:

1)()*

. , 26 5 ' ' , '', '', '', '', '' 5 . , (), (), (), () () . 5 , CSQ .

: , ,

.

, , .

.

*

9 4

Asian Journal of Education

2008, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 201-218.

202 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(, 2000).

, (, 2001).

, Keniston(1977) ()

.

.

Harman Brim(1980)

,

. ,

, ,

. Harman

Brim(1980)

, , Statham(2000)

( )

.

(Harman & Brim, 1980).

.

(customer satisfaction)

, . Keller(1996)

, Pont(1996)

.

, ,

.

.

(Minnesota State Dept. of Children, Families, and Learning, 1998)

: 203________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

, , ,

,

.

1991- 1992 (New York City Board of Education, 1994)

,

(informal interview form)

.

Carnevale, Gainer Villet (1990)

(worksheet)

,

.

. ,

Faerman Ban(1993)

. ,

.

,

,

.

,

.

, , ,

.

.

204 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

.

1.

1)

. 81,

58 157 296

.

. 1) ? 2)

? 3)

?

, 5% 14

.

.

,

92 .

2)

.

5

. (, 2005) ,

, , ,

.

, 5 4

, 3 , 2

. , 60 ,

5 , 10

257 .

, 20 8(3.1%), 30 161(62.6%),

40 84(32.7%), 50 4(1.6%).

: 205________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3)

.

60 .

(Varimax) .

1 5 ,

26 .

5 (

1 ).

2.

1)

69, PET 27, APT 26,

119, 25,

14 280.

2)

(CSQ; Client Satisfaction Questionnaire) .

CSQ Larsen, Attkisson, Hargreaves Nguyen(1979)

.

8 4

.

CSQ .91.

3)

3

206 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cronbach' .921 .894 .882 .862 .714 .586

n=280

, .

SPSS 12.0 AMOS 5.0 . SPSS 12.0

, , AMOS 5.0

.

.

1.

5 ,

.

1

.

2 ,

.

3

.

4

.

5 .

2.

5

. .921 . , ,

, .894 - .862 .714,

.586 .

: 207________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

df /df P NFI TLI CFI RMSEA 667.832 289 2.311 .000 .888 .925 .933 .052

n=280

3.

5 AMOS

5.0 .

.

(, 2003).

. ,

,

.

NFI(Normed fit index) CFI(Comparative fit index) .

GFI(Goodness of Fit Index), TLI(Tucker-Lewis Index), RMSEA(Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation) .

TLI RMSEA. TLI NNFI(Non-Normed Fit Index)

1 .

, .

0 ,

. ,

/df 5 . /df 2.311

.

NFI, CFI

1

(Kline, 1998). NFI .888, CFI .933

.

208 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RMSEA

. Brown Cudeck(1993) .05 , .05-.08 , .08-.10

.10 . (2000)

(2003) .08 , .10

. RMSEA .052 .

NFI CFI ,

26 () 5 ( )

, ,

26 , 26

. NFI CFI .888,

.933 26 26 0 ,

26 5 ( ) 88.8%, 93.3%

.

TLI RMSEA 26 5

, 26 5

. TLI .925

100% , 92.5%

, RMSEA .052

5.2% .

, 26 5 ,

(26 )

,

,

.

4.

(CSQ) . .735(p

: 209________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSQ .735** .756** .734** .548** .467** .136**

**p

210 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

. ,

.

,

. Fine(1988)

, , ,

. .

.

,

.

. ,

. ,

(, 1997),

(, 1994)

.

.

TV ,

, ,

.

. ,

, ,

. ,

, .

, ?

. ,

.

.

. ,

: 211________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

.

,

.

,

.

. ,

, , , ,

,

.

.

, ()

.

,

(Hare, 1976).

,

(, 2000) .

.

.

. ,

,

, ,

.

,

. ,

212 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Harman &

Brim, 1980).

. ,

.

.

.

.

,

. ,

,

.

.

.

, ,

, .

.

