學習障礙學生之智力組型與基本學業表現暨影響學障研判決策因素之探討_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	學習障礙學生之智力組型與基本學業表現暨影響學障研判決策因素之探討
作者：	黃美慧
校院名稱：	國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱：	特殊教育學系
指導教授：	吳裕益
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2013
主題關鍵詞：	學習障礙；鑑定；邏輯斯回歸；聯合分析；learning disabilities；identification；logist regerssion analysis；conjoint analysis
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:56

摘要
本研究包含兩部份，研究一為透過台南市、高雄市被轉介接受學習障礙鑑定共375位之疑似學習障礙學生真實資料，分析智力組型、基本學業能力、個人與家庭背景變項與鑑定結果的關係；研究二為自編虛擬個案資料問卷，探討台南市、高雄市共313位特殊教育教師或心理評量人員在研判決策的考量因素。
研究一結果顯示（1）疑似學習障礙學生在魏氏兒童智力量表第三版中的得分以「作業智商」高於「語文智商」，因素指數中以「知覺組織」表現最佳，其次是「處理速度」，再其次是「語文理解」，表現最差的是「專心注意」指數。都會區（原台南市、原高雄市）送件個案的整體智商優於非都會區（原台南縣、原高雄縣）個案，但智力內在優弱勢組型相似；（2）不同鑑定結果個案（智能障礙類除外）的智力內優弱勢組型相似；但整體智商會因地區的不同而有差異；（3）疑似學習障礙學生的識字能力與閱讀理解能力皆以都會區優於非都會區。數學能力方面，則以原高雄縣轉介個案表現相對較差；（3）邏輯斯回歸分析結果發現在控制其他因素的影響後，「地區」、「性別」與「語文智商」三個變項仍會影響通過鑑定的機率，其中高雄市（包含原高雄縣、市）個案通過機率較高；女性個案通過機率的勝算高於男性；語文智商越高則通過機率越低。
研究二結果顯示（1）在個案的特質水準方面，以男性、沒有動機或行為問題、家長教育程度在高中以上、家庭經濟狀況不佳、家中有人可指導課業、智力在90以上、智力內有優劣勢、智力與成就有差距、聽說讀寫算整體低落、知覺或知覺動作協調困難、普通教育介入完全無效的個案被特教教師研判為學習障礙的機率較高，但會因研判者的背景變項而稍有不同；（2）在個案特質的相對重要性方面，影響研判決策最重要的是「智商」，影響力超過20%，其次是「智力內優劣勢」、「心理歷程困難」、「智力與成就差異」等，影響力大約介於12%至15%之間；「普通教育介入成效」、「聽說讀寫算困難」等影響力約在6%至7%左右，其他個案本身與家庭背景變項對研判決策的影響力相對較低，但會因研判者所屬的「性別」、「年齡」、「地區」、「任教學校班級數」、「個案量」等背景變項而稍有不同；（3）特教教師或心評人員整體研判的一致性大約介於.2至.6之間，會因研判者「專業背景」、「相關經驗」與「心評證照」的提升而有上升的趨勢；（4）集群分析結果顯示特教教師間可分為「嚴格組」與「寬鬆組」兩個主要群體，由「嚴格組」教師評分時，個案被研判為學習障礙的機率皆顯著低於「寬鬆組」教師。
關鍵詞: 學習障礙、鑑定、邏輯斯回歸、聯合分析

