保健・医療分野における研究の評価基準　定量的基準と定性的基準の再構築

保健・医療分野における定量的研究と定性的研究のパラダイム間のつながりについての議論は多くの場合混乱したものであり，散乱する用語と議論によって，概念が不明瞭かつ認識困難となってしまっている。このような状況で，厳密さを確立するための評価基準を再構築することは重要である。本研究では，定量的研究・定性的研究における評価基準の背景にある認識論を考察し，多重選択のパラダイムにより，状況や目的の設定によって，どのような評価基準を選択する必要があるのかを議論した。定量的研究・定性的研究の比較議論の中で最も重要な概念は Lincoln らが指摘した妥当性/信用性，信頼性/一貫性，客観性/確証性，一般化可能性/転...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in日本公衆衛生雑誌 Vol. 53; no. 5; pp. 319 - 328
Main Authors 甲斐, 一郎, 宮田, 裕章
Format Journal Article
LanguageJapanese
Published 日本公衆衛生学会 2006
Subjects
一般化可能性
信頼性
妥当性
定性的研究
定量的研究
評価
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0546-1766
2187-8986
DOI10.11236/jph.53.5_319

Cover

Abstract 保健・医療分野における定量的研究と定性的研究のパラダイム間のつながりについての議論は多くの場合混乱したものであり，散乱する用語と議論によって，概念が不明瞭かつ認識困難となってしまっている。このような状況で，厳密さを確立するための評価基準を再構築することは重要である。本研究では，定量的研究・定性的研究における評価基準の背景にある認識論を考察し，多重選択のパラダイムにより，状況や目的の設定によって，どのような評価基準を選択する必要があるのかを議論した。定量的研究・定性的研究の比較議論の中で最も重要な概念は Lincoln らが指摘した妥当性/信用性，信頼性/一貫性，客観性/確証性，一般化可能性/転用可能性の対比である。これらの対比点はそれぞれ，観察の枠組みの設定，観察における安定性の仮定，観察者と被観察事象の影響，知見の適用範囲についての認識の違いであると考えられる。ただし現状でも，全ての定性的研究の手法が後者のパラダイムを選択している訳ではなく，一部の安定性など前者の仮定が部分的に成り立つ範囲において，そのパラダイムによる評価を行うことは有用であると考えられる。定量的研究においても，全ての研究で解釈の余地がない枠組みや普遍的な一般化，観察の全プロセスへの安定性，などの前提が仮定できる訳ではない。適用範囲外への知見の外挿や，安定性が確保できない範囲について，後者のパラダイムを用いた評価を行うことは厳密さを高める上で有用である。定量的・定性的の研究手法に関わらず研究者は各々の状況について，1. 観察の枠組み，2. 観察における安定性，3. 観察者と被観察事象の影響，4. 知見の適用範囲，の各項目に関してどの様な前提を設定することができるか認識し，設定に応じたバランスによって厳密さの評価を行う必要があると考えられる。
AbstractList 保健・医療分野における定量的研究と定性的研究のパラダイム間のつながりについての議論は多くの場合混乱したものであり，散乱する用語と議論によって，概念が不明瞭かつ認識困難となってしまっている。このような状況で，厳密さを確立するための評価基準を再構築することは重要である。本研究では，定量的研究・定性的研究における評価基準の背景にある認識論を考察し，多重選択のパラダイムにより，状況や目的の設定によって，どのような評価基準を選択する必要があるのかを議論した。定量的研究・定性的研究の比較議論の中で最も重要な概念は Lincoln らが指摘した妥当性/信用性，信頼性/一貫性，客観性/確証性，一般化可能性/転用可能性の対比である。これらの対比点はそれぞれ，観察の枠組みの設定，観察における安定性の仮定，観察者と被観察事象の影響，知見の適用範囲についての認識の違いであると考えられる。ただし現状でも，全ての定性的研究の手法が後者のパラダイムを選択している訳ではなく，一部の安定性など前者の仮定が部分的に成り立つ範囲において，そのパラダイムによる評価を行うことは有用であると考えられる。定量的研究においても，全ての研究で解釈の余地がない枠組みや普遍的な一般化，観察の全プロセスへの安定性，などの前提が仮定できる訳ではない。適用範囲外への知見の外挿や，安定性が確保できない範囲について，後者のパラダイムを用いた評価を行うことは厳密さを高める上で有用である。定量的・定性的の研究手法に関わらず研究者は各々の状況について，1. 観察の枠組み，2. 観察における安定性，3. 観察者と被観察事象の影響，4. 知見の適用範囲，の各項目に関してどの様な前提を設定することができるか認識し，設定に応じたバランスによって厳密さの評価を行う必要があると考えられる。
Author 甲斐, 一郎
宮田, 裕章
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  fullname: 甲斐, 一郎
  organization: 東京大学大学院医学系研究科健康科学・看護学専攻
– sequence: 1
  fullname: 宮田, 裕章
  organization: 早稲田大学人間科学学術院
BookMark eNpNkE1LAkEYx4cwyMxjH2NtZ2dndvbQIaQ3ELrUeRi3mXQxk10v3VwLteyFoIKEqA5hEtitg0J9mHHd_BZtJNHDn-cPvweew28eJMoHZQHAItQzEBqILLmVQgajDGYI2jMgaUBqadSmJAGSOjaJBi1C5kDa9109HqJDYqIkkKPP-zB4VkfD8GwY3dXDVmPSvFDBqwpOVXCl6u3o8Trqvaug_9W7GX08hQ-D8eBW1WphvzNpXkad4ykJXmIyrnX_kX7YOB9329HbyQKYlbzki_S0U2BnbXU7u6HlttY3sys5zTUMYmtSt_K2jjAxqeRESiwdiPIYU4MQy7aMXUIxFwhRKqTlOBgbwiTClJYex4kPKbD8-9f1q3xPsIpX3OfeIeNeteiUBIslMYwY_lmxpz_uFLjHXI6-AWIRhzk
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2006 日本公衆衛生学会
Copyright_xml – notice: 2006 日本公衆衛生学会
DOI 10.11236/jph.53.5_319
DatabaseTitleList
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
EISSN 2187-8986
EndPage 328
ExternalDocumentID article_jph_53_5_53_319_article_char_ja
GroupedDBID ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
JSF
KQ8
OK1
RJT
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-j2269-f07b9035648fa6ff5fc13b5582667972d685ae3388ef7cc552e46e4f70f70ce33
ISSN 0546-1766
IngestDate Wed Sep 03 06:23:14 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed false
IsScholarly true
Issue 5
Language Japanese
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-j2269-f07b9035648fa6ff5fc13b5582667972d685ae3388ef7cc552e46e4f70f70ce33
OpenAccessLink https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jph/53/5/53_319/_article/-char/ja
PageCount 10
ParticipantIDs jstage_primary_article_jph_53_5_53_319_article_char_ja
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2006
