:

The Korean Journal of School Psychology

2010, Vol. 7, No. 2, 235-249

- -

.
, ,
,
. , , ,
. ,

. , , ,
.

.
.
.
: , , ,

(Corresponding Author) : , , (156-756) 221

Tel : 02-820-5125, E-mail : hyunmh@cau.ac.kr

- 235 -

(2009)

, ,

2008 114,699

69.1%, 13.5%, 3

, , ,

6.6%, 4 2.7%, 5 7.1%

(, 2009).

, .

(, 2010).

(, 2002).

(Klein, 1995; Webber, 1997).

(Happe &

Frith, 1996).

(minimal

brain dysfunction)

(Kandel & Freed, 1989).

. Webber(1997)

(, 2000)

(, 2001).

- 236 -

 / - -

, , , ,

(Damasio & Anderson, 1993; Duffy &

Campbell, 1994; Filley, 1995; Hodges, 1994;

(Moffitt, 1993).

Walsh, 1991).

Barkley(1997)

. ,

, 2001).

, ,

(disinhibited type) (apathetic type)

(Duffy & Campbell, 1994).

, ,

, ,

, .

, ,

, , (mutism)

(Moffitt, 1993).

. Moffitt

(1993)

- 237 -

. , 10

10

(, 2002),

Ozonoff(1998)

Moffitt(1993)

, ,

(Wisconsin

Moffitt(1993)

Card Sorting Test), (Tower of

Hanoi) (Stroop Test)

. , ,

. ,

: Adolescents Limited) ,

( : Life Course
Persistent) .

1317

50 . Moffitt

(1993) (2002)

(27)

(23) .

1317 28

- 238 -

 / - -

. ,

(2002)

. .

, ,

19 .

(2002) 0.95

(Tower of Hanoi)

(Welsh,

-0.25,

Pennongton, & Grossier, 1991)

2.25.

(Broys, Spitz & Dorans,

(Wisconsin Card

1982).
(http://puzzllo.co.kr/flash/flash/hanoi/

Sorting Test: WCST)

hanoi.html).

(Kimberg

, ,

& Farah, 1993). Robert, Gordeon,

( )

Jack, Gary, Glenn(1993)

. WCST .

(Sanderson & Albert,

1984) WCST

- 239 -

. 1317

17
16

(Korean-Color

Word

Stroop

Test: K-CWST)

(Dempster, 1992),
Stroop

(1935)

(, 1989).

()

( )

. 1

, , ,

WCST, .

.
Kims

- (,

2001) .

SPSS Window 11.0

.

(Korean-

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children: K-

WISC-)

(K-WISC-; ,

MANCOVA
.

, , 2001) 6
.

, 3
, , 3

1 .

6 16

, F(1, 49) = 18.22, p<.001

- 240 -

 / - -

1.

(N=23)

(N=27)

()

()

()

()

15(1.25)

15(0.82)

15(1.01)

15(1.10)

100(11.25)

85(13.45)

80(8.69)

88.95(14.14)

(N=28)

(N=78)

2. , WCST, (N=78)
1
1.

-.423**

3.

-.257* .646**

4.

-.350** .911** .570**

5.

-.385** .318** .154 .335**

6,

-.384** .324** .123 .366** .709**

7.

-.369** .305** .101 .340** .630** .991**

8.

.338** -.315** -.201 -.382** -.645** -.770** -.733**

9.

-.295** .271*

.209

.254* .493** .284

10. -.329** .108

.029

.064 .416** .331** .307** -.298** .239*

WCST

11.

11

2.

10

.228 -.326**

.406** -.277* -.214 -.285* -.171 -.265* -.276* .227*

-.012 -.149

***p <. 001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

WCST, ,

F(1, 53) = 55.73, p< .001

, ,
F(1, 48) = 3.07, ns. 2

WCST 3

, WCST,

. , F(2, 74) = 4.41, p<.05,

, F(2, 74) = 5.80, p<.01, , F(2,

74) = 5.43, p<.01, , F(2, 74) = 9.05,
p<.001, , F(2, 74) = 3.45, p<.05.

