Big5 성격특성에 따른 시기능훈련 효과 = Effects of Vision Training According to Big5 Personality Trait

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose : This study was to evaluate the effect of vision training according to Big5 personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) by examining the difference of each personality traits before and after the vision training.
Methods : Forty-two subjects of male and female adults in their twenties, with corrected vision above 1.0, volunteered for binocular vision test and Big5 personality trait test involving 25-questionnaire with 5-point scale before and after the vision training(with a phoroptor CV-5000, TOPCON, JAPAN), where vision training was followed by selecting personalized vision training tool(Bernell. USA) based on the classification of binocular abnormality of individuals.
Results : Based on Mogan's classification, the difference of the Big5 personality traits by before and after the vision training of inner group and outer group was analyzed. As a result of analysis, as for the inner group, extraversion is based on Near point of convergence, NPC(p=0.041), Fusional facility(p=0.027), -100 Gradient(p=0.048), all the scores of extraversion were significantly higher after vision training than before the training. Agreeableness is based on lateral Phoria(far)(p=0.038), Base-in, BI vergence recovery (far)(p=0.010), Base-out, BO vergence(far) blur(p=0.027), BO vergence(far) break(p=0.029), lateral phoria (Near)(p=0.025), -1.00 Gradient phoria(p=0.019), Fusional facility(p=0.025), fused cross cylinder (p=0.019), Push-up Oculus dexter, OD(p=0.003), Push-up Oculus sinister, OS(p=0.005), Binocular accommodative facility(p=0.012), all the scores of agreeableness were significantly higher after vision training than before vision training. As for the outer group, extraversion is based on -100 Gradient (p=0.048). It is the same score with the inner group and the score of extraversion was higher after vision training than before the training. Agreeableness is based on NPC(p=0.045), BI vergence break(ar) (p=0.017), BO vergence recovery(far)(p=0.033), -1.00 Gradient phoria(p=0.046), BI vergence recovery(near) (p=0.022), NRA(p=0.026), Positive relative accommodative, PRA(p=0.006), all the scores of agreeableness were significantly higher after vision training than before the training.
Conclusion : It is assured that agreeableness about all of the inner and outer group were higher after vision training than before the training.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

목적 : 본 연구에서는 시기능훈련 전, 후의 Big5 성격(외향성, 우호성, 성실성, 신경증, 개방성)의 차이와 시기능훈련의 향상도를 분석하였다.
방법 : 교정시력 1.0 이상의 20대 성인 남녀 42명을 대상으로 시기능훈련 전, 후의 양안시검사(포롭터CV-5000, TOPCON, JAPAN이용)와 Big5 성격검사(25문항 5점 척도)를 실시하고, 양안시 이상 분류에 따라 개인별 시기능훈련 도구(Bernell. USA)를 선정하여 시기능훈련을 실시하였다.
결과 : Mogan’s 기준 범위내군과 범위외군의 시기능훈련 전, 후의 Big5 성격의 차이를 분석한 결과, 범위내군에서 외향성은 폭주근점(p=0.041), 융합용이성(p=0.027), -100그래디언트(p=0.048)으로 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련 후 외향성 점수가 모두 유의하게 높게 나타났으며, 우호성은 원거리사위도(p=0.038), 원거리 음성융합버전스 회복점(p=0.010), 원거리 양성융합버전스 흐린점(p=0.027), 원거리 양성융합버전스 분리점(p=0.029), 근거리사위도(p=0.025), 그래디언트 AC/A비(p=0.019), 융합용이성(p=0.025), 조절랙(p=0.019), 우안조절력(p=0.003), 좌안조절력(p=0.005), 양안조절용이성(p=0.012)으로 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련 후 우호성 점수가 모두 유의하게 높게 나타났다. 범위외군에서는 외향성은 –100그래디언트(p=0.048)으로 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련후 외향성의 점수가 높게 나타났다. 우호성은 폭주근점(p=0.045), 원거리 음성융합버전스 분리점(p=0.017), 원거리 양성융합버전스 회복점(p=0.033), -100그래디언트(p=0.046), 근거리 음성융합버전스 흐린점(p=0.022), 음성상대조절력(p=0.026), 양성상대조절력(p=0.006)으로 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련 후 우호성 점수가 모두 유의하게 높게 나타났다.
결론 : 범위내군과 범위외군 모두 시기능훈련 전 보다 시기능훈련 후 우호성이 높아지는 것을 확인하였다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이창선, "폭주부족 피검사자의 시기능 훈련에 의한 양성융합여력 및 사위 변화에 관한 연구" 한국안광학회 13 (13): 83-87, 2008

2 진문석, "조절자극 변화에 따른 동체시력(Dynamic visual acuity) 측정에 관한 연구" 대한시과학회 20 (20): 523-530, 2018

3 김천석, "정서지능, 인지능력, 성격의 구성개념간 변별성과 정서지능의 과업수행, 맥락수행, 적응수행에 대한 증분타당도 검증" 한국산업및조직심리학회 18 (18): 271-298, 2005

4 이승욱, "시각기능 개선을 위한 시기능훈련이 시지각에 미치는 영향" 한국안광학회 20 (20): 491-499, 2015

5 장희정, "성격 5요인과 시기능 훈련의 상관성 연구" 대한시과학회 19 (19): 179-191, 2017

6 김주호, "개인 개성이 브랜드 개성(BPS) 및 소비자 구매행동에 미치는 영향 : Big5 성격특성을 중심으로" 한국광고학회 24 (24): 31-55, 2013

7 Allport GW, "Trait-Names: A Psycholexical Study" 47 (47): 1-171, 1936

8 Birnbaum HM, "The role of the trainer in visual training" 48 (48): 1035-1039, 1977

9 Salgado JF, "The five factor model of personality in the European community" 82 (82): 30-43, 1997

10 Cattell RB, "The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters" 38 (38): 476-506, 1943

11 Costa PT, "The NEO-PI-R personality Inventory" Psychological Assesment Resources 1985

12 Yoo TY, "Predictability of Big-Five personality model to performance in a variety of settings and its limitation: A meta-analysis" 14 (14): 115-134, 2001

13 McCrae RR, "Personality trait structure as a human universal" 52 (52): 509-516, 1997

14 Digman JM, "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model" 41 (41): 417-440, 1990

15 Allport GW, "Personality interpretation" Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1937

16 Allport GW, "Pattem and Growth in Personality" Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1961

17 Costa PT, "NEO-PI-R personality manual: revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)" Psychological Assessment Resources 1992

18 Limm HC, "MMPI responses of visualhandicapped" 10 (10): 11-16, 1992

19 Hwang MS, "Influence of movement education on motor development of visually handicapped children" 1 (1): 93-104, 1993

20 Lee WS, "Effect of the character type of the hotel bakery workers on the subjective performance of the company" Kyonggi University 2011

21 Scheiman M, "Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric and eye movement disorders" Daihaks 175-177, 2009

22 Scheiman M, "Clinical management of binocular vision" Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 573-584, 2002

23 Ann CG, "Clinical Application of The Revised NEO Personality Inventory" 8 (8): 65-79, 1996

24 Goldberg LR, "An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-five Factor Structure" 59 (59): 1216-1229, 1990