Û /4: Â ¤ b6õ4 X 8 Z...( Ò P1ß \ K S 1* 6ë 2015 º7 v \10 v _1* K S ) Ý
15
ᗈᓥᏛᏛ㝔ᚰ⌮⮫ᗋᩍ⫱◊✲ࢭࢱ⣖せ ➨ 15 ᕳ 2016 㧗⏕ࡅ࠾ᐙ᪘ᶵ⬟Ꮫ㐺ᛂឤࡢ㛵㐃࠸ࡘ ⓗᐙ᪘⏬⏝ࡓ࠸ウ ዉ㡲㔝⋹ຍ 1 ▼⏣ ᘪ 1 The relationship between family function and adaptation feeling to high school students: examination by Kinetic Family Drawing Reika Nasuno and Yumi Ishida In this study, we examined the relationship between family function and adaptability to high school of high school students. In addition, we examined whether Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) helps to screen high school students who experience problems in family function. We conducted a questionnaire survey and KFD for 172 high school students. The results of our examination showed a positive correlation between family function and the high school adaptability of high school students. Therefore, we conclude that high school students with better family function adapt better to high school. In addition, the results highlighted some helpful indicators of KFD that can help screen high school students who experience problems in family function. Through these indicators, we might be able to assess high school students who experience problems in family function unconsciously. Key words: Family function, Adaptation feeling, high school students, Kinetic Family Drawing ၥ ၥ㢟 1㸬ᐙ᪘ᶵ⬟ ᳃ᒸᮃ᭶ (1991) 㸪ᐙ᪘ࡣ㸪 ࠕኵ፬ぶᏊࡁ࡞࠸ࡔ࠺ᑡࡢ㏆ぶ⪅せ࡞ᡂ ဨࡋ㸪ᡂဨ┦࠸῝ࡢឤⓗໟ⤡⤖ࡤࡓ㸪➨ḟⓗ♴⚟࡞㏣ồࡢ㞟ᅋ࠶ᐃ⩏ࡉ ࠸ࠋᐙ᪘ࡣ㸪ࡉࡊ࡞ᶵ⬟࠶ࡀ⪃࠼࠾㸪ࡢࡑศ㢮ࡣከᒱࡓࠋᴮᮏ (2009) ࡣᐙ᪘ᶵ⬟㸪⾰㣗ఫࡢ㊊࠶⏕ィ⥔ᣢᶵ⬟㸪Ꮚࡢ㣴⫱࠾♫ࡧ࠶㣴⫱ᶵ⬟㸪 ேࡀࡅேࡢୡヰ㸪㧗㱋⪅㞀࠸ࡀ⪅ࡢㆤ࠶ಖㆤㆤᶵ⬟㸪⥴Ᏻᐃᛶ⮬ᕫᐜ㐍 ࡋ㸪ពᛮࡢ㏻㐍ࡍ࡞࠺ᐙ᪘ෆࢥࢣࢽࢩᶵ⬟㸪ᐙ᪘ࢸࢫࢩࡢⓎ㐩ẁ㝵 ࡏᐙ᪘㛵ಀ࠶ࡢ᪉ㄪࡋ㸪Ⓨ㐩ⓗ࠾ࡧഅⓎⓗ࡞ᐙ᪘ࡢ༴ᶵ࠺ࡃᑐฎࡍ♫ⓗ㐺ᛂᶵ 1 ᗈᓥᏛᏛ㝔ᩍ⫱Ꮫ◊✲⛉
Transcript of Û /4: Â ¤ b6õ4 X 8 Z...( Ò P1ß \ K S 1* 6ë 2015 º7 v \10 v _1* K S ) Ý
15 2016
1 1
The relationship between family function and adaptation feeling to high school students: examination by
Kinetic Family Drawing
Reika Nasuno and Yumi Ishida
In this study, we examined the relationship between family function and adaptability to high school of
high school students. In addition, we examined whether Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD) helps to
screen high school students who experience problems in family function. We conducted a
questionnaire survey and KFD for 172 high school students. The results of our examination showed a
positive correlation between family function and the high school adaptability of high school students.
Therefore, we conclude that high school students with better family function adapt better to high
school. In addition, the results highlighted some helpful indicators of KFD that can help screen high
school students who experience problems in family function. Through these indicators, we might be
able to assess high school students who experience problems in family function unconsciously.