以文找文

Abstract
The current study included two main sections, section one was to analyze relationship between intelligence profiles, academic ability, personal, family variables and the result of LD identification by the samples of 375 students in the LD identification program from Tainan and Kaohsiung cities. Section two of the study was to compile the dummy data questionnaire to confer the decision-making factors of 313 special education teachers from Tainan and Kaohsiung cities.
It is included in section one that: 1)students in the learning disability identification program got higher scores in PIQ than VIQ. Among factor indexes , students’ performance of POI is the best,and PSI, VCI were in the order while the FDI was in the lowest status; 2) there was similarity of inner strong and weak profile with the difference of whole FIQ in different areas; 3)students who were suspected to be learning disability in metropolis got better scores on literacy ability and reading comprehension ability than students in on metropolis, and 4) in the result of logistic regression analysis, we found out that area, gender and VIQ would effect the probability of passing rate when controlling other variables.
It is included in section two that: 1) In the character effect of cases , male ,no behavior problem , parents with higher education level, IQ above 90, with the difference of inner intelligence , with the IQ-academic discrepency , whole ability difficulty, perceptual or perceptual-motor cooperating difficulty, failing in RTI would get higher passing rate;
2) Among all variables, the most important factor for decision-making of staffs would be FIQ with the affection over 20%.After that ,there would be affection on inner IQ advantages and disadvantages,psychological process difficulties,the difference on IQ nd academic performance between 12% to 15%.There would be also affection on RTI effectiveness, difficulty in listening,speaking, reading, writing, counting between 6% to 7%.Other variables would have less affection on family background in passing decision making while gender, age, area, school size and the caseload would have little differences; 3) the consistence of rating among special education teachers between 0.2 to 0.6. There would be also a tendency of increasing with the professional background , experiences and psychological assessment license. Finally, by the result of cluster analysis ,special education teachers could be divided into strict group and loose group. The passing rate in strict group would be lower than loose group while they estimated the same case.
Key words: learning disabilities; identification; logist regerssion analysis; conjoint analysis

以文找文

參考文獻

一、中文部份
王小燕（2007）：特殊教育心理評量教師鑑定工作現況與需求之研究-以台北縣為例。
台北市立教育大學特教係身心障礙教育教學碩士學位班碩士論文，未出版。
王榮宏（2011）：台南縣國民中小學學習障礙鑑定實施現況之研究。國立彰化師範
大學教育研究所學校行政碩士班碩士論文，未出版。
王淑惠（2006）國小原住民學習障礙兒童與非原住民學習障礙兒童在魏氏兒童智力量表的表現分析。東台灣特殊教育學報，8，191-214。 new window

王瓊珠（2004）：學習障礙學生鑑定問題探討－以台北市國小為例。國小特殊教 new window

育，37，39-46。
王瓊珠、洪儷瑜（2010）：閱讀障礙研究之歷史與發展趨勢。載於柯華葳（主編）
中文閱讀障礙，201-222。台北，心理。
孔繁鐘譯（1999）：American Psychiatric Association（著）。DSM-IV精神疾病的診
斷與統計。台北，合記。
台南市政府教育局（2011）：台南市100學年度國民中小學學習障礙學生鑑定實施
計畫。2012年3月7日取自http://boe.tn.edu.tw/boe/wSite/ct?xItem=3850&ctNode= 304&mp=4&idPath=296_304
台南市政府教育局（2011）：台南市轉介前介入輔導紀錄表。2012年3月7日取自http://boe.tn.edu.tw/boe/wSite/ct?xItem=3850&ctNode=304&mp=4&idPath=296_304。
台南市政府教育局（2012）：台南市100學年度國民中小學學障鑑複檢工作研習手冊。
台南市教育產業公會（2012）：臺南市教育產業工會第一屆特殊教育委員會籌備會
議暨成立大會會議紀錄。2012年4月30日，取自http://www.tneu.org.tw/modules/ tadnews/ index. php? ncsn=1&g2p=2&loadtime=1336029063
台灣學障學會（2009）：台灣學障學會2009年會手冊。高雄市，台灣學障學會。
台灣學障學會（2010）：台灣學障學會電子報第三期。2012年3月22日取自http://tald.tw/attachments/article/66/tald_epaper_3_20100111.pdf。

李俊仁（2010）：智力與閱讀障礙。載於柯華葳主編：中文閱讀障礙（115-127）。台北，心理。
吳裕益（2000）：從測驗與統計原理評現行學習障礙鑑定方式與標準。新世記優質學習的經營研討會論文輯，台南師院。
吳裕益（2011）：聯合分析之原理與應用。未出版的手稿，國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系。
周台傑（1999）：學習障礙學生鑑定原則鑑定基準說明。載於張蓓莉主編：身心障
礙及資賦優異學生鑑定原則鑑定基準說明手冊（75-91）。臺北：國立臺
灣師範大學特殊教育學系。
孟瑛如、陳麗如（2000）：學習障礙兒童在魏氏兒童智力量表上顯現之特質研究。 new window