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2006-01-01
PublicationDate_xml – year: 2006
  text: 2006
PublicationDecade 2000
PublicationTitle 日本公衆衛生雑誌
PublicationTitleAlternate 日本公衛誌
PublicationYear 2006
Publisher 日本公衆衛生学会
Publisher_xml – name: 日本公衆衛生学会
References 35) Cronbach LJ. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 1955; 52: 281-302.
39) Janesick VJ. The Choreorraphy of Qualitative Research Design: Minuets, Improvisations and Crystallization. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 2000.
15) Mishler EG. Validation in inquiry-guided research. Harvard Education Review 1990; 60: 414-422.
40) Stake RE. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 1978; 7: 5-8.
5) Mechanic D. Medical sociology: some tensions among theory, method and substance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1989; 30: 147-60.
11) Mulrow C, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J. Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127: 989-995.
13) Guba EG, LIncoln YS. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass, 1981.
32) Wainer H, Braun H. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1988
48) Donmoyer R. Generalizability and The Single Case Study. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
22) Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, 1985.
19) Mays N, Pope CP. Quality in Qualitative Health Research. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
3) Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
12) Klave S. The social construct of validity. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 1: 19-40.
16) Lather P. The validity of angles: Interpretive and textual strategies in researching the lives of women with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 1: 41-68.
38) Schwandt TA. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
18) Morse JM, Swanson JM. Kuzel AJ. The Nature of Qualitative Evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
23) Pech E, Secker J. Quality criteria for qualitative research: Does context make a difference?. Qualitative Health Research 1999; 9: 552-558.
41) Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
46) Cronbach LJ. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist 1975; 30: 116-127.
29) Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
25) Altheide D, Johnson J. Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In : Denzin N, Lincoln Y, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
42) Schwandt TA. Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.
1) Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, 1997.
24) Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 2001; 4: 522-537.
14) Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science 1986; 8: 27-37.
43) American psychiatric association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington DC; American psychiatric association, 1994
17) Lincoln YS. Emerging criteria for qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 3: 275-289.
21) Tobin GA. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2004; 48: 388-396.
7) Abell P. Methodological achievements in sociology over the past few decades with special reference to the interplay of qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Bryant C, Becker H, eds. What Has Sociology Achieved. London: Macmillan, 1990.
37) Bohrnstedt GW. Measurement. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
45) Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: An Introduction: Oxford University press, 2002.
44) Lofland J. Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971.
2) Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative methods in health research. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
31) Joppe M. The Research Process. Retrieved May 24th, 2006, from: http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm.
34) Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
4) Bernstein I, Freeman HE. Academic and Entrepreneurial Research: Consequences of Diversity in Federal Evaluation Studies. New York: Russell Sage, 1975.
28) Letourneau N, Allen M. Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999; 30: 623-630.
20) Morse JM, Swanson JM, Barrett M, et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2002; 1: Article2.
26) Leninger M. Evaluation Criteria and Critique of Qualitative Research Studies. In: Morse JM, eds. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1994.
30) Cronbach LJ. Test Validation. In: Thorndike RL, eds. Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1971.
8) Hammersley M. What's Wrong with Ethnography: Methodological Explorations. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
9) Barbour RS. The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1999; 4: 39-43.
47) Shadish WR. Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation & Program Planning 1995; 18: 63-75.
27) Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
36) Kirk JM, Miller ML. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986.
10) Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews: Synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005; 142: 1056-1065.
33) Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability And Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979.
6) Pearlin L. Structure and meaning in medical sociology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1992; 33: 1-9.
References_xml – reference: 28) Letourneau N, Allen M. Post-positivistic critical multiplism: A beginning dialogue. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999; 30: 623-630.
– reference: 34) Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
– reference: 44) Lofland J. Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971.
– reference: 40) Stake RE. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 1978; 7: 5-8.
– reference: 47) Shadish WR. Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen common errors. Evaluation & Program Planning 1995; 18: 63-75.
– reference: 30) Cronbach LJ. Test Validation. In: Thorndike RL, eds. Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education; 1971.
– reference: 29) Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
– reference: 23) Pech E, Secker J. Quality criteria for qualitative research: Does context make a difference?. Qualitative Health Research 1999; 9: 552-558.
– reference: 48) Donmoyer R. Generalizability and The Single Case Study. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990.
– reference: 39) Janesick VJ. The Choreorraphy of Qualitative Research Design: Minuets, Improvisations and Crystallization. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 2000.
– reference: 8) Hammersley M. What's Wrong with Ethnography: Methodological Explorations. London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
– reference: 37) Bohrnstedt GW. Measurement. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
– reference: 33) Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability And Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979.
– reference: 42) Schwandt TA. Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.
– reference: 22) Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, 1985.
– reference: 32) Wainer H, Braun H. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1988
– reference: 2) Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative methods in health research. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
– reference: 17) Lincoln YS. Emerging criteria for qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 3: 275-289.
– reference: 20) Morse JM, Swanson JM, Barrett M, et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2002; 1: Article2.
– reference: 3) Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
– reference: 13) Guba EG, LIncoln YS. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass, 1981.
– reference: 36) Kirk JM, Miller ML. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986.
– reference: 31) Joppe M. The Research Process. Retrieved May 24th, 2006, from: http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm.
– reference: 43) American psychiatric association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington DC; American psychiatric association, 1994
– reference: 12) Klave S. The social construct of validity. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 1: 19-40.
– reference: 26) Leninger M. Evaluation Criteria and Critique of Qualitative Research Studies. In: Morse JM, eds. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1994.
– reference: 41) Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
– reference: 19) Mays N, Pope CP. Quality in Qualitative Health Research. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
– reference: 27) Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
– reference: 5) Mechanic D. Medical sociology: some tensions among theory, method and substance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1989; 30: 147-60.
– reference: 16) Lather P. The validity of angles: Interpretive and textual strategies in researching the lives of women with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Inquiry 1995; 1: 41-68.
– reference: 24) Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 2001; 4: 522-537.
– reference: 1) Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, 1997.
– reference: 21) Tobin GA. Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2004; 48: 388-396.
– reference: 4) Bernstein I, Freeman HE. Academic and Entrepreneurial Research: Consequences of Diversity in Federal Evaluation Studies. New York: Russell Sage, 1975.
– reference: 6) Pearlin L. Structure and meaning in medical sociology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1992; 33: 1-9.
– reference: 7) Abell P. Methodological achievements in sociology over the past few decades with special reference to the interplay of qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Bryant C, Becker H, eds. What Has Sociology Achieved. London: Macmillan, 1990.
– reference: 15) Mishler EG. Validation in inquiry-guided research. Harvard Education Review 1990; 60: 414-422.
– reference: 25) Altheide D, Johnson J. Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In : Denzin N, Lincoln Y, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
– reference: 9) Barbour RS. The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1999; 4: 39-43.
– reference: 35) Cronbach LJ. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 1955; 52: 281-302.
– reference: 11) Mulrow C, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J. Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127: 989-995.
– reference: 10) Bravata DM, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews: Synthesis of topics related to the delivery, organization, and financing of health care. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005; 142: 1056-1065.
– reference: 14) Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science 1986; 8: 27-37.
