小一學生學習障礙檢核表之編製研究

Development of the Checklist for First-grade Students for Identification of Learning Disabilities

黃己娥

指導教授 ： 王天苗

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/特殊教育學系/博士(2012年)

摘要

本研究主要研究目的在於編製可供小一普通班教師篩檢學障學生的檢核表，考驗該工具的效度與信度，並分析小一學障學生學習問題的組型，以對小一學生的學習問題有更深入的了解。
本研究正式樣本資料來自臺北市44所小學642名小一至小六學生，其中，包括384名普通生，67名疑似學障學生，191名確認學障學生。所運用的資料處理方法包括：Pearson積差相關、無母數統計H檢定法及事後比較、區別分析、點二系列相關、集群分析。本研究主要結果為：
一、「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」信、效度考驗：
1. 本研究自編之「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」共58題，包括有：注意力向度9題，知覺辨別向度10題，記憶力向度10題，組織思考向度10題，表達向度10題，動作協調向度9題。
2. 「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」各向度得分與總分之間皆呈現顯著中度至高度相關，相關值為.63～.81。
3. 小一疑似學障學生和確認學障學生在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」的各向度得分和總分沒有顯著差異。而小一疑似學障學生和確認學障學生在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」的各向度得分和總分皆顯著大於一般學生。
4. 「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」總分類正確率為75.4%，分類結果達到p<.01的標準。
5. 低年級和中年級組學障學生在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」的總分和各向度得分皆顯著高於高年級組學生。但低年級組和中年級組學障學生在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」總分和各向度分數沒有差異。
6. 小一學生在校國語期中考成績、數學期中考成績與「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」各向度分數皆呈現顯著負相關。
7. 被教師評定為沒有學習問題的學生，在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」的總分與各向度得分皆顯著低於有輕微學習問題學生和有嚴重學習問題學生。被教師評定為有輕微學習問題的學生，在「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」的總分與各向度得分也皆顯著低於有嚴重學習問題的學生。
8. 「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」總分類正確率為72.8%，分類結果達到p<.01的標準。
9. 「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」各向度得分總分類正確率以注意力向度分數最高，為88.9%，其餘依次是組織思考（85.7%）、知覺辨別（79.2%）、記憶力（85.2%）、表達（82.3%）、動作協調（79.0%），顯示分類正確性佳。
10. 「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」整體的內部一致性係數為.94，各向度的內部一致性為.74～.88。普通班教師與資源班教師評量者信度為.38～.72。
二、小一學障學生學習問題組型分析結果：小一學障學生的學習問題組型包括有嚴重困難混合型、輕微困難混合型、記憶知動型、思考表達型四種。小一一般生學習問題組型分析結果：優異型、正常型和學習困難型三種。
最後，研究者依據研究結果提出運用「小一學生學習障礙檢核表」、學習障礙學生教育輔導及未來研究之建議。

關鍵字

學習障礙學生 ； 學習障礙檢核表

並列摘要

There were three purposes of the research. The first one was to develop “The checklist for first-grade students for identification of learning disabilities. (CILD) ” The second one was to construct and evaluate the reliability and validity of the checklist. The third one was to analyze patterns of the learning problems of the first-grade students with learning disabilities.
The sample of the checklist for first-grade students for identification of learning disabilities consisted of 642 elementary school students in Taipei City, grade 1 to 6, including 384 general students, 67 students with suspected learning disabilities, 191 students with learning disabilities. Regarding the methods to process the data, they are listed as follows: Pearson product-moment correlation, nonparametric statistical test-Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks, discriminant analysis, point-biserial correlation, cluster analysis.
The following were summarized the major findings of this research:
1. CILD were composed of 58 items, which were divided into six major domains: attention, perception discrimination, memory, organization and thinking, expression, motor coordination。
2. The total scores were positive correlated with the domains scores on CILD, the values were.63～.81。
3. There are no significant differences between the total scores and domain scores on CILD of first-grade students with learning disability and with suspected learning disability. The first-grade students with learning disability and suspected learning disability gained higher total scores and domains scores on CILD than the normal ones.
4. The total scores on CILD can correctly discriminate 75.4% first-grade students with learning disability and normal ones(p<.01).
5. The Lower grade and Intermediate grade students with learning disability and suspected ones gained higher total scores and domains scores on CILD than the Higher grades ones. There are no significant differences between the total scores and domain scores on CILD of Lower grade and Intermediate grade ones.
6. The midterm exam scores of Chinese and math of first-grade students were negative correlated with the domain scores on CILD.
7. The total scores and domain scores on CILD of no learning problem students were lower than the ones of mild and severe learning problem.
8. The total scores on CILD can correctly discriminate 72.8% different degree learning problem students(p<.01).
9. The discrimination of different domain scores on CILD are listed as follows: attention 88.9%, perception discrimination 79.2%, memory 85.2%, organization and thinking 85.7%, expression82.3%, motor coordination79.0%.
10. The internal consistency coefficients of CILD ranged from.74～.88.The coefficients of interjudge reliability between two teachers ranged from .38 to .72。
11. The patterns of first-grade students with learning disability included four types: multiple and severe difficulties, multiple and mild difficulties, memory-sensory-motor, thinking-expression.
Implications for CILD were discussed and some suggestions were provided for future studies and instruction.

並列關鍵字

learning disabilities students ； the checklist for identification of learning disabilities

參考文獻

王天苗（2009）。「特殊教育長期追蹤資料庫」簡介。人文與社會科學簡訊，10(3)，108-116。

王天苗、黃俊榮（2011）。國內身心障礙教育概況之指標項目分析。教育實踐與研究，24(1)，107-134。

林宜親、李冠慧、宋玟欣、柯華葳、曾志朗、洪蘭、阮啟宏（2011）。以認知神經科學取向探討兒童注意力和學習之關聯。教育心理學報，42(3)，517-542。

洪儷瑜（1997）。如何發現與幫助校園內不明顯的障礙者—談對學習障礙應有的認識。師友，360期，4-9頁。

洪儷瑜、陳淑麗、王瓊珠、方金雅、張郁雯、陳美芳、柯華葳（2009）。閱讀障礙篩選流程的檢驗─篩選或教師轉介之比較。特殊教育研究學刊，34(1)，1-22。