.. (Figley, 2002).,,,,,,, (,, 2015; Stamm, 2010). (,, ; )..,.,. DSM-5(American Psychiatry Association, 2013) ( A4) , (secondary traumatic stress

Similar documents
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

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

표 4

- * (32 ), ,,,, * 2013 ( ) (KRF-2013S1A3A ). :,, 3 53 Tel : ,

상담학연구,,.,., 117,.,,.,.,,... (Corresponding Author): /, ( ) / Tel : /

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

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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

Rheu-suppl hwp

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


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: - K * The Analysis

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

., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, 23 3 (, ) () () 25, (),,,, (,,, 2015b). 1 5,


<30392EB9DAB0A1B6F72CC1A4B3B2BFEE2E687770>

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

,......


상담학연구 * Shelton(1990) Eden(2001).. D 480,, 425..,... * (Corresponding Author): / / ( ) 1370 Tel: /


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * Relationship among

380 Hyun Seok Choi Yunji Kwon Jeongcheol Ha 기존 선행연구에서는 이론연구 (Ki, 2010; Lee, 2012), 단순통계분석 (Lee, 2008), 회귀분석 (Kim, 2012)과 요인분석 (Chung, 2012), 경로분석 (Ku,

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp DOI: : * A Study on the

:,,,. (,, ), (,,,, ),,. 559 ( 205, 203, 151; 132, 427).,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,..,. :,, ( )

(5차 편집).hwp

<31392EC0CCC1F6B9CE2CC8ABC3A2C8F12E687770>

歯5-2-13(전미희외).PDF

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

,......

,.,., Taylor Frazer(1982)., (1 ), (2 ),,,, (3 ), (4 ), (5 ) (, 2016 ).,,, (Adams, Figley, & Boscarino, 2008; Creamer & Liddle, 2005;

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



인문사회과학기술융합학회

<3131BAB8B0C7BBE7C8B8BFACB1B85FC3D6BCD2BFAC2E687770>

<303720C7CFC1A4BCF86F6B2E687770>

가족스트레스와 가정생활만족도 간의 관계에서 자아분화의 매개효과

歯유성경97.PDF

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

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

202 김 수 현 원 영 신 있으므로, 이러한 선수들의 긍정적인 태도를 높여 구 단의 성과를 향상시킬 수 있는 조직적 차원의 연구가 요구된다 하겠다. 따라서 선수들을 대상으로 한 프로 구단의 조직성과 제고에 관한 학문적 작업은 중요한 연구과제인 것이다. 최근 조직 커뮤

상담학연구 : *.,,,,, (N=495)..,.,.. * (2013). (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: /

- 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


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

.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,, (, 2011)..,,, (, 2009)., (, 2000;, 1993;,,, 1994;, 1995), () 65, 4 51, (,, ). 33, 4 30, (, 201

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

서론

44-6대지.08김정희-5

*. (N=439) 68.11(±18.47), (Posttraumatic Risk Checklist: PRC), (Impact of Event Scale-Revised: IES-R) (Multidimensional Fear of Death Scale: MFODS).,.

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

歯5-4-04(윤치연외).PDF

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

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

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

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

<303420B9E8C1A4BCB7BFF8B5B5BFACC1B6B1A4B9CE2E687770>

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

상담학연구 * ,. SAS,,, Sobel test., (,, ), (, ), (, ) (,, ).,,,.,.. * (Corresponding Author): / / / Tel: / j

歯14.양돈규.hwp

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp DOI: * Relationship Betw

,.,,. (Vocational Ethics) (, 1999), Brown(2012). (, 2004).,,,,, ,400 (,,, 2011;, 2006)., (, 2006; Brown, 2012). (harm) (, 2006). NCDA(National

<5BC0AFBEC6B1E2C7E0BAB9B0A85D20C0CEBCE2BFEB20C3D6C1BEBABB5F F312E687770>

. (2013) % % 2. 1% (,, 2014).. (,,, 2007). 41.3% (, 2013). (,,,,,, 2010)... (2010),,, 4.,.. (2012), (2010),., (,, 2009).... (, 2012).