特殊育季刊，74，1-44。
孟瑛如（2004）：學習障礙與補救教學：教師及家長實用手冊。臺北：五南。 new window

胡永崇（2004）。國民中小學閱讀障礙學生之WISC-Ⅲ及基本學業測驗表現分析。屏東師院學報，20，141-180。 new window

胡永崇（2010）：智力正常與個別內差異二項學習障礙學生鑑定標準的檢討。南屏特殊教育，1，25-33。 new window

柯華葳、詹益綾（2007）：國民中學閱讀推理篩選測驗編製報告。測驗學刊，54（2），429-450。 new window

洪儷瑜（1995）：學習障礙者教育。臺北：心理。
洪儷瑜（1999）：從學習障礙的新定義談我國學障教育應有的調整。載於柯華葳、洪儷瑜主編，學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷研討會文集，238-242。嘉義，中正大學心理系。
洪儷瑜（2005）：學習障礙鑑定工作檢討與建議-由「各縣市實施學習障礙學生鑑
定工作調查表」談起。教育部委託報告。2012 年1月15 日取自洪儷瑜資
源網http://192.192.250.54/liyuhung/
洪儷瑜、何淑玫（2010）：「介入反應」在特殊教育的意義與應用。特殊教育季刊，115，1-13。 new window

洪儷瑜、陳淑麗、陳心怡（2003）：學習障礙國中學生的智力特質之研究。師大學報，48（2），215-238。 new window

高雄市政府教育局（2011）：高雄市101學年度第一次及第二次申請特殊教育鑑定安
置研習手冊。
許天威（2002）：學習障礙者之教育。台北：五南。
教育部（1990）：第二次全國特殊兒童普查工作手冊。台北：教育部特殊兒童
普查工作執行小組。
教育部（1992）：身心障礙學生鑑定及就學輔導原則要點。台北：教育部。
教育部（2002）：身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。台北：教育部。
教育部（2006）：身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準。台北：教育部。
教育部（2008）：特殊教育發展報告書。2011年11月25日，取自http://163.21.111.100/ tlearn/book/BookAll.asp?BookMainID=33
教育部（2012）：身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法。台北：教育部。
教育部特教通報網（2010a）：98學年度學前及國教階段身心障礙類外籍人士子女統計。2010年6月17日，取自http://www.set.edu.tw/sta2/frame_print.asp? filename=stuForeigh_city_edulev/stuForeigh_city_edulev_20100322.asp
教育部特殊教育通報網（2010b）：98學年度各縣市學校各校任教類別老師數統計。2012年6月5日，取自https://www.set.edu.tw/sta2/frame_print.asp? filename=tea_sch_teakind_C_17/tea_sch_teakind_C_17_20100322.asp
教育部特殊教育通報網（2011）：100學年度所有教育階段一般學校特教類別學生數統計表。2011年11月25日，取自http://www.set.edu.tw/sta2/frame_print.asp? filename=stuA_city_All_spckind_ABCE/stuA_city_All_spckind_ABCE_20111020.asp
陳心怡（2006）：WISC-Ⅲ中文版差異分數信度估計及其應用限制討論。測驗學刊，53(1)，79-102。 new window

陳心怡、洪儷瑜（2007）：由心評教師看特教鑑定工作的困境和展望。特殊教育年刊，149-168.
陳心怡、楊宗仁（2000）：WISC-Ⅲ分測驗特殊組型基本率研究：台灣常模、學習障礙及注意力缺陷過動症兒童之比較。測驗年刊，47（2），91-110。 new window

陳淑麗（2004）：轉介前介入對原住民閱讀障礙診斷區辨效度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳淑麗、洪儷瑜（2003）：學習障礙國中學生在不同差距標準差距之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，24，85-111。 new window

陳淑麗、洪儷瑜、曾世杰（2005）：以國語補救教學診斷原住民低成就學童是否為學習障礙：轉介前介入的效度考驗研究。特殊教育研究學刊，29，127-150。 new window

陳榮華（1997）：魏氏兒童智力量表第三版（中文版）指導手冊。臺北：中國行為科學社。
張媛婷（2007）：高雄市國民中小學學習障礙學生鑑定實施狀況之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系教學碩士班碩士論文，未出版。
黃俊英（2000）：多變量分析。台北：中國經濟企業研究所。
黃姿慎、孟瑛如（2008）：國民中小學學習障礙學生在魏氏兒童智力量表三版 new window

