표제지
국문 요약
ABSTRACT
목차
1장 서론 20
2장 연구 방법 22
2.1. 기본 매개분석의 정의 22
2.2. 다수준 매개분석 모형 24
2.3. 연구 목적 31
3장 모의 실험 32
3.1. 모의실험 목적 32
3.2. 모의실험 설계 32
3.3. 모의실험 결과의 평가 34
3.4. 모의실험 결과 35
4장 고찰 및 결론 102
참고문헌 104
Table 1. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.2) with N=100 38
Table 2. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.4) with N=100 39
Table 3. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.6) with N=100 40
Table 4. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.8) with N=100 41
Table 5. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.4) with N=100 42
Table 6. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.6) with N=100 43
Table 7. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.8) with N=100 44
Table 8. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.2) with N=100 45
Table 9. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.6) with N=100 46
Table 10. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.8) with N=100 47
Table 11. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.2) with N=100 48
Table 12. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.4) with N=100 49
Table 13. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.8) with N=100 50
Table 14. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.2) with N=100 51
Table 15. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.4) with N=100 52
Table 16. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.6) with N=100 53
Table 17. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.2) with N=1000 54
Table 18. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.4) with N=1000 55
Table 19. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.6) with N=1000 56
Table 20. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.8) with N=1000 57
Table 21. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.4) with N=1000 58
Table 22. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.6) with N=1000 59
Table 23. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.2, b=0.8) with N=1000 60
Table 24. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.2) with N=1000 61
Table 25. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.6) with N=1000 62
Table 26. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.4, b=0.8) with N=1000 63
Table 27. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.2) with N=1000 64
Table 28. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.4) with N=1000 65
Table 29. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.6, b=0.8) with N=1000 66
Table 30. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.2) with N=1000 67
Table 31. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.4) with N=1000 68
Table 32. Comparison of direct and indirect mediation effects between 2-1-1 model and 2-2(1)-1 model (a=0.8, b=0.6) with N=1000 69
Figure 1. Direct Effect and Indirect Effect Mediation Model 23
Figure 2. Comparison of 1-1-1 Model, 2-1-1 Model, and 2-2-1 Model 25
Figure 3. 2-1-1 Mediation Model 26
Figure 4. 2-2(1)-1 Mediation Model 27
Figure 5. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.2, b=0.2) 70
Figure 6. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.4, b=0.4) 71
Figure 7. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.6, b=0.6) 72
Figure 8. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.8, b=0.8) 73
Figure 9. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.2, b=0.4) 74
Figure 10. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.2, b=0.6) 75
Figure 11. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.2, b=0.8) 76
Figure 12. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.4, b=0.2) 77
Figure 13. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.4, b=0.6) 78
Figure 14. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.4, b=0.8) 79
Figure 15. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.6, b=0.2) 80
Figure 16. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.6, b=0.4) 81
Figure 17. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.6, b=0.8) 82
Figure 18. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.8, b=0.2) 83
Figure 19. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.8, b=0.4) 84
Figure 20. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=100 (a=0.8, b=0.6) 85
Figure 21. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.2, b=0.2) 86
Figure 22. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.4, b=0.4) 87
Figure 23. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.6, b=0.6) 88
Figure 24. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.8, b=0.8) 89
Figure 25. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.2, b=0.4) 90
Figure 26. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.2, b=0.6) 91
Figure 27. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.2, b=0.8) 92
Figure 28. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.4, b=0.2) 93
Figure 29. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.4, b=0.6) 94
Figure 30. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.4, b=0.8) 95
Figure 31. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.6, b=0.2) 96
Figure 32. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.6, b=0.4) 97
Figure 33. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.6, b=0.8) 98
Figure 34. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.8, b=0.2) 99
Figure 35. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.8, b=0.4) 100
Figure 36. Bias (left panel) and RSME (right panel) of indirect effect with continuous outcome when N=1000 (a=0.8, b=0.6) 101