통일과 인문학(통일교육원) 본문(최종인쇄본).indd

<323820C3D6C7FCBDC92D20C8AEC0CEC0FB20BFE4C0CEBAD0BCAEC0BB20C5EBC7D12E687770>


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

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


(conversion disorder),, (,,, 2000;,, 1996;, 2002; Kozlowska, Scher, & Williams, 2011; Uijen & Bischoff, 2011). (,, 1996;,, 2001;, 2004; Ruddy & House,

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

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

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

歯정남운(최종).PDF

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

歯1.PDF

,......

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

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

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

* (Continuing Bonds Scale: CBS) ( K-CBS),. 1 (293 ), 10, 52.59%. K-CBS (200 ), , K-CBS,, K-CBS.. K-CBS. K-CBS.,. * 2014 ( ) (NRF-2014S1A

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

상담학연구 *,. 41 -, ,,, 82,,, Likert..96,.94,.88,.89, ,. (CCR: Conflict Over Child Rearing) (DSC: Dissatisfaction With Childre

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특

<C1A63238B1C731C8A328C6EDC1FDC1DF292E687770>

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

, :. CQS,. 143 CQS, CQS. CQS, CQS.. :,, 366 Tel : ,

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

혐오의 시대에 맞서는 성소수자에 대한 12가지 질문

278 경찰학연구제 12 권제 3 호 ( 통권제 31 호 )

원고스타일 정의

저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

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 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: * A Study on the Re

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: ICT * Exploring the Re

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

歯7권2호.PDF

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

Transcription:

(K-ProQOL 5) * (Professional Quality of Life Scale, ProQOL 5; Stamm, 2010). ProQOL 5 489, 1 299. K-ProQOL 5,, -.,,, 3.,. 79 4 - -.,,. K-ProQOL 5. * 2014 ( ) (NRF-2014S1A3A2038236). (Corresponding Author) :,, 11-1 Tel : 02-3277-2643 / E-mail : ahn12@ewha.ac.kr

.. (Figley, 2002).,,,,,,, (,, 2015; Stamm, 2010). (,, ; )..,.,. DSM-5(American Psychiatry Association, 2013) ( A4).. 1990, (secondary traumatic stress, STS), (burnout, BO), (compassion fatigue, CF), (vicarious traumatization, VT). (McCann & Pearlman, 1990),.,,,,.

. (CF), PTSD. (Figley, 2002), (Adams, Boscario, & Figley, 2006). Empathy Fatigue(Stebnicki, 2007). Stamm (2010) (STS) (BO). (STS),, PTSD.,. (BO),,,,.,, 3 (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), (,,, ). (Cieslak et al., 2013).,.. (Impact of Event Scale-Revised, IES-R; Weiss, 2004), (Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale, TABS; Pearlman, 2003),

(Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale, STSS; Bride, Robinson, Yegidis, & Figley, 2004), (Professional Quality of Life Scale, ProQOL; Stamm, 2010).. IES-R (Impact of Event Scale, IES; Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979) (intrusion) (avoidance), (hyperarousal) 22. (, 2011), (, 2012). TABS (vicarious trauma) TSI (Traumatic Stress Institute Belief Scale, Pearlman, 1996). TABS (,,,,, ) 84, (self) (others) 10. (, 2012;,, 2015), (, 2015), (, 2016) TABS. IES-R TABS STSS ProQOL. STSS,,, 17. (,, 2011), (, 2012;,, 2015), (, 2015), (, 2012), (, 2016)., ProQOL Figley(1995) CFST(Compassion Fatigue Self-Test). CFST (compassion satisfaction) CSFT(Compassion Satisfaction and Fatigue Test; Stamm & Figley, 1996) 2005 ProQOL. STSS, ProQOL (CS) (CF). (Hensel et al., 2015) 38

23 ProQOL(17 ) CFST(6 )., ProQOL (,,, 2015;,, 2014a). (, 2007),,,, (,,, 2015), (,, 2012;,, 2012;,, 2014;,, 2014b).. (2010) ProQOL. ProQOL. ProQOL ProQOL 5(Stamm, 2010) 30. ProQOL 5 (compassion satisfaction, CS) (compassion fatigue, CF), 2, (burnout, BO) (secondary traumatic stress, STS). 10 30, 5 (1=, 5= ). (1, 4, 15, 17, 27). ProQOL 5 T. T 25% (%tile) 25%tile 75%tile,,. ProQOL 5 25%tile T 44, 43, 42, 75%tile 57, 56, 56. ProQOL 5,. ProQOL 5 (CS), (BO), (STS)

. Stamm(2010) 1. ProQOL 5., ProQOL 5,,,. ProQOL 5. Stamm(2010). ( K-ProQOL 5) CS BO STS.. CS BO STS CS BO STS CS BO STS CS BO STS.... PTSD..,,. CS=compassion satisfaction; BO=burnout; STS=secondary traumatic stress.

