Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.289-314 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21024/pnuedi.26.3.201612.289 * Meta Analysis : Trends and Effects of Art-Therapy with Clay Purpose: This study was intended to analyze and examine the overall research trends about an art-therapy mainly with clay to verify the effectiveness of individual studies thereon, and by which to provide basic materials being useful in composing and operating objective and effective programs in utilizing clay for the art-therapy in the future. Method: The research trends were analyzed on 91 these and academic journals relating to the art-therapy mainly with clay, which were published in South Korea from 1994 to March 2016, and those theses and academic journals were analyzed using technical statistics with frequency and percentage. Further, 28 of them were classified separately and analyzed using a professional meta-analysis program, CMA(Comprehensive Meta Analysis)3.0. Moreover, those were analyzed using Q statistic of CMA, in order to figure out meaningful differences among related variables. Results: According to the overall research trends about the art-therapy mainly with clay medium, the general trend was as follows: the preliminary targets were children; the single target therapy and the group target therapy were performed on them for recovering psychological health; and the art-therapy was conducted 31~60 minutes per session and totally 16-20 sessions. According to the results verifying the effectiveness using meta-analysis, the greatest effect appeared in case of targeting the group of 7 or less infants, aiming at self-development, and conducting it 91-120 minutes per session and totally 16-20 sessions. Discussions and Conclusion: It is expected that more effective programs for a variety of objects would be developed considering the characteristics of researchers and the subjects of researches in composing the art-therapy program mainly with clay in the future, and the follow-up studies which verify the effectiveness on the therapeutic factors of clay would be conducted. Key words : clay, art-therapy, meta-analysis * 1. Corresponding Author: Lee, Keun-Mae. Pyeongtaek University, Dept. of Graduate School of Counseling, 3825 Seodong-daero, Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. e-mail: Ikmae@ptu.ac.kr
.., (,, 2015;, 2008;,,, 2015;, 2014). (,, 2000),.., (,, 2015).,., (,, 2014).,,. (,, 2015). 4,367 (2016 3, ),,, 2,600. (, 2013),..
()., ( ). (2013).. 1994 (, 1994) (2016) (2016),., (, 2006) (,, 2010).. 2016 3 26. (, 2010) (2014), (, 2015;, 2010;, 2011;, 2008;, 2011;,, 2014;, 2004;, 2013;, 2013;, 2013;, 2004;, 2015;,, 2010),, (, 2010;, 2011;,, 2012;, 2015;, 2008;, 2010;, 2003;,, 2014),, (, 2015;, 2014).,..,?,?
. 1994 2016 3 KCI, 2016 3 1 4 30,., (www.nanet.go.kr), (www.riss.kr), www.kiss.kstudy.com), (www.scholar.dkyobobook.co.k).,,,,,,,,,,., 102, 24., 91, 91., 91,,,,. -, (effect size),. 28. 91 28.,. (,,,,, 2011;,, 2014;,, 2014),,,,
,. < -1>. 1994~2000, 2001~2005, 2006~2010, 2011~2016,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -,,, 10, 11~15, 16~20, 21 30, 31~60, 61~90, 91~120,,, 1) 연도별유형분석기준 1994~2000, 2001~2005, 2006~2010, 2011~2016. 2) 연구대상분석기준,.,,,,,.,.,.,. 3) 연구주제분석기준,,,,,,.,,,
, (2011) < -2>. 2.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (, ),,,,, 4) 연구유형분석기준,.,,.,,,,,,. 5) 연구방법분석기준,,., -,,,., 10, 11~15, 16~20, 21., 30, 31 ~60, 61 ~90, 91. 6) 효과크기분석기준,,., (,,,,,,
,, ).,,,,,,,.,,,.,,. 10, 11~15, 16~20, 21. 30, 31 ~60, 61 ~90, 91.,,., CMA(Comprehensive Meta Analysis)3.0. CMA Q. [ -1]. 1 단계 연구문제및가설설정 2 단계 연구자료의범위선정및수집 3 단계 분석자료의특성확인및코딩 4 단계 메타분석 5 단계 분석결과의제시및해석 - 분석대상논문수집 - 논문선정기준수립 - 분석대상논문평정 - 분석대상논문선정 - 자료처리및분석방법 - 코딩매뉴얼및코딩표개발 - 수집된자료검토 - 자료의전산입력 ( 코딩 ) - 효과크기의산출및해석 - 평균효과크기의신뢰구간산정 - 결과제시유형선택 - 효과크기해석 6 단계연구결과기술
(effect size), (Lipscy & Wilsin, 2002),., (, 2002). [ -2]. :, :, : :., 95% 0, 0., Cohen(1992) 0.2, 0.5, 0.8., 50%,. (inter rater-reliability) 1 1.., 1 90.4%, 2 98.8%, 3 100%
. 일치수평가자간신뢰도 일치수 불일치수. Higgins Q. (Fixed effects model), (Random effects model). Q <.05. Higgins 0~40%, 30~60%, 50~90%, 75~100%,.. 1) 연도별연구동향 < -1>. < -1> 2000 2 2001. 2006~2010 35 (38.5%), 2011~2016 2 31 (34%).