. ,

.

.

CSQ

.

CSQ

(Larsen , 1979).

,

: 213________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

. CSQ

, CSQ

?

(Larsen , 1979).

.

?

.

,

.

CSQ

, CSQ

,

.

CSQ

.

,

.

, CSQ

.

.

, Darkenwald(1989)

, , , ,

, Parasuraman, Zeithaml Berry(1998) , ,

, , . (2000)

,

, , , , ,

.

214 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

, , ,

. ,

.

. ,

257 280

.

.

. ,

. ()

,

.

. ,

,

,

.

.

, ,

, ,

.

: 215________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(2000). . .

(2003). SPSS/AMOS : . :

.

(2001). .

.

(1994). PET .

.

(2000). .

.

(2005). . : .

(1997). PET .

.

(2001). :

. Workshop .

Brown, M. N., & Cudeck, R.(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen K. A.

& Long J. S.(Ed.). Testing structure equation model. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Carnevale, A. P., Gainer, L. J., & Villet, J.(1990). Training in America: The organization and

strategic role of training. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darkenwald, G. G.(1989). Enhancing the Adult Classroom Environment. In H. Elisabeth(Ed.)

Effective teaching styles: New directions for continuing education, 43, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Faerman, S.R., & Ban, C.(1993). Trainee satisfaction and training impact: Issues in training

evaluation. Public Productivity & Management Review. 16(3), 299-314.

Fine M. A.(1988). The Second Handbook on parent education. New York: Academic Press.

Harman, D., & Brim, O.(1980). Learning to be parents. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Keller, J. M.(1996). Evaluating diversity training: 17 ready-to-use tools. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Keinston, K.(1977). All our children. The American family under pressure. N. Y.:Harcourt Brace

216 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jovanovich.

Larsen, D. L., Attkisson, C. C., Hargreaves, W. A., and Nguyen, T. D.(1979). Assessment of

client/patient satisfaction: Development of a general scale, Evaluation and Program

Planning, 2, 197-207.

Minnesota State Dept. of Children, Families, and Learning(1998). Early Childhood Family

Education Program: Quality Indicators, Participant Questionnaire, Evaluation Forms

and Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota State Dept. of Children, Families, and

Learning.

New York City Board of Education(1994). Parent Involvement Program, 1991-1992 Evaluation.

Brooklyn, NY: New York City Board of Education.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. & Berry, L. L.(1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for

Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1). 72-85.

Pont, T.(1996). Developing effective training skills: A practical guide to designing and delivering

group training(2nd ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.

Statham, J.(2000). Outcomes and effectiveness of family support services: A research review.

In Practice Issues.

* 2008 10 30 / 1 2008 11 25 / 2 2008 12 10 2008 12 18

* : , . .

* e-mail: hjlee@kyci.or.kr

: 217________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Study on the Development of

the Evaluation Scale of Parent Education Programs:

With regard to the Participants' Perspective

2)Ho-Joon Lee*

The purpose of this study is to develop and validate an evaluation scale of parent education

programs from the participants perspective. By the results of this study, an evaluation scale

of parent education programs from the participants perspective was developed. And five

evaluation criteria of parent education programs from the participants perspective such as

effectiveness, fidelity, participation, reliability, and convenience were verified. These five

criteria indicate that Korean parents who participate in parent education programs have the

desire to acquire useful skills from professionals(effectiveness). They also want the professional

who delivers parenting knowledge to be a congenial communicator rather than an authoritative

figure(fidelity). Furthermore, it can be interpreted that the participants have a desire to take

an initiative role in parent education program(participation).

In order to verify the construct validity of the newly developed scale, confirmatory factor

analysis was conducted and the result confirmed 5 factor constructs. Finally the concurrent

validity was tested by examining the correlation between the newly developed scale and CSQ.

Key words: parent education, evaluation from the participants' perspective, evaluation criteria

* Assistant Professor, Korea Youth Counseling Institute

Abstract

218 9 4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]

.

?

.

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 .