. ProQOL 5. ProQOL 5. ProQOL (Stamm, 2010),. K-ProQOL 5. K-ProQOL 5. Stamm(2010) ProQOL 5,.. ProQOL 5, (IRB). 489 ProQOL 5,.,.. (,,,,,,,,, ), (,,,,,,, ). 6 ( 200 ) (289 ) 489

. - 4, 156 79. 1. 299. PTSD (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) 1 299. 299. 271 (90.6%), 26 (8.7%), 37.80 (SD = 8.13; =25 ~62 ), (239, 79.9%) (43, 14.4%), (17, 5.7%). (162, 54.2%), (52, 17.4%), (,,, ; 25, 8.3%), 60(20.1%)., 67.92 (SD= 50.66; =4 ~240 ), 16.66 (SD=10.90; =1 ~50 ), 7.05 (SD=8.48; =1 ~48 ).,,., (F=8.38, p<.001) (M=104.29, SD=60.92) (M=68.76, SD=48.57) (M=69.60, SD=73.80). (F=6.86, p<.01) (M=14.55, SD=9.25) (M=19.27, SD= 11.66) (M=20.07, SD=14.18). (F=6.72, p<.01) (M=10.71, SD=12.86) (M=5.69, SD= 6.37) (M=6.76, SD=7.78). ProQOL 5(Stamm, 2010). (forward-adaptation) 1

(Brislin, 1970:, 2003 ). (, 2003). ProQOL 5. 1 3 ProQOL 5. 1 2, 1, 1. 1 1 K-ProQOL 5. (Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI) (Maslach & Jackson, 1981),, (2002) MBI K-ProQOL 5 (BO). MBI (Emotional Exhausion, 9 ), (Depersonalization, 5 ), (Personal Accomplishment, 8 ) 3 7 Likert (0 = ~6= )., K-ProQOL 5 CS. MBI Cronbach s.87,.58,.85. (Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale, PDS) (Foa, Cashman, Jaycox, & Perry, 1997) DSM-IV 1:1 17. 4 (0= /, 1= 1 1 /, 2= 1 /2~4, 3= /5 ) 20 (,,, 2010). (2005) PDS K-ProQOL 5 (STS)

. Cronbach s.93. CES-D(Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D) CES-D(Rdloff, 1977) CES-D(,,, 2001). CES-D 20 4 Likert (0= /1, 1= /1~2, 2= /3~4, 3= /5~7 ) (4, 8, 12, 16). CES-D K-ProQOL 5 Cronbach s.91. (Trauma History Checklist THC) (,,, 2015) DSM-5(APA, 2013) A. THC ( ) ( ),,,. K-ProQOL 5,, -,, (Cronbach s α). K-ProQOL 5-4. K-ProQOL 5., K-ProQOL 5.., RMSEA, CFI, TLI. RMSEA(Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation) 0.08.08.10 (, 2000; Hu & Bentler, 1999) TLI(Tucker Lewis Index) CFI(Comparative Fit Index) 0 1.90 (, 2000; Bentler, 1990). K-ProQOL 5,,

M SD - Cronbach s α α 3 3.71 0.76.72.88 6 2.97 0.90.59.89.89 12 3.85 0.86.69.88 16 3.47 0.98.59.89 18 3.63 0.84.76.87 (CS) 20 3.24 0.89.73.88 22 3.57 0.88.72.88 24 3.68 0.82.77.87 27 3.12 0.85.75.87 30 3.66 0.80.78.87 1 2.53 0.74.53.72.74 4 2.29 0.75.44.73 8 1.75 0.80.54.72 10 2.00 0.93.70.69 15 2.06 0.90.51.73 (BO) 17 2.84 0.89.62.71 19 2.82 1.05.71.69 21 2.64 1.10.47.74 26 2.37 1.15.60.72 29 2.39 0.82.37.75 2 2.87 0.78.48.80.80 5 2.61 1.09.41.82 7 2.39 1.05.68.77 9 2.39 0.98.65.78 11 2.27 1.07.72.77 13 2.34 0.96.68.77 (STS) 14 2.11 0.91.62.78 23 2.19 0.93.55.79 25 2.20 0.95.67.77 28 1.69 0.76.52.79