(%) 1994~2000 2 2.2 2001~2005 23 25.3 2006~2010 35 38.5 2011~2016 31 34.0 91 100.0 2) 연구대상별연구동향 (1) < -2>. 51 (56%). 14 (15.4%), 10 (11%), 6 (6.5%). (%) 10 11.0 51 56.0 14 15.4 10 11.0 6 6.5 91 100.0 (2) < -3>. 45 (49.5%), 46 (50.5%). (%) 45 49.5 46 50.5 91 100.0 (3)
< -4>. < -4> 58 (63.7%), 33 (36.3%). (%) 33 36.3 58 63.7 91 100.0 3) 연구주제별연구동향 < -5>. < -5> 44 (40.0%). 25 (22.7%), 24 (21.8%), 7 (6.4%), 6 (5.5%), 2 (1.8%). () (%) 24 21.8 44 40.0 7 6.4 25 22.7 6 5.5 2 1.8 2 1.8 110 100.0 4) 연구유형별연구동향 (1) < -6>. < -6> 75 (82.4%), 2 (2.2%), 14 (15.4%).
(%) 75 82.4 2 2.2 14 15.4 91 100.0 (2) < -7>. 91 50 (54.9%), 12 (13.2%), 10 (11%), 5 (5.5%), 3 (3.3%), 10 (111%). 10,. (%) 50 54.9 3 3.3 10 11.0 12 13.2 5 5.5 1 1.1 10 11.0 91 100.0 5) 연구방법별연구동향 (1) < -8>. 44 (48.4%), - 28 (30.8%), 19 (20.9%).
(%) - 28 30.8 19 20.9 44 48.4 91 100.0 (2) < -9>. < -9> 16~20 36 (39.6%), 11~15 29 (31.9%), 21 18 (19.8%), 10 8 (8.8%). (%) 10 8 8.8 11~15 29 31.9 16~20 36 39.6 21 18 19.8 91 100.0 < -10>. 16~20 23 (50.0%), 11~15 19 (42.2%). (%) (%) 10 0 0 8 17.8 11~15 10 21.7 19 42.2 16~20 23 50.0 12 26.7 21 13 28.3 6 13.3 46 100.0 45 100.0 (3) < -11>. 1 31~60 57 (62.6%), 61~90 17 (18.7%), 30 8 (6.6%),
91~120 2 (2.2%) 9. (%) 30 8 6.6 31~60 57 62.6 61~90 17 18.7 91~120 2 2.2 9 9.9 91 100.0 < -12>. 31~60 35 (76.1%), 30 5 (10.9%). 31~60 22 (48.9%), 61~90 15 (33.3%). (%) (%) 30 5 10.9 1 2.2 31~60 35 76.1 22 48.9 61~90 2 4.3 15 33.3 91~120 1 2.2 1 2.2 3 6.5 6 13.3 46 100.0 45 100.0 1) 점토매체중심미술치료연구의전체평균효과크기 28, 77. 68.319 Higgins(2003). < -13>.
Q-value df(q) P-value 239.89 76 0.000 68.319 < -13>, 1.259 95% 1.059~1.459, 0.000. [ -1]. [ -1] 50%, (Percentiles of nonoverlap : U3) 89.6%, 39.6%. 2) 점토매체중심미술치료연구의연구주제별평균효과크기, 1.860, 1.586, 1.374, 1.168, 1.107. Cohen(1992), 0.80. < -14>. < -14> (Q=4.770, >.05).
n ES U3 SE 95% Q 6 1.860 96.86.387 1.102 2.618 43 1.107 86.59.136.841 1.373 6 1.586 94.36.358.884 2.288 4.770.312 / 18 1.374 91.53.226.931 1.817 4 1.168 87.86.306.569 1.767 *,,,,. 3) 점토매체중심미술치료연구의연구방법별평균효과크기 (1), 1.840, 1.131,.678. < -15>. < -15> (Q=8.779, <.05). 95% n ES U3 SE Q 58 1.131 87.10.114.909 1.354 2.678 75.11.268.153 1.204 8.779.012* 17 1.840 96.71.228 1.394 2.287 n:, ES:, U3:, SE: Cohen(1992) 0.80, 0.678..