（WISC- Ⅲ）表現特徵研究。新竹教育大學學報，25（1）， 99-125。
黃瑞琪（2008）：特殊教育心理評量教師培訓需求研究-以台北縣為例。國立台灣師
範大學特殊教育學系特殊教育行政碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
詹士宜（2007）：介入效果模式的學障鑑定。特殊教育季刊，103，17-23。 new window

蔡乙瑱（2010）：宜蘭縣特殊教育心理評量教師參與心理評量工作之探討。國
立東華大學深心障礙語輔助科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，台東市。
賴淑韻（2003）：高雄市國中三年級學習障礙學生鑑定內涵與國中基本學力測驗表
現之分析--以國文科為例。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出
版。
鍾曉芬、孟瑛如（2004）：魏氏兒童智力量表第三版（WISC-III）對學習障礙學生
診斷功能之探析。特殊教育研究學刊，26，319-341。

二、英文部分
Bannatyne, A. (1968). Diagnosing learning disabilities and writing remedial prescription. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 242-249.
Bateman, B. D., & Chard, D. J. (1995). Identifying students who have learning disabilities. In G. Sugai & G. Tindal (Eds.) The Oregon Conference Monograph, (pp. 6-16). Eugene, OR: The Oregon Conference.
Bender, W.N. (2004). Learning Disabilities: Characteristics, Identification and Teaching Strategies(5th Ed.). USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J., & Hintze, J. M. (1998). Profile analysis: Why does it persist? School Psychology International, 19, 209-220.
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., & Best, A. M. (2002), The influence of social demographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities, Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 49-59.
Denton, C. A., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Reading and writing intervention for old students with disabilities: Possibilities and challenges. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 61-62.
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.
Fletcher, J. M., & Denton, C. F. (2003).Validity of alternative approaches to the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsivenessto-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. 2012年3月7日取自http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/.
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545-552.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R.D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, and S. Graham. Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30-56). Guilford Publications.
Fletcher, T. V., & Navarrete, L. A. (2003). Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look at issues associated with the misidentification and placement of Hispanic students in special education programs. Rural Special Education Quarterity, 22(4), 37-46.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J.M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S.E. & Shaywitz, B.A. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of learning disabilities. Test scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545-552.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93–99.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 33-45.
Goodman, G., & Webb, M. A. (2006). Reading disability referrals: Teacher bias and other factors that impact response to intervention. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(2), 59-70.
Green, P. E., & Srinvansan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research : Issue and outlook. Journal of consumer research ,5, 103-123.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1997). Teachers as “tests”: differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26(1), 46-70.
Gresham, F. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2010). What is the role of intelligence in identification of SLD? Issue and clarification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,25(4), 194-206.
Haight, S. L., Patriarca, L. A., & Burns, M. K. (2001). A statewide analysis of the
eligibility criteria and procedures for determining learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 39-46.
Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention; An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.
Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753-770. doi: 10.1002/pits.20186
Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: historical perspectives. Identification of learning disabilities: Rearch to practice. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hanson, M. J., & Lynch, E. W. (2004). Understanding families: Approaches to diversity, disability, and risk. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
Harris, J. D.,Gray, B. A., Davis, J. E., Zaremba, E. T., & Argulewicz, E. N. (1997). The exclusionary clause and the disadvantaged: Do we try to comply with the law.' Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 581-583.
Harry, B. (1994). The disproportionate representation of minority students in special
education: Theories and recommendations. Alexandria, VA: National Association
of State Directors of Special Education..
Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 137-146.
Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention or assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67-80.
Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 185-199.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. (2004). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved. May, 1, 2012，from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname = 108-cong--public_laws&docid=f:pubI446.108
Johnson, E.S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D.F., Woods, K., & Swanson, H.L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3-18
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 569-572.
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2006). Challenges with SLD identification: What is the SLD problem? Teachering Exceptional Children Plus, 3(1).
Jeon, H., Peterson, C. A., Wall, S., Carta, J. J., Luze, G. J., Eshbaugh, E. M., & Swanson, M. (2011). Predicting school readiness for low-income children with disability risks identified early. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 435-452.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligence testing with WISC-III. New York: John Wiely & Sons, Inc.
Kavale, K. & Andreassen, E. (1984). Factors in diagnosing the learning disabled: Analysis of judgement policies. Journal of Learning disabilities, 17(5), 273-278.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J.A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to
interventions and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique
and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(2), 113-127.
Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169-179.
Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. J., Anastasiow, N. J. & Coleman, M. R. (2000). Educating exceptional children (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Méndez Barletta, L. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108-128.
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teachers College Record, 108, 2247–2281.
Knotek, S. (2003). Bias in problem solving and the social process of student study teams. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 2-14.
Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lyon, R. G. (2005). Why scientific research must guide educational policy and instructional practices and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 140-143.
Machek, G. R., & Nelson, J.M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A national survey of school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 147-157.
Machek, G. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2010). School psychologists’ perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: Cognitive and RTI considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 47(3), 230- 245.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 314–326.
MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287-333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187-200.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525-531.
Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., & Barth, A. (2004). LD identification: It's not simply a
matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 29-242.
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsop, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities
definition and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 9(4), 217-232.
Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G. R., Shankweiler, D. P, Katz, L., Francis, D., & Shaywitz, B. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology , 90, 347-373.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1990). Definition of Learning Disabilities. 101年5月2日，取自http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2010). Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students With Learning Disabilities. 102年5月10日取自 http://www.ldonline.org/article/Comprehensive_Assessment_and_Evaluation_of_Students_With_Learning_Disabilities?theme=print
Ochoa, S. H., Rivera, B. D., & Powell, M. P. (1997). Factors used to comply with the exclusionary clause with bilingual and limited-English-proficient pupils: Initial guidelines. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 161-167.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 194–206.
Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Nguyen, N. (2001). Impact of sociodemographic characteristics on the identification rates of minority students as having mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39(5), 351-367.
Oswald, D. P., Best, A. M., Coutinho, M., & Nagle, H. (2003). Trends in the special education identification rates of boys and girls: A call for research and change. Exceptionality, 11, 223-227.
Prifitera,A., & Dersh, J. (1993). Base rates of WISC-III diagnostic subtest patterns among normal, learning disabled, and ADHD samples. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Monograph Series. Advances in Psychological Assessment: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.), 43-55.
Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.
Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.
Reschly, D. J. (1997). Disproportionate minority representation in general and special
education: Patterns, issues, and alternatives. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department
of Education.
Reschly, D. J., & Hosp, J. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.
Rueda, R., Klinger, J., Sager, N., & Velasco, A. (2007). Reducing disproportionare
representation in special education: overview, explains, and solutions. In T. C.
Jimenez & V. L. Graf (Eds.), Education for all: critical issues in the education of
children and youth with disabilities (pp. 131-166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scanlon, D. (2013). Specific learning disability and its newest definition: Which is comprehensive ? and which is insufficient? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(1), 26-33.
Scruggs, T. (2003). Alternatives to RTI in the assessment of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. 2012年3月7日取自http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater; Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155.
Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2003, December). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 246-257.
Sideridis, G. D., Padeliadu, S., & Antoniou, F. (2008). Teacher biases in the identification of learning disabilities: An application of the multilevel logistic model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 199-209.
Smith, C. B. & Wakins, M. W. (2004). Diagnostic utility of Bannatyne WISC-III pattern. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(1), 49-56.
Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
735-749.
Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 118-123.
Tzeng, S. J. (2007). Learning disabilities in Taiwan: A case of cultural constraints on the education of students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22 (3), 170-175.
Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Jeffrey, P. B. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities -- A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 5-18.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169.
VenDerHyden, A.M., & Witt, J. C. (2005). Quantifying context in assessment: capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and a Problem-Solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161-183.
Waber, D. P. (2010). Rethinking learning disabilities: Understanding children who struggle in school. New York: The Guilford Press.
Watkins, M. W., & Kush, J. C. (1994). WISC-R subtest analysis of variance: The right
way, the wrong way, or no way? School Psychology Review, 23, 640–651.
Watkins, M. W., Kush, J. S., & Glutting, J. J. (1997). Prevalence and diagnostic utility of the WISC-III SCAD profile among children wth disabilities. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(3), 235-248.
Watkins, M. W. , Kush, J. S., & Schaefer, B. A. (2002). Diagnostic utility of learning disabilities index. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 103-136.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, the third edition (WISC-III) Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (2001). Disproportionate representation of males in special education services: Biology, behavior, or bias? Education & Treatment of Children, 24(1), 28-45.
Yesseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Professionals who erroneously declare students eligible for special education. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(4), 223-228.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	中學生閱讀科學圖文與不同語意透明度之學術詞彙的認知處理策略--眼動追蹤研究
2.	從算式或文字閱讀數學科普文章：共變數分析與階層線性模式的比較
3.	影片示範教學提升國小學習障礙學生整數乘除法應用題解題成效之研究
4.	國小注意力缺陷過動症學生、學習障礙伴隨注意力缺陷過動症問題學生與一般學生在魏氏兒童智力量表第五版(WISC-V)表現差異之探討
5.	學前融合教育課程調整模式之探討
6.	國小自閉症資優生多階層校本方案運作模式之探究
7.	國小中高年級學童文章結構辨識與閱讀理解之研究
8.	以同儕輔助學習策略之次級介入提升國小學生語文能力：試探性研究
9.	發展學生的個別適性學習策略--運用「青年聽讀寫學習優勢發展量表」分析學習特質及發展學習策略
10.	高中職學習障礙學生的英語閱讀策略與閱讀能力之相關研究
11.	功能性動作訓練課程對國小學習障礙學生認知注意力提升之研究
12.	同儕輔助學習策略對提升國小三年級學生語文能力表現之研究：差異化教學之本土實踐
13.	心智圖教學對國中學習障礙學生故事體文章的閱讀理解學習成效
14.	低成就生？學障生？差距與內在差異模式之學障鑑定的省思
15.	學習障礙、情緒行為障礙及自閉症學生轉介與篩選現況調查研究--以新北市為例