K-ProQOL 5. K-ProQOL 5 T, Scheffe, Dunnett T3. AMOS 18.0 SPSS 18.0. K-ProQOL 5 -,, ( 2)., (0.7 ), -.30, (, 2006)., 2.97~3.85(SD= 0.76~0.98), 1.75~2.84(SD=0.74~1.15), 1.69~2.87(SD= 0.76~1.09). ProQOL 5 Likert 1-5 3,,. -.59~.78,.37 ~.71,.41~.72,. Cronbach's α.89,.74,.80. 2, BO 29.01 5.02. K-ProQOL 5 30. 34.88(SD=6.08), 23.71(SD=5.08), 23.06(SD=5.71). K-ProQOL 5 -

70.81(p<.001),.71(p<.001),.65(p<.001) -. K-ProQOL 5 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA)., ProQOL 5 ( 1). Stamm(2010), 1, 2 (CF) (CS) 2 2. 3,, 3, K-ProQOL 5 3., Stamm. ProQOL 5 3 3.

3 (Kline, 2011), K-ProQOL 5 10 (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). (item parceling) (Kiston & Widaman, 1994).,, (Bandalos, 2002)., (unidimensionality). (Construct Reliability, CR) (Average Variance Extracted, AVE),.70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998),.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). K-ProQOL 5 1 5. (Construct Reliability, CR) (Average Variance Extracted, AVE),.89,.77,.81.68,.52,.55 df RMSEA (90% ) CFI TLI 1 740.02 90 8.22.156 (.145-.166).68.62 2 393.69 89 4.42.107 (.096-.118).85.82 3 245.68 87 2.82.078 (.067-.090).92.91. RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Comparative Fit Index.

. 0.38 0.70 1.47, 0.52 0.99. 3. 1 ( =740.02, df=90; RMSEA=.156; CFI=.68; TLI=.62) 2 ( =393.69, df=89; RMSEA=.107; CFI=.85; TLI=.82) 3 ( =245, df=87; RMSEA=.078; CFI=.92; TLI=.91) K-ProQOL 5 3 C.R. (CS) CS 1 1.00 0.77 *** CS 2 0.94 0.78 *** 0.07 13.80 CS 3 1.06 0.82 *** 0.07 14.80 CS 4 0.99 0.79 *** 0.07 14.04 CS 5 0.97 0.79 *** 0.07 14.10 (BO) BO 1 1.00 0.71 *** BO 2 1.00 0.50 *** 0.12 18.16 BO 3 0.89 0.64 *** 0.09 10.35 BO 4 1.08 0.66 *** 0.10 10.57 BO 5 0.83 0.66 *** 0.08 10.57 (STS) STS 1 1.00 0.61 *** STS 2 0.96 0.65 *** 0.11 8.82 STS 3 0.88 0.61 *** 0.10 8.40 STS 4 1.24 0.70 *** 0.13 9.33 STS 5 1.44 0.80 *** 0.14 10.08. CS=compassion satisfaction; BO=burnout; STS=secondary traumatic stress. *** p <.001.

