學校行政人員對注意力缺陷過動症訊息之知覺研究

A Study on the Perception of School Administrator to ADHD Information

10.30074/FJMH.200703_20(1).0004

蔡明富(Ming-Fu Tsai)

學校行政人員 ； 注意力缺陷過動症 ； 標記 ； 知覺 ； school administrator ； ADHD ； label ； perception

中華心理衛生學刊

20卷1期（2007 / 03 / 01）

75 - 104

繁體中文

研究目的：注意力缺陷過動症（Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder，簡稱ADHD）為校園內常見兒童精神疾病。本研究主要在釐清不同標記（ADHD、精力充沛、正常學生）訊息與行為（ADHD行為、適當行為、未描述行為）訊息如何影響學校行政人員預測學童之學校適應與覺知學童之社會距離，並探討學校行政人員的不同特教背景或接觸經驗對前述歷程有何影響，以及探究學校行政人員預測ADHD學生學校適應與知覺其社會距離兩者間之關係。研究方法：本研究對象為270名國中小學校行政人員，以「標記與行為知覺問卷」蒐集資料，所得資料採多因子變異數分析與Pearson積差相關分析。研究結果：本研究發現－1.單獨出現標記訊息或行為訊息時，負向標記訊息或負向行為訊息顯著影響學校行政人員形成負向學校適應預測，但在社會距離知覺則無顯著影響；同時出現標記訊息與行為訊息時，不同標記訊息不會因為出現不同行為訊息，而對學校行政人員在學校適應預測與社會距離知覺有顯著影響。2.不同特教背景或接觸經驗並不會影響學校行政人員之前項知覺。3.學校行政人員預測ADHD學生學校適應與知覺其社會距離兩者間的相關並不顯著。研究結論：ADHD標記會對學校行政人員形成負向學校適應預測，但並不影響其社會距離，學校行政人員預測ADHD學生學校適應與知覺其社會距離並無相關。

Purpose: That the application of disability labels to children could affect their performance had been widely claimed by labeling critics but not clearly demonstrated. Considerable concern had been expressed regarding the potential negative impact of diagnostic on children. Some critics of labeling had suggested that once a label had been applied to a child, all subsequent interactions with the child would be altered by the presence of that label. Although several investigators had indicated using labels might help establish classification, diagnostic, and treatment sequences, provide a foundation for research on etiology and prevention, and call public attention to a problem, most of the literature had focused on more negative consequences. The impact of labels on school administrators was especially important because of the pivotal role these educators play in dealing with children with special needs. Not only might they be directly influenced by institutional procedures and diagnostic labels, but their attitudes and actions might also influence others. Most authorities estimated the prevalence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at 3 to 5% of the school-aged population, making it one of the most common disorders of children and youth and putting it among the most common reasons for referral. The main purpose of the study were to (a) investigate the effects of different labels and behavioral information of school administrators' perceptions on prediction students' school adjustment and their social distance, (b) explore the effects of different labels and behavioral information from different background of school administrators, (c) examine the relationship between school adjustment prediction and social distance from school administrators toward their ADHD students. Methods: To explore the impact of labeling on school administrators, 270 elementary & junior high school administrators were recruited from Kaohsiung city and county. All participants were given a questionnaire that consisted of a cover letter describing the purpose of the study, a case vignette, a 16-item school adjustment prediction, a 15-item social distance, and a participant information sheet. The vignette described three different labels encompassed ADHD, energetic and normal, and three different behavioral information were described as ADHD, normal, and no description. It was also ensured that all nine vignettes were of comparable length. The School Adjustment Prediction Scales explored predictions about the students' learning, behavioral, interpersonal adjustment. The semantic differential was employed as the measure of school adjustment prediction towards student. The total of 16 bi-polar adjectives were printed in random order, and the positive or negative ends of the scale were alternated to control for systematic response biases. The Social Distance Scales explored perceptions about the students' social distance. The Social Distnace Scale were rated on a scale from 1 to 7, with ”1” meaning extremely unlikely and ”7” meaning extremely likely. Questionnaires were handed out randomly to the subjects. No verbal instruction were given other than asking the subjects to read the instructions on the front of the questionnaire carefully. In addition, the school administrators were asked to work individually and not discuss the questionnaire until they had finished. When the questionnaires had been completed, they were handed in and the subjects thanked. No debriefing was given unless the subjects specifically asked for information or explanations. The scores were then calculated for subject, and these scores were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance, three-way analysis of variance, and Pearson correlation. Results: The results showed that (1) There was a main effect for different labels and behavioral information on the school adjustment prediction. However, the social distance was not significantly different. There were no significant two-way interaction between different labels and behavioral information on school administrators' perceptions to school adjustment prediction and social distance. The ADHD label or ADHD behavior had a negative results of school administrators' prediction on ADHD students' school adjustment. The evidence suggested that school administrators were much more influenced by ADHD label. The school administrators were relatively immune to the ADHD behavior when evaluating the social distance. (2) There were no significant effects of different labels, behavioral information, or different special education background on the school adjustment prediction and social distance variable, and there were no interaction among those independent variables. There were no significant effects of different labels, behavioral information, or different contact experience on the school adjustment prediction and social distance variable, and there were no interaction among those independent variables. The results revealed that different special education background and contact experience had no significant effects on the perceptions of school administrators. It was apparent that the different special education background and contact experience had virtually no effect on the ratings of the school administrators. (3) There were not significantly correlated between school adjustment prediction and social distance on school administrators' perception of ADHD student. Conclusions: The ADHD label appears to have a negative effect on school administrators' perception of school adjustment. The school administrators' prediction of school adjustment were found to be unrelated to social distance for ADHD students.

