우리나라 단일대상연구의 내용과 방법에 관한 고찰

Review of the Contents and Methods of Single-Subject Design Research in Korea

이 연구는 우리나라 특수교육관련 논문 중 단일대상연구들을 방법론적 측면에서 분석하여 그 질적 수준을 알아보는 데 목적을 두었다. 이를 위해 1998년부터 2003년 사이에 발간된, 한국학술진흥재단 등재 및 등재후보 8개 학회지에 게재된 논문 중 단일대상설계를 적용한 논문 72편을 대상으로 중재방법, 특성, 연구방법의 내용, 질적 수준을 분석하였다. 중재방법은 미국심리학회의 분석기준에 따라 효과의 유무를 판단하였고, 특성은 대상, 환경, 설계형태로 구분하여 알아보았다. 그리고 연구방법의 내용은 대상, 측정, 환경, 설계로 구분하여 알아보았고, 질적 수준은 중재충실도, 효과의 증거, 유지, 일반화, 사회적 타당도 등에 따라 분석하였다. 분석 결과 첫째, 국내에서 충분히 연구가 되어 효과가 있는 것으로 판단된 중재방법은 인지전략과 반응촉진, 성인주도 전략, 기능적 목표중심 중재, 활동중심 중재였고, ‘비교적’ 효과가 있는 것으로 판단된 중재방법은 기능평가와 긍정적 행동지원, 자연적 교수, 언어ㆍ청각적 중재, 시각적 지원, 보안대체 의사소통 기술, 물리적 환경의 구조화, 지역사회 중심 교수, 또래 개입, 가족참여, 강화로 나타났다; 둘째, 대상은 자폐아동이 가장 많았고, 환경은 특수학교나 특수학급이 가장 많았으며, 설계는 중다기초선 설계가 가장 높은 비율로 나타났다; 셋째, 연구방법의 내용에 대한 분석 결과 대상과 측정, 환경에 대한 기술은 미비하지만, 설계에 대한 기술은 비교적 충실한 것으로 판단되었다; 넷째, 질적 수준을 분석한 결과, 중재 효과의 증거와 유지에 대한 측정은 비교적 충실한 편이나, 중재충실도와 일반화, 사회적 타당도 측정은 부족한 것으로 판단되었다.

The purpose of this research was to examine the quality features of single-subject design research in special education in Korea through methodology analysis. For this, 72 single-subject design research articles that were published from 1998 to 2003 in eight journals registered or pending registered by Korea Research Foundation were reviewed. Studies were analysed according to practices, characteristics, and contexts of methodology and quality features. The effectiveness of practices was examined according to the criterion of the American Psychological Association. Methodology characteristics were analysed according to subjects, settings, and research designs. Methodology contexts were also analysed according to subjects, measurement, settings, and research designs. The quality features of study that were assessed included fidelity of intervention, maintenance and generalization of effect, social validity, and others. The results of this study were as follows: first, practices with well-established evidence of effectiveness were cognitive strategies, prompting, adult-directed teaching strategies, functional curriculum, and multiple settings and activities. Probably efficacious practices included functional assessment and positive behavior support, naturalistic teaching approaches, linguistic and acoustic approaches, visual support, augmentative and alternative communication, physical space structured, peer-mediated intervention, family involvement and reinforcement; Second, the major subjects were children with autism; the major research settings were special education schools and classrooms, and the research studies primarily employed multiple baseline experimental designs; Third, the analysis results with regard to methodology contexts revealed insufficient descriptions of subjects, measurements, and settings; Fourth, the analysis of quality features found insufficient fidelity of intervention procedures and evidence of generalization effect and social validity, and relative sufficiency with regard to the evidence of effectiveness and maintenance. It is suggested that the factors to control participants' behavior during initial baselines in which the experimental procedures were applied should be included in study reports. With regard to quality features, it is necessary that researchers measure independent variables and fidelity of intervention, evidence of intervention generalization, and social validity.