1 2 3 1. (CS) - 2. (BO) -.77 *** - 3. (STS) -.29 ***.77 *** -. *** p<.001.. 4 3.77~.82,.50~.71,.61-~.80 (p<.001). -.77, -.29,.77 ( 5). K-ProQOL 5 K-ProQOL 5 CES-D, PDS, MBI 6. K-PorQOL 5 (CS) MBI (r=.66, p<.001), CED-D(r=-.39, p<.001), PDS(r=-.26, p<.001), MBI (r=-.34, p<.001) (r=-.41, p<.001). K-PorQOL 5 (BO) MBI (r=-.40, p<.001), (r=-.63, p<.001) (r=.53, p<.001). CED-D(r=.61, p<.001) PDS(r=.51, p<.001) K-ProQOL 5 (concurrent validity). K-ProQOL 5 (STS) PDS (r=.58, p<.001), CED-D(r=.45, p<.001). MBI (r=.57, p<.001), (r=.47, p<.001) (r=-.10, p>.05). K-ProQOL 5 T 2, 25%tile 75%tile 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. K-ProQOL CS - 2. K-ProQOL BO -.61 *** - 3. K-ProQOL STS -.25 ***.64 *** - 4. CES-D -.39 ***.61 ***.45 *** - 5. PDS -.26 ***.51 ***.58 ***.56 *** - 6. MBI -.34 ***.63 ***.57 ***.51 ***.44 *** - 7. MBI.66 *** -.40 *** -.10 -.30 *** -.10 -.04-8. MBI -.41 ***.53 ***.47 ***.43 ***.45 ***.62 *** -.21 *** - M (SD) 34.88 (6.08) 23.71 (5.08) 23.06 (5.71) 14.82 (9.25) 7.75 (7.73) 24.40 (9.55) 32.87 (7.21) 7.27 (5.20). CS=compassion satisfaction; BO=burnout; STS=secondary traumatic stress; CES-D=Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; PDS=Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale; MBI=Maslach Burnout Inventory. *** p <.01. (CS) 42 43 ~54 55 (BO) 44 45 ~58 59 (STS) 42 43 ~55 56. T 1) 42 ( =30 ), 43 ( =31 ) ~54 ( =37 ), 55 ( =38 ), 2) 44 ( =20 ), 45 ( =21 ) ~58 ( =27 ), 59 ( =28 ), 3) 42 ( =18 ), 43 ( =19 ) ~55 ( =25 ), 56 ( =26 ).,, PDS, CES-D, MBI. 8

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F n=68 (22.7%) n=153 (51.2%) n=78 (26.1%) PDS 11.61 (9.88) 7.09 (7.06) 5.74 (5.60) F(2,292)=12.24 *** >, a (CS) CES-D 20.20 (10.45) 14.65 (7.76) 10.58 (8.64) F(2,288)=21.73 *** > > a MBI 27.91 (10.57) 24.72 (8.41) 20.72 (9.56) F(2,295)=11.19 ***, > b MBI 9.85 (6.00) 7.68 (4.74) 4.23 (3.66) F(2,296)=87.64 *** > > a MBI 26.24 (6.28) 32.66 (5.87) 38.91 (4.88) F(2,294)=25.90 *** < < b n=67 (22.4%) n=187 (62.5%) n=45 (15.1%) PDS 4.72 (4.82) 6.92 (6.68) 15.82 (9.97) F(2,292)=37.69 ***, < a (BO) CES-D 8.81 (8.34) 14.74 (7.22) 24.14 (10.72) F(2,288)=46.41 *** < < a MBI 17.22 (6.71) 24.54 (7.93) 34.51 (10.06) F(2,295)=62.36 *** < < a MBI 4.18 (3.29) 7.21 (4.60) 12.16 (6.20) F(2,296)=15.08 *** < < a MBI 35.97 (6.77) 32.77 (6.94) 28.69 (6.87) F(2,294)=40.03 *** > > b n=71 (23.7%) n=151 (50.5%) n=77 (25.8%) (STS) PDS 3.35 (3.69) 6.72 (6.20) 13.86 (9.39) F(2,292)=48.19 *** < < a CES-D 9.56 (7.28) 14.80 (8.65) 19.67 (9.45) F(2,288)=24.80 *** < < b MBI 17.11 (7.01) 24.37 (7.68) 31.28 (9.96) F(2,295)=55.02 *** < < a MBI 4.23 (3.98) 7.16 (4.39) 10.31 (5.94) F(2,296)=30.39 *** < < a MBI 33.79 (8.13) 33.02 (7.04) 31.77 (6.60) F(2,294)=1.50. PDS=Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale; CES-D=Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; MBI=Maslach Burnout Inventory. a = Dunnet T3, b = Scheffe. *** p<.001.., PDS MBI. PDS. MBI.