- 241 -

3. WCST
(A)

(B)

(C)

M(SD)

M(SD)

M(SD)

95.07 (16.66)

110.96 (20.30)

11.40 ( 6.09)

117.26 (17.51)

4.41*

A/B, C

19.26 (10.60)

28.11 (17.97)

5.80**

A, B/C

11.07 ( 4.69)

16.59 ( 7.19)

22.97 (13.22)

5.43**

A, B/C

5.93 ( 0.38)

5.09 ( 1.24)

3.81 ( 2.11)

9.05***

A, B/C

0.54 ( 0.74)

0.91 ( 0.79)

1.56 ( 1.37)

3.45*

A, B/C

*p< .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 ( / )

(Contrast) ,

= 22.97, SD = 13.22) (M

(M = 110.96, SD =

= 16.59, SD = 7.19) (M =

20.30) (M =

11.07, SD = 4.68)

117.26, SD = 17.51) (M =

95.07, SD = 16.66) ,

. (M

= 5.93, SD = 0.38) (M =

5.09, SD=1.24) (M =

22.97, SD = 13.22)

(M = 28.11, SD = 17.97)

(M = 19.26, SD = 10.60)

(M = 11.04, SD = 6.09)

(M = 1.56, SD = 1.37)

(M = 0.54, SD = 0.75)

(M = 0.91, SD = 0.79)

(M

4.

(A)

(B)

(C)

M(SD)

M(SD)

M(SD)

5.11**

A/B, C

2.00 ( 0.72)

1.30( 1.06)

0.96(0.98)

105.82 (45.45)

93.31(47.32)

112.45(53.80)

0.95

24.60 ( 3.73)

29.08( 7.70)

32.63( 6.81)

6.28**

A/B, C

32.50 (38.94)

8.75( 5.17)

7.11( 3.94)

2.56**

A/B, C

*P < .05, **P < .01, / .

- 242 -

 / - -

4 ,

5 ,

. , F(2, 74) = 5.11, p < .01,

, F(2, 74)= 0.95, ns, ,

. , F(2, 74) = 5.17,

F(2, 74) = 6.28, p<.01, , F(2, 74)

p < .01, , F(2, 74) = 9.78, p < .001,

= 2.56, p<.05.

, F(2, 74) = 8.25, p < .001,

(Contrast)

, F(2, 74) = 11.25, p < .001.

(M = 2.00, SD = 0.72)

(Contrast)

(M = 1.30, SD = 1.06)

(M = 0.21, SD = 0.42)

(M = 0.96, SD =

(M = 0.52, SD = 0.80)

0.98) .

(M = 0.96, SD = 0.90)

(M =

(M = 32.63, SD = 6.81)

131.96, SD = 22.86) (M

(M = 29.09, SD = 7.69)

= 115.25, SD = 14.73), (M =

(M = 24.61, SD = 3.73)

102.66, SD = 12.92)

. ,

. (M =

(M = 6.67, SD =

32.50, SD = 38.94) (M =

4.83) (M = 4.48, SD

8.75, SD = 5.17)

= 2.27), (M = 2.43, SD =

(M = 32.63, SD = 6.81)

1.79) ,

5.
(A)

(B)

(C)

M(SD)

M(SD)

M(SD)

60.41( 9.06)

60.47( 9.40)

63.38( 7.82)

0.54

0.21( 0.42)

0.52( 0.79)

0.96( 0.90)

5.17**

A, B/C

102.66(12.92)

115.25(14.72)

131.96(22.86)

9.78***

A/B/C

2.43( 1.79)

4.48( 2.27)

6.67( 4.83)

8.25***

A/B/C

42.25(12.88)

54.78(14.85)

68.57(19.90)

11.25***

A/B/C

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, / .

