS): 4) Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 1) (The Korean Version of Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: CAST-K) 2)

1),, 2) 1) (CAT):, 1) Children' Depression Inventory (CDI-II): -> Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): ((13 ) CDI-II BDI-II ) 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) ADHD Rating Scale (ARS): 4) Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 1) (The Korean Version of Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: CAST-K) 2) 1),, 2) 1) (CAT):, 1) Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) Korean-Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 4) Peters Delusions Inventory 21 (PDI-21) 5) Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale-Revised (LSHS-R) 6) - (YSR)

1) 2), SNS 1) SNS 2) 3 3) 6 4) 1:1 SNS 1) 404 SNS 173, 18 ~6 140 CBCL 1. 88 1

57. 2) 9 7~ 18 288, 147. 3) 2013-14 68 26 3, 15 15 11.

KM-CHAT (Korean Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers) CBCL 1.5-5 Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) CBCL 1.5-5 Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) ADHD (Korean ADHD Rating Scale, K-ARS) CBCL 6-18 Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)

(Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ-Kr) ADHD (Korean ADHD Rating Scale, K-ARS) (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ-Kr) ADHD (Korean ADHD Rating Scale, K-ARS) (The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale, CES-D) (The Reynolds ideation, SIQ_Reynolds) (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, SDQ-Kr) (Basic Empathy Scale, BES)

.

107 35 5 147 80 30 3 113 ( // /) 27 5 2 34

1) Korean version for Learning Disability Evaluation Scale (K-LDES): 2) (CAT):, 1) Children' Depression Inventory (CDI-II): 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) ADHD Rating Scale (ARS): 4) Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 1) (The Korean Version of Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: CAST-K) 2) 1) (CAT):, 1) Children' Depression Inventory (CDI-II): -> Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): ( (13 ) CDI-II BDI-II ) 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) ADHD Rating Scale (ARS): 4) Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 1) (The Korean Version of Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: CAST-K) 2)

1) Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): 2) Korean Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL): 3) Korean-Internet Addiction Test (IAT): 4) Peters Delusions Inventory 21 (PDI-21) 5) Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale-Revised (LSHS-R) 6) - (YSR) 1) (The Korean Version of Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: CAST-K) 2) 11 2 < >, < >.

(executiv e function) (response inhibition) Advenced Test of Attention, ATA Continuous Performance Test(CPT) 6~15 16 (working memory) Children's color trails test (CCTT) 6~15 Trail Making test, TMT A, B 16 (conflict monitoring) Color and Word test (Stroop) (EXIT)Stroo p 6~15 16

(Cognitive flexibility) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) 7 Comprehensive attentional test (CAT) 6~16 1) Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version-Korean Version (K-SADS-PL-K): Kaufman (1997) DSM-IV 32 (semi-structured interview). Kim (2004) ADHD, (tic disorder), ODD,,. 0, 1, 2, 3. (threshold diagnosis) (sub-threshold diagnosis) 2, 3 DSM-IV, 2. (definite diagnosis), (probable diagnosis).

2) (Korean Child Behavior Checklist: K-CBCL): Achenbach (1991) (, 1990;, 1996). K-CBCL 2 121 50 10 T-.,,.,, /,,,,,,,,,, 13. 3) ADHD (Korean ADHD Rating Scale-IV: K-ARS): DuPaul(1991) ADHD (, 2002). K-ARS DSM-IV ADHD 18. 0, 1, 2, 3. -. 4) (Disruptive Behavior Disorder Scale according to DSM-IV: DBDS): DSM-IV ADHD, ODD, CD. ADHD 18, ODD 8, CD 15 41. 0, 1, 2, 3.

5) : -(Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity: CGI-S), -(Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement: CGI-I),. (Children s Global Assessment Scale). 6) (Children's Depression Inventory, CDI): Kovacs Beck(1997),,, (BDI). 27, 0~2. 7) Beck (Beck Depression Inventory, BDI): Beck 1961,,,. 21, 0 3. 8) (Child Mania Rating Scale, CMRS):, 21. 0, 1, 2, 3. 9) (Young's Internet Addiction Scale, YIAS): Young(1998). 20, 1( ) 5( ). 29~39, 40~69, 70~100.

