一、中文部分
中小學資訊能力評量機制發展與推廣計畫網站（2008）。國民高、中、小學資訊素養發展綱要。2011年02月15日，取自：http://infoweb.moe.edu.tw/4.php
行政院文化建設委員會網站（2010）。臺灣電影筆記。2010年04月16日，取自：http://movie.cca.gov.tw/bin/home.php
行政院新聞局網站（2010）。財團法人國家電影資料館。2010年04月16日，取自：http://www.ctfa.org.tw/
吳裕益（2006）。線性結構模式的理論與應用。載於2006暑假研究設計與統計分析工作坊上課講義，未出版。臺南市：國立臺南大學測驗統計研究所。
林巧敏（2009）。推動國中小學童數位閱讀計畫之探討。臺灣圖書館管理季刊，5（2），49-67。
拓展臺灣數位典藏計畫網站（2008）。拓展臺灣數位典藏計畫簡介。2010年05月30日，取自：http://content.ndap.org.tw/index/?cat=6
林珊如（2010）。數位時代的閱讀：青少年網路閱讀的爭議與未來。圖書資訊學刊，8（2），29-53。
林煥祥、劉聖忠、林素微、李暉（2008）。臺灣參加PISA 2006成果報告。行政院國家科學委員專題研究計畫（NSC 95-2522-S-026-002）。花蓮縣：國立花蓮教育大學；高雄縣：國立高雄師範大學。
林清山、程炳林（1995）。國中生自我調整學習因素與學習表現之關係暨自我調整的閱讀理解教學策略效果之研究。教育心理學報，28，15-58。施俊名、吳裕益（2008）。大學生身心健康量表構念效度驗證之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，4（4），201-229。香港中文大學（2011）。全球學生數碼閱讀能力首次揭示：分析香港學生數碼閱讀與科技應用能力的關係。中大公布學生能力國際評估計畫（PISA 2009）研究結果新聞稿。2011年年06月28日，取自：http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkpisa/events/2009/files/PISA09_digital_pr_c_28jun.pdf
洪碧霞（2008）。臺灣15 歲學生閱讀、數學和科學素養調查研究：教育品質和均等議題（PISA 2009）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（計畫編號：NSC-97-2522-S-024-001），未出版。
洪碧霞（2010a）。臺灣15 歲學生閱讀、數學和科學素養調查研究：教育品質和均等議題（PISA 2012）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（計畫編號：NSC-99-2522-S-024-001），未出版。
洪碧霞（2010b）。閱讀研究議題九：全民線上閱讀素養發展概況的調查與介入－線上閱讀理解構念模式及介入效益之探討（І）。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（計畫編號：NSC 99-2420-H-024 -001），未出版。
洪碧霞（2011）。閱讀研究議題八：國二和高一學生線上閱讀理解與策略發展概況調查－線上閱讀理解與策略構念模式之探討。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫（計畫編號：NSC 100-2420-H-024 -001），未出版。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅（2008）。台灣四年級學生閱讀素養PIRLS2006報告。行政院國家科學委員專題研究計畫（NSC 96-MOE-S-008-002）。桃園縣：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
陳寬裕、王正華（2010）。結構方程模型分析實務：AMOS的運用。臺北市：五南。
陳耀茂（2004）。共變異數構造分析的AMOS使用手冊。臺北市：鼎茂。
數位典藏與數位學習國家型科技計畫網站（2008）。數位典藏與數位學習國家型科技計畫簡介。2010年05月30日，取自：http://www.teldap.tw/Introduction/introduction.php
臺灣PISA國家研究中心（2007a）。PISA 2006 樣本試題：閱讀。臺南市：國立臺南大學。
臺灣PISA國家研究中心（2007b）。PISA 2009 學生問卷。臺南市：國立臺南大學。
薛寶嫦（2010）。利用項目功能差異檢視澳門電子閱讀素養表現的優勢和弱勢。課程與教學季刊，13（2），215-236。豐田秀樹、陳耀茂（2011）。結構方程模式分析AMOS：製作結構方程模組。臺北市：鼎茂。
二、英文部分
AERA, APA, & NCME (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Determining and describing reading strategies. In H. S. Waters, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, Strategy Use, and Instruction (pp. 201-225). New York: Guilford Press.
Akyel, A., & Ercetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37, 136-152.
Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use of reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.