Key words: Family function, Adaptation feeling, high school students, Kinetic Family
Drawing
1
(1991)
(2009)
1 ����
5 (2012)
1
(2005) (Figure 1)
4
4
16
3
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES ) 20
(2005) 2
Figure 1 ( 2005)����
2
(1981)
(1994)
1
(2009)
4
(2009)
(2011)
(2012)
(2009)
( 2009)
3
(Kinetic Family Drawing : KFD) Burns & Kaufman (1972
1998)
KFD����
( 1986) (1984) KFD
(1986)
2
KFD
(1984) KFD
(2007) KFD KFD
7
3 34
( 1984) KFD
( 1986)
( 1984)
4
1
( )
1 KFD KFD
KFD
2 KFD
2 1~3 177
5 172 ( 71 100 1 )����
2015 7 10
Olson et al
(1985) FACES 20 (2005) 2 20
5
(2009) 4 16
5
KFD
A4
1 KFD KFD 2
20 20
4
40 50
1
(1)
20 (Table 1) (|.30|
) 3 CFI=.917 =.917 =.743
17 2 (2005)
(2)
16 (Table 2)
CFI=.906 =.873 =.812 =.836
=.792 16 4 (2009) ����
2
(1)
2 (r=.502
p<.01)
(2)
2 4 6
( : r=.30 p<.01 ; : r=.36 p<.01 ;
: r=.46 p<.01 ; : r=.45 p<.01 ;
: r=.30 p<.01 ; : r=.38 p<.01 ;
: r=.44 p<.01 ; : r=.43 p<.01)
3
(1)
1
4
(2)3
3 3
(F(2,169)=0.30 n.s.)
1 00.63 0.40 3.67 1.112 00.68 0.46 3.88 1.014 00.78 0.50 3.24 1.157 00.76 0.61 3.49 1.0710 00.67 0.58 3.13 1.0611 00.84 0.45 3.53 1.0915 00.64 0.71 4.01 0.9916 00.85 0.43 3.68 1.0918 00.69 0.50 3.88 1.0919 00.72 0.41 4.05 0.893 00.71 0.71 4.02 0.905 00.31 0.13 3.56 0.949 00.33 0.48 3.37 1.1212 00.66 0.52 3.60 1.0014 00.71 0.49 3.41 1.2517 00.37 0.11 2.98 1.1920 00.70 0.10 3.76 0.92
0.78**
**p .01 *p .05
Table 1
����
1 00.83 0.69 3.94 1.013 00.85 0.61 4.33 0.8610 00.68 0.72 3.95 1.0115 00.84 0.88 4.09 0.972 00.78 0.85 3.71 1.067 00.78 0.64 3.30 1.029 00.55 0.61 3.52 0.9116 00.77 0.73 3.97 0.994 00.94 0.30 3.72 1.095 00.92 0.46 3.51 1.1111 00.62 0.38 3.55 1.2513 00.52 0.22 3.32 0.996 00.80 0.27 3.40 1.098 00.85 0.50 3.67 1.0212 00.47 0.70 3.66 0.9514 00.71 0.59 3.69 0.92
0.50** 0.63** 0.47**0.58** 0.67**
0.57**
**p .01 *p .05
Table 2
4
(1)
3 KFD KFD
.948 .935 .961 .961 4
KFD 34
(Table 3) (|.30| ) 3
CFI=.733 =.924 =.949 =.967
31 3 (2007)
����
8 00.73 0.53 4.52 1.1619 00.88 0.77 4.90 1.0220 00.83 0.68 4.57 1.0623 00.60 0.36 5.37 0.7027 00.80 0.64 4.34 0.9128 00.77 0.59 5.16 0.8230 00.83 0.70 4.13 0.7031 00.87 0.75 4.53 0.8232 00.60 0.36 4.17 0.903 00.76 0.58 4.03 1.224 00.90 0.82 4.71 1.207 00.82 0.67 4.31 1.169 00.96 0.92 4.66 1.0718 00.86 0.73 4.34 0.9221 00.91 0.83 4.30 1.1922 00.65 0.43 3.96 0.6424 00.91 0.82 4.07 0.8325 00.45 0.20 3.95 1.1529 00.84 0.71 4.31 1.4334 00.81 0.65 4.21 0.941 00.67 0.45 5.20 0.802 00.90 0.81 4.69 1.085 00.88 0.77 5.25 1.196 00.89 0.80 4.89 1.1610 00.81 0.65 4.67 0.9912 00.94 0.89 4.85 1.0713 00.91 0.82 4.97 1.0214 00.94 0.89 4.96 1.0115 00.63 0.40 5.04 0.9026 00.92 0.85 4.49 1.1633 00.85 0.72 5.07 1.19
0.82** 0.80**0.84**
**p .01 *p .05
KFDTable 3
3
( :F(2,169)=1.713
n.s. ; :F(2,169)=1.188 n.s. ; :F(2,169)=1.335 n.s.)