- 243 -

(M = 68.57, SD = 19.90),

(M = 54.78, SD = 14.85),

(M = 42.25, SD = 12.88)

.
,
, ,

1.30

, WCST

0.96

, ,

(Aronowitz et al., 1994;

Langley, 1989; Lueger & Gill, 1990; Yeudall,

.
, ,

Fromm-Auch & Davies, 1982) .

. WCST

(Sanderson & Albert, 1984), WCST

. Hurt Naglieri(1992)

- 244 -

 / - -

, Wolff,

Waber, Bauermeister, Cohen, Ferber(1982)

Helene, Marsha, Steven(2001)

(disinhibition)

. ,

- 245 -

.
,

, , (2001). K-WISC-(

) . :

1317

(2001). Kims -

(K-WISC-III)

. : .

. 17

(2009). 2009 .

K-WAIS .

(2010).

17

(N=27)

1317

(2002).

Moffitt .

(1989). Stroop
. , 5(1-4), 53-68.

(2000).
. .

Aronowitz, B., Liebowitz, M., Hollander, E.,

Fazzini, E., Durlach-Misteli, C., Frenkel, M.,

Moscovich, S., Garfinkel, R., Saoud, J., &

DelBene, D. (1994). Neuropsychiatric and

neuropsychological findings in conduct disorder

and

Journal

Neurosciences, 6, 245-249.

attention-deficit
of

hyperactivity

Neuropsychiatry

and

disorder.
Clinical

(2002)

Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral Inhibition,

Sustained Attention, and Executive Function:

Construction a unifying theory of ADHD.

Psychological Bulletin. 121, 65-94.

Broys, S. V., Spitz, H. H., & Dorans, B. A.

(1982).

retarded

children as a function of solution length and

- 246 -

Tower
young

of

honoi

adults

performance
and

of

nonretarded

 / - -

goal

state.

Journal

of

Experimental

Child

Psychology, 22, 87-110.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(3), 404-413.

Klein, M. W. (1995). The American stress gang:

Damasio, A. R. & Anderson, S. W. (1993). The

Its nature, Prevalence, and control, New York:

frontal loves. In K. M. Heilman & E.

Oxford University Press.

Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropyshcology (pp.

Kimberg, D. Y. & Farah, M. J. (1993). A unified

409-460). New York: Oxford University Press.

account of cognitive impairments following

Dempster, F. N. (1992). The rise and fall of the

frontal lobe damage: The role of working

inhibitory mechanism: Tower a unified theory

memory

of

Journal

cognitive

development

and

aging.

Developmental Review, 12, 45-75.

in
of

complex,

organized

Experimental

behavior.

Psychology,

122(4),

411-428.

Duffy, J. D., & Campbell, J. J. . (1994). The

Langley, D. (1989). A Developmental Model of

regional prefrontal syndromes: A theoretical

Juvenile Delinquency Based on Neuropsychological

and

of

Variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 6,

California School of Professional Psychology,

379-387.

Fresno.

clinical

review.

The

Journal

Filley, C. M. (1995). Neurobehavioral Anatomy.

Lueger, R. J. & Gill, K. J. (1990). Frontal-lobe

Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorade.

cognitive dysfunction in conduct disorder

Helence, R, W., Marsha, E, B., & Steven, B.

adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46,

(2001). Adolescence-limited versus persistent

696-706.

delinquency: Extending Moffitt's hypothesis

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-Limited and

into adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A

110(4), 600-609.

Developmental Taxonomy. Psychological Review,

Hodges, J. R. (1994). Cognitive assessment for

clinicians. New York: Oxford University Press.

100(4), 674-701.
Ozonoff, S. (1998). Assessment and remediation of

Happe, F. G. E. & Frith, U. (1996). The

neuropsychology

of

autism.

Brain,

executive dysfunction in autism and Asperger

119,

syndrome. In E. Schopler, G. B. Mesibov, &

1377-1400. http://puzzllo.co.kr/flash/flash/hanoi/

L.

hanoi.html

High-functioning

Hurt, J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1992). Performance of

delinquent

and

nondelinquent

planning,

attention,

males

simultaneous,

J.