Artelt, C. (2005). Cross-cultural approaches to measuring motivation. Educational Assessment, 10(3), 231-255.
Asselin, M., & Moayeri, M. (2010). Examining adolescent internet literacy practices: An
exploration of research methods. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 6(2), 191-210.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y.（1988）. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 16(1), 74-94.
Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition:Implications for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel ＆ K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 61-79). Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, G. T. L. (2003). Searching informational texts: Text and task characteristics that affect performance. Reading Online, 7(2). Retrieved June 17, 2010, from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=brown/index.html
Brozo, W. (2008, January). Lessons learned about engagement in reading from the programme for international student assessment. Paper presented at the International
Reading Association Annual Convention, Atlanta, GA.
Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., & Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent ＆ Adult Literacy, 51(4), 304-315.
Bryant, I. (2010). Digital reading environments as a teaching tool in the secondary classroom. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://hdl.handle.net/1803/4251
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872-882.
Chen, H. Y. (2009). Online reading comprehension strategies among general and special education elementary and middle school students. Unpublished dissertation: University of Michigan State University.
Chen, H. Y., & Zhu, J. (2009). Testing for WISC-Ⅲ factorial invariance across gender, Psychological Testing, 56(1), 1-18.
Cheung, K. C., & Sit, P. S. (2008). Electronic reading assessment : The PISA approach for the international comparison of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 4(4), 19-39。
Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet: Paradoxes and possibilities for diverse adolescent readers. Unpublished dissertation: University of Connecticut.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2007). The Handbook of Research in New Literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1999). Innovations in Computerized Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duke, N. K., Schmar-Dobler, E., & Zhang, S. (2006). Comprehension and technology. In M.C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer, & D. Rethinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology: Volume Ⅱ (pp. 317-326). Mahwah, NJL Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagleton, M., Guinee, K., & Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: the hero inquiry project. Voice from the Middle, 10(3), 28-35.
Greenleaf, C. L., Jimenez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002) . Reclaiming secondary reading interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 484-496.
Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). Just what is reading comprehension anyway. In S. E. Israel & K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: theory,
assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guinee, K., Eagleton, M. B., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Adolescents’ internet search strategies: Drawing upon familiar cognitive paradigms when accessing electronic information sources. Educational Computing Research, 29 (3), 363-374.
Henry, L. A. (2005). Information search strategies on the Internet: a critical component of new literacies. Webology, 2(1).
Henry, L.A. (2006, December). What reading demands does searching on the Internet require?A review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, California.
Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the web and electronic paper. Retrieved May 22, 2011, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2762/2504
Ho, S. C. (2011). Results from HKPISA 2009: Hong Kong students on line: Digital Technologies and reading in PISA 2009. Retrieved June 28, 2011, from
http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkpisa/events/2009/files/PISA09_digital_ppt_28jun.pdf
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N.S. (2001, April). The influence of metacognitive self-regulation and ability levels on problem solving. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Huang, H.C., Chern, C. L., & Lin, C. C.. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52, 13-26.
Hvistendahl, R., & Roe, A. (2004). The literacy achievement of Norwegian minority students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,48(3), 307-325.
International Reading Association (IRA) (2002). Integrating literacy and technology in the
curriculum: A position statement. Newark, Delaware.
Kaisa, L., Pirjo, L., & Antero, M. (2004). Finnish students’ multiliteracy profiles. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,48(3), 151-171.
Kolic-Vehovec, S., & Bajsanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 439-451.
Lee, M., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). Designing metacognitive maps for web-based learning. Educational Technology ＆ Society, 9(1), 344-348.
Lennon, M., Kirsch, I., Von Davier, M., Wagner, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2003). Feasibility study for the PISA ICT Literacy assessment. NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Leu, D. J. (2007). Expanding the reading literacy framework of PISA 2009 to include online reading comprehension. A working paper commissioned by the PISA 2009 Reading Expert Group. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D., et al. (2008a). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, S. Paris, & P. Afflerbach. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp.61-79). New York: Guilford Press.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication tecnologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading, fifth edition (pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, L., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., & Hatrman, D. K., et al. (2009). The new literacies of online reading comprehension and the No Child Left Behind: Students who require our assistance the most, actually receive it the least. In Morrow, L. M., Rueda, R., & Lapp, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy instruction: Issues of diversity, policy, and equity. New York: Guilford Press.