ProQOL 5.,,., K-ProQOL 5 (CS), (BO), (STS). -.77,.77, -.29. Stamm(2010). Stamm. K-ProQOL 5 MBI,..,., (Bride, Jones, & Macmaster, 2007; Jenkins & Baird, 2002; Nelson-Gardell & Harris, 2003), (, 2011; Sommer & Cox, 2006), (Sprang, Clark, & Witt-Woosley, 2007), (Bride et al., 2007), (,, 2012; Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005), (Bride et al., 2007).. K-ProQOL 5. K-ProQOL 5., K-ProQOL 5

.,., K-ProQOL 5,,. ProQOL 25%. K-ProQOL 5. K-ProQOL 5 CS(M=34.88, SD=6.08), BO(M=23.71, SD=5.08), STS(M=23.06, SD=5.71) Stamm (2010). K-ProQOL 5 ProQOL 5, K-ProQOL 5 8, 14, 16.,,,,,,, ProQOL. 1, 7.05. ProQOL 5. K-ProQOL 5 (CS), (BO) ( ) (STS).,. 21 (14.2%), 29 (10.3%),

30 (10.0%). Stamm (2010).,.,, (2016) (, ; Secondary Trauma Care Inventory, STCI),,,,.,,,..,. Stamm(2010),,,,, ProQOL 5,,.,. K-ProQOL 5.,.,

(, 2014).,.. (2011). :,,., 415-430. (2012)..., (2014)., :., 362-371., (2015).,, :., 55-73. (2015).., 51-73., (2012). :,,., 320-328.,, (2010).., 147-167. (2016).., (2011).,., 289-322. (2015). :., 97-118. (2003).., 57-80. (2007).. (2005). :.,

217-231., (2012).., 870-878., (2002).,., 389-400.,, (2015). :., 77-101., (2015).., 195-230.,,,,, (2012).,,., 249-273., (2010). :., 19-36.,, (2001). CES-D., 59-76., (2012).., 64-73., (2014).,,,., 80-88. (2012).., 159-191. (2014). :., 359-386., (2014a).., 255-264., (2014b).,,., 373-382.,, (2005). : 6., 159-183.,, (2016). (STCI). 579-613. (2006). :. (2000).., 161-177. Adams, R. E., Boscarino, J., & Figley, C. R. (2006). Compassion fatigue and psychological distress among social workers: A validation study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 103-108.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational health Psychology, 10, 170-180. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78-102. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. Bride, B. E., Robinson, M. M., Yegidis, B., & Figley, C. R. (2004). Development and validation of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 27-35. Bride, B. E., Jones, J. L., & Macmaster, S. A. (2007). Correlates of secondary traumatic stress in child protective services workers. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 4, 69-80. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Cieslak, R., Shoji, K., Douglas, A., Melville, E., Luszczynska, A., & Benight, C. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of the relationship between job burnout and secondary traumatic stress among workers with indirect exposure to trauma. Psychological Services, 11, 75-86. Figley, C. R. (1995). (Ed.). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Figley, C. R. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists' chronic lack of self care. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1433-1441. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18, 39-50. Foa, E. B., Cashman, L., Jaycox, L., & Perry, K. (1997). The validation of a self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: The Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale. Psycholigical Assessment, 9, 445-451. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hensel, J. M., Ruiz, C., Finney, C., & Dewa, C. S. (2015). Meta-analysis of risk factors for secondary traumatic stress in therapeutic work with trauma victims. Journal of traumatic Stress, 28, 83-91. Horowitz, M. J., Wilner, N., & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event Scale: A measure of subjective distress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209-218. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria

for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Hunsaker, S., Chen, H., Maughan, D., & Heaston, S. (2015). Factors that influence the development of compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction in emergency department nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47, 186-194. Jenkins, S. R., & Baird, S. (2002). Secondary traumatic stress and vicarious trauma: A validational study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 423-432. Kim, K., Han. Y., & Kim, J. (2015). Korean nurses ethical dilemmas, professional values and professional quality of life. Nursing Ethics, 22, 467-478. Kiston, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757-765. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Bournout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99-113. McCann, I. L., & Pearlman, L. A. (1990). Vicarious traumatization: A framework for understanding the psychological effects of working with victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3, 131-149. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99. Nelson-Gardell, D., & Harris, D. (2003). Childhood abuse history, secondary traumatic stress, and child welfare workers. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 82, 5-26. Pearlman, L. A. (2003). Trauma and attachment belief scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Pearlman, L. A. (1996). Psychometric review of TSI Belief Scale, revision L. In B. H. Stamm (Ed.). Measurement of stress, trauma and adaptation (pp.415-417). Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press. Sommer, C., & Cox, J. (2006). Sexual violence counselors' reflections on supervision: Using stories to mitigate vicarious traumatization. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 19, 3-16. Sprang, G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007). Compassion Fatigue, Compassion satisfaction, and burnout: Factors Impacting a professional s quality of life. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12, 259-280. Stamm, B. H. (2010.). The concise ProQOL manual (2nd ed.). Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org. Stamm, B. H., & Figley, C. R. (1996). Compassion satisfaction and fatigue test. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.practicenotes.org/