– reference: 18) Morse JM, Swanson JM. Kuzel AJ. The Nature of Qualitative Evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
– reference: 38) Schwandt TA. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
– reference: 45) Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: An Introduction: Oxford University press, 2002.
– reference: 46) Cronbach LJ. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist 1975; 30: 116-127.
SSID ssj0000601643
ssib005879738
ssib058493848
ssib006571138
ssib020472901
ssib024195463
ssib023167666
ssib000959828
Score 1.6915805
Snippet ...
SourceID jstage
SourceType Publisher
StartPage 319
SubjectTerms 一般化可能性
信頼性
妥当性
定性的研究
定量的研究
評価
Title 保健・医療分野における研究の評価基準　定量的基準と定性的基準の再構築
URI https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jph/53/5/53_319/_article/-char/ja
Volume 53
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
ispartofPNX 日本公衆衛生雑誌, 2006, Vol.53(5), pp.319-328
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnR3LahRBcIjx4kUUFd_kYB83zqtfx5nNLEFREBLIbZidnUH2EEWSi6dslESNDwQVDIh6kBiEePOQgH6EnzDZrPkLq2p6NhNUiIGhqa6u6kdVD13VdFdb1hWdYhQ5P2l0pEIHpeM0EiHShpA5dxLHTnx6tO_GTTE57V-b4TMjR37WTi3Nz7XH0_t_vVdyGK0CDvSKt2T_Q7PDSgEBMOgXUtAwpAfSMYt8FraYnmARB5OQBZxFHlMeC0PCNAmQTGumXMIopgSLICuZiogYuEIDqMAA2iHAZYrYA5tpnwDNQlFxAbtCjObUjYgFDjahWyyEegSmuiS28YMiYNFB1XqLOhYw5f-DC5pQNS6BlQTyAFwRjRToJ7AIWMwoWqx8RqiyxbFUSxIaAE0WNImRE6BwOCgrAnQpRh9bhP5DFkUERdCT4TazIQldqg8-G-cvCUeRBDSqRkV79DQ47G_JaOihWo-kKlE1gb1_Y2b4Ex22-0AwwQJB_WqCLGtLAfcFhfIsV23CgW0G9oU2gcTNWlYGXjb_LK8tTJ5ZmEobxysv5P-5fLr0wE_37u1x7o3zeMi1LyK5me8xkMXcizkmQBlXeLwvGHfBaTnqSungOdvrt2o2v8aYkbUYckrqegxAwaXj7OVdDGdaPZqGeQzdUPO5wQLV9ScdwKDWnjI-fmmOYRQ5OmlSSbGKtQujvVofK1ihXfDJqvOcZGJOnbCOG99wLCgHeNIa6SanrHz7x7t-71PxYKv_dGvwdrH_aGl3-XnR-1L0nhS9l8XiyuDDq8H6t6K38Wv99fb3j_33mzubb4qFhf7G6u7yi8HqQ4PpfQbMzsJaDbPRX3q2s7Yy-Pr4tDXdiqaakw3zOEqjCx6TbuS2bGvb48JXeSLynOep47U5V2Bxg0DdjlA8yTxPqSyXacq5m_ki83Npw5dCwRlrdPbObHbWGgMrPdd5wr2Eu37HzjRPAdXJwTNUtkjUOUuUYonvlhFw4gPOgPOHZbxgHdvb6rxojc7dm88ugfE_175Mk-k3KovY6g
linkProvider Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%E4%BF%9D%E5%81%A5%E3%83%BB%E5%8C%BB%E7%99%82%E5%88%86%E9%87%8E%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E3%81%AE%E8%A9%95%E4%BE%A1%E5%9F%BA%E6%BA%96%E3%80%80%E5%AE%9A%E9%87%8F%E7%9A%84%E5%9F%BA%E6%BA%96%E3%81%A8%E5%AE%9A%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E5%9F%BA%E6%BA%96%E3%81%AE%E5%86%8D%E6%A7%8B%E7%AF%89&rft.jtitle=%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%85%AC%E8%A1%86%E8%A1%9B%E7%94%9F%E9%9B%91%E8%AA%8C&rft.au=%E7%94%B2%E6%96%90%2C+%E4%B8%80%E9%83%8E&rft.au=%E5%AE%AE%E7%94%B0%2C+%E8%A3%95%E7%AB%A0&rft.date=2006&rft.pub=%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%85%AC%E8%A1%86%E8%A1%9B%E7%94%9F%E5%AD%A6%E4%BC%9A&rft.issn=0546-1766&rft.eissn=2187-8986&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=319&rft.epage=328&rft_id=info:doi/10.11236%2Fjph.53.5_319&rft.externalDocID=article_jph_53_5_53_319_article_char_ja
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0546-1766&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0546-1766&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0546-1766&client=summon