Kunce(Eds.),

Asperger

Syndrome

Autism(pp.263-289).

or
New

York: Plenum Press.

on

Robert, K. H., Gordon, J. C., Jack, L. T., Gary,

and

G. K., & Glenn, C. (1993). Wisconsin Card

successive cognitive processing tasks. Journal of

Sorting

Clinical Psychology, 48, 120-128.

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Kendel, E. & Freed, D. (1989). Frontal-lobe

Test

Manual-Revised

and

Expanded.

Sanderson, J. & Albert, M. (1984). Varicties of

dysfunction and antisocial behavior: A review.

- 247 -

perseveration, Neuropsychologia, 22, 715-732.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in

Wolff, P. H., Waber, D., Bauermeister, M.,

serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental

Cohen,

C.,

&

Psychology, 18, 643-662.

neuropsychological

Ferber,
status

R.

(1982).
of

The

adolescent

delinquent boys. Journal of Child Psychology and

Walsh, K. W. (1991). Understanding Brain Damage:

Psychiatry, 23, 267-279.

A Pimer of Nuropsychological Ealuation (2nd ed.).

Yeudall, L. T., Fromm-Auch, D., & Davies, P.

New York: Churchill Livingstone.

Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D.

(1982).

Neuropsychological

impairment

of

B. (1991). A normative-developmental study

persistent delinquency. The Journal of Nervous

of executive function: A window on prefrontal

and Mental Disease, 170, 257-265.

function

in

children.

Developmental

Neuropsychology, 7, 131-149.
Webber,

J.

(1997).

Comprehending

Youth

Violence; A Practical Perspective. Remedial and

Special Education, 18(2). 94-104.

- 248 -

: 2010. 06. 24.

: 2010. 07. 28.
: 2010. 08. 11.

:
The Korean Journal of School Psychology
2010, Vol. 7, No. 2, 235-249

Differences of Frontal Lobe Executive Function according to

Delinquency Juveniles Type: with special reference to Life Course
Persistent Type and Adolescents Limited Type
Hye-Jin Jung

Myoung-Ho Hyun

Chung-Ang University

Jisun Park
Konkuk University Medical Center

The purpose of this study was to analyse differences in frontal lobe executive function of delinquency juveniles.
In order to find out fundamental factors of the delinquency, this study divided the group into AdolescenceLimited and Life-Course-Persistent Delinquency juveniles with the use of delinquent classification scale. Then, this
study was executed by three main neuro-psychological assessment scales(Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Tower of
Hanoi, go-no-go and the like) to compare the differences of the executive function between sub-domain groups.
The participants are normal juvenile group(n=28), Adolescence-Limited Delinquency juveniles(n=23), and
Life-Course-Persistent Delinquency juveniles(n=27). The Results indicate that first, in the course of using
WCST(Wisconsin Card Sorting Test), there were significant differences in cognitive flexibility between normal
juveniles and Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Delinquency juveniles. Second, there were differences
between normal and delinquent juveniles on the Tower of Hanoi Test which is assessed the planning and
organizing ability, but no outstanding differences between the sub-domain delinquent groups at the first
operation except the concept of the planning time. Third, through the Stroop Task, the study was also able to
focus on differences of self-control and inhibition between Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent
Delinquency juveniles. These result suggested that by indicating the hypothesis about the defect of the executive
function of the delinquent juveniles and shedding light on the differences between sub-group of them, it is
possible to hypothesize that there was defect or developmental immaturity on the frontal lobe of the delinquent
juveniles. This study is important in that it is proved that there was neurological defect only in
Life-Course-Persistent Delinquency juveniles with the neuro-psychological assessment scales. Moreover, the more
effective measures for the proper guidance and education can be put into effect by reasoning the causes of
juvenile delinquency.
Key words : Frontal Lobe Executive Function, Juvenile Delinquency, Adolescence-Limited Delinquency Juveniles, Life-CoursePersistent Delinquency Juveniles

- 249 -