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., Banerjee, M., Housand, B. C., Liu, Y., & O’Neil, M.,
et al. (2008b). What is new about the new literacies of online reading comprehension? In L. S. Rush, A. J. Eakle, & A. Berger. (Eds.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practice (pp.61-79). National Council of Teachers of English.
Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2005). What we have learned from PISA so far: A German educational psychology point of view. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 2(2), 39-56.
Linnakyla, P., & Malin, A., & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,48(3), 231-250.
Lishner, D. A., Cooter, A. B., & Zald, D. H. (2008). Addressing measurement limitations in affective rating scales: Development of an empirical valence scale. Cognition and Emotion, 22(1), 180-192.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
Marsh, H. W., Kit-Tai Hau, Artelt, C., Baumert, J., ＆ Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measurement of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparison across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
Mendelovits, J., Lumley, T., & Searle, D. (2009, September). Assessing reading literacy in the digital age. Paper presented at The PISA Research Conference 2009, Kiel, Germany.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational, Measurement (3rd ed., pp.13-104). New York: Macmillan.
Mislevy, R.J. (2006). Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In R. L. Brennan
(Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education.
Mok, Y. F., Fan, R. M. T., & Pang, N. S. K. (2007). Developmental patterns of school students’ motivational and cognitive metacognitive competencies. Educational Studies, 33(1), 81–98.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nachmias, R., & Gilad, A. (2002). Needle in a hyperstack : Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 475-486.
OECD (2000a). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD PISA 2000. Paris: Author.
OECD (2000b). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: Author.
OECD (2007a). PISA 2006 released item. Paris: Author.
OECD (2007b). Reading literacy: A framework for PISA 2009. Paris: Author.
OECD (2009). PISA data analysis manual: SPSS second edition. Paris: Author.
OECD (2010a). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: Author.
OECD (2010b). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do - Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). Paris: Author.
OECD (2010c). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn (Volume III). Paris: Author.
OECD (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Reading and using digital information, explores students’ use of information technologies to learn (Volume VI). Paris: Author.
Paris, S. G. (2005). Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In S. E. Israel ＆ K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 101-119). Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic Readers. In
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Parshell, C. G., Davey, T., & Pashley, P. J. (2000). Innovative item types for computerized testing. In W. J. Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 129-148). Netherland: Khrwer Academic Publishers.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp.43-97). US: Buros Institue of Mental Measurements and Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of –the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices (pp. 11-27). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rahman, S., Yassin, S. F. M., Ishak, N. M., & Amir, R. (2008, June). The use of metacognitive strategies in accessing and studying hypertext materials online. Paper at the 2008 EABR & TLC Conference Proceedings, Rothenburg, Germany.
Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517-529.
RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf
Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2011). Reading skills and children’s navigation strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(3), 1143–1151.
Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2007). Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students’strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 351-378.
Schmitt, M. C. (2005). Measuring student’s awareness and control of strategic process. In S. E. Israel ＆ K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning:Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, New Jerset: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schulz, W. (2005, April). Testing parameter invariance for questionnaire indices using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco.
Sit, P. S., & Cheung, K. C. (2009, September). An examination of the design and implementation logistics of electronic reading assessment in PISA 2009 study: The Macao experiences. Paper presented at The PISA Research Conference, Kiel, Germany.
Sperlin, R. A., Howard, B. C., & Staley, R. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117-139.
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16, 57-71.
Stokes, G. S., ＆ Searcy, C. A. (1999). Specification of scales in biodata form development:rational vs. empirical and global vs. specific. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 72-85.
Streiner, D. L. (2006). Building a Better Model：An introduction to structural equation modelling. Research Methods in Psychiatry, 51(5), 317-324.
Sungur, S. (2007). Modeling the relationships among students’ motivational briefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort regulation. Scandinavian Journal of Educaitonal Research, 51(3), 315-326.
Vrugt, A., ＆ Oort, F. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition Learning, 30, 123-146.
Wang, W. C. (2010). Recent developments in RASCH measurement. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. P., & Haldane, S. (2007). ACER ConQuest Version 2.0 Manual. Australian: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Zawilinski, L., Carter, A., O''Byrne, I., McVerry, G., Nierlich, T., & Leu, D. (2007, November). Towards a taxonomy of online reading comprehension strategies. In D. Leu and D. Reinking (Chairs), The TICA project: Teaching Internet comprehension to adolescents who are at risk to become dropouts. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Education Psychology, 80(3), 284-290.