. 1) Advenced Test of Attention, ATA / Continuous Performance Test(CPT): ATA (continuous performance test: CPT) (2000). (omission error), (commission error), (mean reaction time), (standard deviation of reaction time) 4. 2) Children's color trails test (CCTT)/ Trail Making test, TMT A, B:,. (TMT) A 1 25, TMT B (,, ). (CCTT). CCTT 1 1 15, CCTT 2 1 15,.. 3) Color and Word test/ Stroop:. 3, 45 (W), (C). - (CW). -

., (EXIT), 1)( (C) ), 2)( ), 3) (- (CW) ),. 4) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST): 4 128,,,. 6, 1 10., 1,,, total error, perseveration response, perseveration error. 5) Comprehensive attentional test (CAT):,,,,, 5 6... 1) : Pharis(1978),,,,,,,, 13 5 (Pharis Self Confidence Scale: PSCS)., 11 55,. 2) KM-CHAT(Korean Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers)

: KM-CHAT 18 30. 23,, 23 3 6 2 2. 6 (2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 ) (Robins et al, 2001). SPSS..,.

36 63.2 () 21 36.8 57 100.0 18 1 1.8 18-23 4 7.0 24-35 17 29.8 36-47 22 38.6 48-59 7 12.3 60-71 6 10.5 57 100.0

1 14 24.6 2 30 52.6 3 6 10.5 4 3 5.3 53 93.0 4 7.0 57 100.0 48(84.2%), 53(92.9%). 13 22.8 10 17.5 35 61.4 43 75.4 7 12.3 3 5.3 55 96.5 56 98.2 2 3.5 1 1.8 57 100.0 57 100.0

., 29(50.9%), 32(56.1%). 1 1.8 0 0 13 22.8 1 1.8 16 28.1 5 8.8 10 17.5 11 19.3 6 10.5 3 5.3 1 1.8 3 5.3 8 14.0 2 3.5 2 3.5 32 56.1 57 100.0 57 100.0

, 19.3%(11) 200-300 56.1%, 17.5%. 1 1.8 5 8.8 32 56.1 10 17.5 4 7.0 52 91.2 5 8.8 57 100.0 100-200 1 1.8 200-300 11 19.3 300-400 3 5.3 400-500 5 8.8 500 3 5.3 23 40.4 34 59.6 57 100.0

-12, 13-24, 25-36 12, 13,,. -12 13-24 25-36 45 78.9 28 49.1 15 26.3 3 5.3 6 10.5 2 3.5 3 5.3 3 5.3 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 4 7.0 6 10.5 4 7.0 0 11 19.3 28 49.1 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 56 98.2 55 96.5 49 86.0 1 1.8 2 3.5 8 14.0 57 100.0 57 100 57 100

59 (25.7) 64 (24.0) 106 (46.1) 127 (47.6) 65 (28.3) 76 (28.5) 230 267

(%) () 1 (4.2) 106 (54.2) 65 (41.7) 14.96 (2.26) 24 (100) 1, 16. CBCL 1.5-6 T 60-64 : T 64 : T 65-70 : T 70 :

KM-CHAT BDI 1) 3 2) 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 2 16-23 : 24 : 1) 1 16 6, 10. 18-23 2 12.5 24-35 4 25 36-47 6 37.5 48-59 3 18.75 60-71 1 6.25 16 100.0.

() 1 3 4 1 3 4 4 2 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 4 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 KM-CHAT 2 0 2 1, 147. CES-D 0~15 : 16~24 : 25 : SIQ 0~5.

SDQ-KR BES K-ARS. 20 : 1) 10,, 40. 2) 17, 16, 20. : 1,2,4,5,7,8,11,13,15,17,18 : 3,6,9,10,12,14,16,19,20 19 17 1)

2), 169 CES-D 76(45%), SIQ 45 (26.6%), SDQ 9(5.3%), 36(21.3%), 45(26.6%), 21(12.4%). 2. < 2>, ADHD 267 68(25.5%)., 134(50.2%), 11(4.1%), 11(4.1%), 22(8.2%), 10(3.7%). < 3>

2),,.. (13.6% vs. 17.9% vs. 18.5%).. χ 2 P 36(61.0) 77(72.6) 41(63.1) 23(39.0) 29(27.4) 24(36.9) 0.035 0.851 51(86.4) 87(82.1) 53(81.5) 8(13.6) 19(17.9) 12(18.5) 0.508 0.476 28(47.5) 48(45.3) 39(60.0) 31(52.5) 58(54.7) 26(40.0) 2.058 0.151