1.	國小數學障礙亞型特徵及其教學策略之研究
2.	國民教育階段融合教育政策評估指標之建構及其應用
3.	魏氏智力量表台灣與美國樣本因素結構和測量恆等性之研究
4.	教學反應模式在國中閱讀障礙鑑定系統之建構
5.	國小教師中文字概念、識字教學策略與教學自我效能之關係研究
6.	閱讀理解策略教學成效之行動研究：以國小中年級弱勢低閱讀能力學童為對象
7.	正向輔導課程方案對ADHD兒童在校生活適應影響之個案研究
8.	數位親職訓練雛型系統之建構與應用分析-以注意力缺失暨過動症為例
9.	兒童代名詞推論的發展研究
10.	應用教學反應模式對國小學習障礙學生鑑定之研究
11.	國中小資源班教師合作諮詢現況及相關因素之研究
12.	國小兒童注意力測驗之編製與應用
13.	數學低成就學生除法解題錯誤類型分析及補救教學效果之研究
14.	非語文學習障礙篩選量表效度研究
15.	轉介前介入對原住民閱讀障礙診斷區辨效度之研究

1.	學習障礙與補救教學 : 教師及家長實用手冊
2.	弱勢學童讀寫希望工程 : 課輔現場的瞭解與改造
3.	國小資源班教師專業知能與學習障礙學生服務現況之研究
4.	資源教室方案 : 班級經營與補救教學
5.	網路ECBM系統對國小學障兒童學習診斷與教學之研究
6.	課程設計與教保策略
7.	閱讀障礙研究之歷史與發展趨勢
8.	智力與閱讀障礙
9.	藝術與科學的結合 : 偏遠弱勢地區優良教師語文教學之個案研究

無相關著作

1.	基隆市新移民子女就讀國中之英語學習成就因素探究
2.	父母教育期望的預測因子：性別及族群差異
3.	原住民族身心障礙學生文化回應教學之探究
4.	教育制度中的社會正義理論分析--多元觀點與比較基礎建構
5.	透過詞彙教學方案增加低成就學童閱讀能力
6.	城鄉學生學習落差現況、成因及政策建議
7.	扶助弱勢學生學習：教師教學信念與教學取向之探究
8.	三到五歲臺灣學齡前幼兒基本數能力的表現：與TEMA常模比較
9.	文化資本的代間傳遞與轉換對國中學生教育成就的影響
10.	臺灣近20年(1994∼2014)教育研究的回顧和比較--家庭背景與教育成就之間關係的分析
11.	反省文化資本理論在臺灣的有效性：文化品味、教育和階級的關聯性及其變遷
12.	歐盟與臺灣補救教學政策之比較研究：以中輟為例
13.	臺灣新移民女性母職角色之探討--家庭生命週期觀點的分析
14.	選制改革對投票穩定與變遷的影響：臺灣五次立委選舉的實證分析
15.	優秀學生運動員運動退出意圖之社會因素探究

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