본문 바로가기
  • Home

A Concept Map of Posttraumatic Growth among Adolescents: Focusing on Loss Trauma Experience

  • The Korean Journal of School Psychology
  • Abbr : KJSP
  • 2017, 14(2), pp.259-279
  • DOI : 10.16983/kjsp.2017.14.2.259
  • Publisher : The Korean Journal of School Psychology
  • Research Area : Social Science > Psychological Science > School / Educational Psychology
  • Received : June 18, 2017
  • Accepted : August 28, 2017
  • Published : August 31, 2017

Min-Kyung Kim 1 Seong Ho Cho 2

1가톨릭대학교 상담심리대학원
2가톨릭대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study is both a concept mapping study and a validity study on the posttraumatic growth of adolescents. It aims to empirically determine major contributors to the posttraumatic growth of adolescents, as a concept mapping study and a validity study. First of all, the researchers of the first study, which was a concept mapping study on the posttraumatic growth of eight adolescents, conducted interviews with the subjects, who were reported to achieve the posttraumatic growth. The researchers summarized them into 38 core components, and created a concept map with multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The result showed that two dimensions consisted of cognitive․affective-behavioral engagement and personal-sociocultural factor. The four clusters were evaluated with 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) for subjects to show how important each cluster was to the individual’s context. The result referred to “willingness and responsibility of family members” as the most significant, followed by “the attainment of personal goals and a sense of achievement”, “acceptance and searching for meaning” and “social support and stress relief activities”. Next, the second study sought to validate factors of posttraumatic growth that were revealed in the concept mapping method through a new non-parametric statistics test. In this study, the 38 components of growth variables drawn from the previous concept mapping, were introduced to identify the importance to two groups, one of which consisted of an eight people of growth group, and the other an eight people of non-growth group. The result indicated that the growth group was ranked higher than the non-growth group, and the difference in the four clusters was significant between the two groups. Lastly, it presents the limitations of this study and the suggestion for further research.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.