57(96.6) 2(3.4) 50(84.7) 9(15.3) 48(81.4) 11(18.6) 50(84.7) 9(15.3) 103(97.2) 3(2.8) 96(90.6) 10(9.4) 91(85.8) 15(14.2) 101(95.3) 5(4.7) 61(93.8) 4(6.2) 50(76.9) 15(23.1) 49(75.4) 16(24.6) 60(92.3) 5(7.7) 0.666 0.414 1.668 0.196 0.821 0.365 2.144 0.143

1 19 2 17, 3 15 (, ), 4 16 (, ),, 5 13 6 19 (),, 7 14 8 14 9 13, (, ),, 10 14. 11 16. 12 12,, 13 10, () 14 14,, (, ) 15 17 (),. 16 18,, 17 13

18 15 (), 19 17 20 16 21 14 22 12,, () 23 16 24 15

A 21 B 22 C 24 D 7 E 5 F 13 G 6 H 16 I 7

,,,,, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4~6 9~12 - - 18~24 18~29 30~36 42~48 42~53 54~60 54~65 66~71 - ( :, : ) -

< 3-22>.

...

,,.

,.. (crisis).

Ⅲ,, 2013,, 2014,, 2013 2011,,,,. :., 1995: 34(4), 1182-1193..,.., 2003: 22(1) 125-139... J Korean Med Assoc 2009: 745-757..,, :... 1993.. 2005 :. 2005, https://childyouth.blutouch.net:6003/index.asp. Achenbach TM, Edelbrock C. Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont;1991. Beck. A. T., Kovac, M., & weissman, A. Assessment of Suicidal Intention: the

Scale for suicide ideation. Journal of Consulting and clinical Psychology. 1979;47: 343-352 Beck, A. T., Epstein. N., Brown G., Steer. R. A. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholgy. 1988;56(6); 893-897. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W. Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1996;67(3):588-597. Caplan G: Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. NY, Basic books, Inc.,1964 DuPaul GJ. Parent and teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms: psychometric properties in a community-based sample. J Clin Child Psychol 1991;20:245 53. Ha EH, Oh KJ, Hong KE, Lee HL. Reconstruction of the behavior problem scales of the Korean CBCL. The Seoul J of Psychiatry. 1996;20:45-52. Hong KE, Song HH, Kim ZS, Hong KJ, Park SS. An epidemiological study of behavior problems in Korean elementary school children by CBCL. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 1988;27:346-358. Jones, JW. The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: Test manual. Chicago: Camelot Unlimited, 1983. Jung, H.Y., Chang, J.S., Yi, J.S., Hwang, S., Shin, H.K., Kim, J.H., Cho, I.H., Kim, Y.S. Measuring psychosis proneness in a nonclinical Korean population: is the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory useful for assessing high-risk individuals? Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2008;49:202 210.

Kim YN, Chang JS, Hwang S, Yi JS, Cho IH, Jung HY. Psychometricproperties of Peters et al. Delusions Inventory-21 in adolescence. Psychiatry Research. 2013;207(3):189-94. Kim YS, So YK, Noh JS, Choi NK, Kim SJ, Koh YJ. Normative data on the Korean ADHD Rating Scales (K-ARS) for parents and teacher. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2003;42:352-359. Lazarus, R. S., Folkman, S. Stress, appraisal, and coping, Research, Theory, and Measurement in nursing, 1984. Liptak GS et al. Health care utilization and expenditures for children with autism: data from U.S. national samples. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Oct;36(7):871-9. Mrazek, PJ and Haggerty, RJ (eds.) : Institute of medicine:reducing Risks for Mental Disorders:Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1994. Oh KJ, Lee HL. Development of korean child behavior checklist: a preliminary study. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 1990;29:452-462. Peters, E.R, Joseph, S.A, Garety, P.A. Measurement of delusional ideation in the normal population: Introducing the PDI (Peters et al. Delusions Inventory). Schizophrenia Bulletin. 1999; 25(3): 553-576. Peters E, Joseph S, Day S, Garety P. Measuring delusional ideation: the 21-item Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI). Schizophr Bulletin. 2004;30(4):1005-22. Remschmidt H. Belfer M. Mental health care for children and adolescents Worldwide: A review. World Psychiatry, 2005, 4:3:147-153.

Rosenberg. Society and the adolescent self-image, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1965. So YK, Noh JS, Kim YS, Ko SG, Koh YJ. The reliability and validity of Korean parent and teacher ADHD rating scale. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2002;41:283-289. Yoo HI, Lee JS, et al. Standardization of the Comprehensive Attention Test for the Korean Children and Adolescents. J Kor Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2009;20:68-75.