vo110n3/stamm.pdf. Stebnicki, M. A. (2007). Empathy fatigue: Healing the mind, body, and spirit of professional counselors. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 10, 317-338. Weiss, D. S. (2004). The Inpact of Event Scale-Revised. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.). Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD(2 nd Ed, pp. 168-189). New York: Guilford Press. : 2016. 05. 01. : 2016. 07. 24. : 2016. 08. 09.

Validation of the Korean Version of Professional Quality of Life Scale 5(K-ProQOL 5) for Mental Health Professional Hyesun Joo Yoonwha Cho Hyunnie Ahn Department of Psychology, Ewha Womans University This study aimed to develop Korean version of the Professional Quality of Life Scale 5 (K-ProQOL 5; Stamm, 2010) and test its validity and reliability. 489 mental health practitioners participated in the research, and responses from 299 participants who had recently seen at least one trauma survivor were used for data analysis. All items of K-ProQOL 5 showed adequate mean, standard deviation, internal consistency and item-total correlations. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted and yielded a structure of three inter-correlated factors, compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress. 79 out of the 299 participants took the test four weeks later to confirm good test-retest reliability. Cut-off scores were identified to help mental health workers to see their relative standing in each sub-test, and the validity of those scores were checked. Finally, implications and limitations of the study and ways of appropriate applications of K-ProQOL 5 were addressed. Key words : Professional Quality of Life, ProQOL 5, compassion satisfaction, burnout, secondary traumatic stress

.,,.,.,. 1=, 2=, 3=, 4=, 5=. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. 8.. 9.. 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14.. 15.. 16.. 17.. 18.. 19.. 20.. 21.. 22.. 23.. 24.. 25.. 26.. 27.. 28.. 29.. 30..

. : 3. 6. 12. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 27. 30. : : *1. = *4. = 8. 10. *15. = *17. = 19. = 21. 26. *29. = : : 2. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 14. 23. 25. 28. : 30 42 31 ~37 43 ~54 38 55 20 44 21 ~27 45 ~58 28 59 *. 1 5, 2 4, 3 3, 4 2, 5 1 18 42 19 ~25 43 ~55 26 56

%tile T %tile T %tile T 10 10 10 28 11 11 26 11 1 30 12 12 1 28 12 3 32 13 13 2 30 13 5 34 14 14 4 32 14 8 35 15 15 6 34 15 10 37 16 16 8 36 16 14 39 17 17 10 38 17 18 40 18 22 18 13 40 18 24 42 19 19 16 42 19 26 44 20 20 22 44 20 32 45 21 1 27 21 31 46 21 37 47 22 2 29 22 44 48 22 45 49 23 4 30 23 52 49 23 52 50 24 5 32 24 58 51 24 60 52 25 7 34 25 66 53 25 66 54 26 10 35 26 72 55 26 74 56 27 13 37 27 81 57 27 80 57 28 16 39 28 85 59 28 84 59 29 19 40 29 87 61 29 89 61 30 23 42 30 91 63 30 92 62 31 26 43 31 94 65 31 93 64 32 32 45 32 96 67 32 95 66 33 40 47 33 98 69 33 96 68 34 46 48 34 99 70 34 97 69 35 53 50 35 99 72 35 99 71 36 59 52 36 99 74 36 99 72 37 68 53 37 37 38 74 55 38 38 39 81 57 39 39 40 85 58 40 40 100 79 41 87 60 41 41 42 89 61 42 100 86 42 43 93 63 43 43 84 44 94 65 44 44 45 45 45 46 96 68 46 46 47 97 70 47 47 48 98 71 48 100 97 48 49 100 73 49 49 50 75 50 50