KFD 2
8 8
Table 4 1 6
(2)
3
(Table 5) Figure2~4����
3 2
( 2 6.401 p<.05)
( 2 6.603 p<.05) ( 2 4.598
p<.05) 3 (
: 2 3.881 n.s. ; : 2 1.116 n.s. ; : 2 3.420 n.s.)
/5.28 4.90 4.86 4.33 4.87 4.31 4.32 3.860.37 0.16 0.15 0.31 0.19 0.14 0.26 0.455.05 4.07 4.82 4.56 3.67 4.58 3.98 3.270.47 0.23 0.06 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.17 0.495.75 5.07 4.03 5.37 4.53 4.30 5.03 3.930.38 0.11 0.83 0.34 0.27 0.57 0.09 0.56
0.503.240.69
3.700.34
3.360.80
1KFD
65432
Table 4
87
3.83 3.540.62
3.350.63 0.98
3.710.60
3.65
(N =96) (N =45) (N =31) (N =172)11 (11.4) 5 (11.1) 9 (29.0) 25 (14.5)
0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)16 (16.7) 11 (24.4) 12 (38.7) 39 (22.7)
9 (9.4) 5 (11.1) 7 (22.6) 21 (12.2)6 (6.3) 1 (2.2) 2 (6.5) 9 (5.2)2 (2.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (6.5) 4 (2.3)8 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.2) 9 (5.2)
Table 5 3 ( )
Figure 2����
Figure 3
Figure 4
(3)
1 1 Figure 5
1
����
3 (%) Table 6
3 ( ) Table 7 32
( 2 6.810 p<.05)
(
: 2 1.937 n.s. ; : 2 0.214 n.s. ; : 2
0.185 n.s.)
t
( : t 3.30 n.s. ;
: t -2.14 n.s. ; : t 4.41 n.s. ; : t -0.59 n.s.)
Figure 5 KFD ( )
����
(N =96) (N =45) (N =31) (N =172)21.9 24.4 32.3 24.42.0 2.2 3.2 2.318.8 20.0 3.2 16.238.5 37.8 22.6 35.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.0 0.0 0.0 1.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.012.5 11.1 32.3 15.73.1 4.4 6.5 4.11.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Table 63 (%)
(N =96) (N =45) (N =31) (N =172)78 (81.2) 38 (84.4) 19 (61.3) 135 (78.5)18 (18.8) 7 (15.6) 12 (38.7) 37 (21.5)55 (57.3) 26 (57.8) 22 (71.0) 103 (59.9)41 (42.7) 19 (42.2) 9 (29.0) 69 (40.1)66 (68.8) 31 (68.9) 20 (64.5) 117 (68.0)30 (31.2) 14 (31.1) 11 (35.5) 55 (32.0)64 (66.7) 30 (66.7) 19 (61.3) 113 (65.7)
2 (2.0) 1 (2.2) 1 (3.2) 4 (2.3)or
3 ( )Table 7
or
or
1
2
(2009)
( 2009)����
2
3
3
KFD
3 KFD
3 KFD
8 1
6
1 6
KFD KFD
2
KFD
4
KFD
KFD
(22.7 )
3 2
( 1986)
2
( 1986) ����
KFD
5
KFD
3 2
KFD
KFD
1
KFD
KFD
2
KFD KFD
(FIT)
Burns, R. C. & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D):
An interpretative manual. Brunner/Mazel.
( , R. C. , S. H. ( ) (1998).����
)
(2009). ( )
pp.16-37.
(1986).
(2009).
12 287-292.
(1984). 2 ( 1)
26 (5) 452-463.
(2009).
pp.81-89.
(1981).
(1) 23 566-567.
(2012). 83 1-7.
(1992).
(2007).
48 1-15.
(1984).
16 277-288.
(1994).
42 185-192.
(2006). (FACES )
28 285-306.
(2009). ( ) pp.114-124.
(2011).
35 17-24.
����
![k ー指針改正に現場の声を › wordpress › wp-content › ...2019/03/09 · ,a7 ³¹º7 9NH³¹º7 fÀIn ´»¾¸ Á ; ; ;]Â\c ]Â\c ]Â(EWf =]ÂXW ¤(E= ]ÂXW ¤(E= Â(E=](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5f284a5bcc9f4363975d8078/k-foeec-a-wordpress-a-wp-content-a-20190309.jpg)
![KS1* < >8$ ^ Û#Õ¢ÝîÉ P1ß\KS1* 1 ] #ä(Ö Ê JK >* N#ã K Ê K J >* K 'à < ± Û ...](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5c81f9ab09d3f29c618b744e/ks1-8-uoyie-p1ssks1-1a-aeoe-e-jk-na-k-e-k-j-k-a.jpg)