(2), 16~20 2.951, 11~15 1.208, 10.970, 21.037. Cohen(1992) 10, 11~15 16~20 0.8, 21 0.037. < -16>. < -16> (Q=16.997, <.05). n ES U3 SE 95% 10 22.985 83.77.179.634 1.335 11~15 40 1.237 89.20.135.973 1.501 16~20 13 2.220 98.68.285 1.662 2.779 21 2.037 51.48.474 -.892.967 Q 16.997.012* n:, ES:, U3:, SE: 16~20, 21. (3), 91~120 1.591, 61~90 1.337, 60 1.248, 1.196. Cohen(1992) 0.8. < -17>. < -17> (Q=.276, >.05).
95% n ES U3 SE Q 60 56 1.248 89.40.123 1.007 1.490 61~90 14 1.337 90.94.248.850 1.823.276.965 91~120 1 1.591 94.42.513.585 2.597 6 1.196 88.42.337.536 1.856 n:, ES:, U3:, SE:...,, 2000, 2006 10 72.5%. (,,,,, 2011;, 2014) (,, 2014;,, 2015) (,, 2012;, 2013).,. (, 2015),. (,,,,, 2011) (, 2010),. (, 2016) 75%, 25%.
., (, 2015),.,,. 31~60 1, 16~20, 31~60 1, 11~15. (, 2008;, 2014;, 2010),., 77 (ES) 1.259. Cohen(1992), (2010) 1.89 (2011) 0.94, (2011) 1.25, (2013) 2.14,, (2014) 0.971., (2003) 1.04, (2010) 1.22, (2014) 0.226, (2008) 2.89, (2010) 1.79,, (2012) 1.93. 1.382, 0.687 0.924 Cohen(1992). (2010) 2.18 (2013) 2.47.,. 7 2.256.,. 4~6 (2003) 7 (2010).
(ES=1.860). (2008), (2011) (2011), (2013),, (2014)., (ES=1.840), 16~20 2.220, 11~15, 10. 21. 16~20 (2011), (2015), 11~15, (2014). 91~120 1.591, (2010).,. (, 2011;, 2005), (, 2011;, 2012;,,, 2012;, 2002),.. (2011)... (2010)...
,,,, (2011).. (2), 463-483., (2000). :., (2014).. (3), 87-109., (2015). :. (4), 1085-1110., (2015).. (2), 59-77. (2011)... (2014)... (2016)... (2010)... (2011)... (2012).. (2), 229-247. (2008)... (2011).,..,, (2012).. (3), 23-45., (2015). PTSD PTSD. (3), 899-924., (2014).. (5), 875-897. (2011)... (2002). :. (2010)...
(2013).. 17-35., (2012).. (3), 461-484. (2013). :.. (2015)... (2015)... (2015). :.. (2016). : 2010-2015.. (2008). ADHD.. (2010)... (2002)... (2013)... (2003)... (2015).. (2), 141-155.,, (2015).. (4), 339-356. (2014).. (2), 161-184. (2013).. 91-104. (2016)... (2015)...
(2005)... (2015)... (2006)... (1994)..., (2014).. (1), 1-19. (2014)..., (2014).. (6), 1203-1227. (2010)... (2014). :.., (2010).. (2) 31-49. Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. NY: Academic Press. Lipscy, M. W., & Wilsin, D. B. (2002). Statistical selection effect in meta-analysis. CA: Sage Publication. : 2016.10.31 / : 2016.12.5 / : 2016.12.20
* 1 2003 2 2003 3 2005 ADHD 4 2005 5 2006 6 2007 7 2007 ADHD 8 2008 9 2009, : 10 2009 : 11 2011 12 2011 13 2011 14 2012 15 2012 16 2012 17 2012 18 2012 19 2013 1
( ) 20 2013 21 2013 22 2013 23 2013 24 2014 25 2015 26 2015 27 2015 28 2016 (Tic)
:. : 1994 2016 3 91,,. 28 CMA(Comprehensive Meta Analysis)3.0. CMA Q. :, 31~60 16~20. 7, 91~120, 16~20. :.