1. 蔡明富、洪儷瑜(2005)。不同標記與行為訊息對國小學生之知覺影響―以ADHD為例。高雄師大學報教育與社會科學類，18，1-22。
   連結：
2. Antonak, P. F.(1981).Prediction of attitudes toward disabled persons. A multivariate analysis.The Journal of General Psychology,104,119-123.
3. Clausen, J.(1981).Stigma and mental disorder: Phenomena and terminology.Psychiatry,44,287-296.
4. Cornett-Ruiz, S.,Hendricks, B.(1993).Effects of labeling and ADHD behaviors on peer and teacher judgments.Journal of Educational Research,86(6),349-355.
5. Cromack, S.,Furnham, A.(1998).Psychiatric labelling, sex roles stereotypes and beliefs about the mentally ill.International Journal of Social Psychiatry,44(4),235-247.
6. DuPaul, G. J.,Stoner, G.(1994).ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies
7. Farina, A. Murray, P.,Groh, T.(1978).Sex and worker acceptance of a former mental patient.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,46,887-891.
8. Farina, A.,Hagelauer, H.(1975).Sex and mental illness: The generosity of females.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,43,122.
9. Foster, G. G.,Schmidt, C. R.,Sabatino, D.(1976).Teacher expectancies and the label “learning disabilities”.Journal of Learning Disabilities,9(2),111-114.
10. Foster, G.,Algozzine, B.,Ysseldyke, J.(1979).Susceptibility to stereotypic bias
11. Foster, G.,Ysseldyke, J.,Reese, J.(1975).I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn`t believed it.Exceptional Children,41,469-473.
12. Goffman, E.(1963).Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity
13. Goodman, H.,Gottlieb, J.,Harrison, R. H.(1972).Social acceptance of EMRs integrated into a nongraded elementary school.American Journal of Mental Deficiency,76,412-417.
14. Gove, W.(1970).Societal reaction as an explanation of mental illness: An evaluation.American Sociological Review,35,873-884.
15. Jones, E. E.,Farina, A.,Hastorf, A. H.,Markus, H.,Miller, D. T.,Scott, R. A.(1984).Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships
16. Kauffman, J. M.(2005).Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth
17. Kennon, A. F.,Sandoval, J.(1978).Teacher attitudes toward the educable mentally retarded.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,13,139-145.
18. Kirk, S.(1974).The impact of labeling on the rejection of the mentally ill: An experimental study.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,15,108-117.
19. Krueger, J.,Rothbart, M.(1988).Use of categorical and individuating information in making inferences about personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,35(2),187-195.
20. Kunda, A.,Sherman-Williams, B.(1993).Stereotypes and the construal ofindividuating information.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,19,90-99.
21. Kunda, A.,Thagard, P.(1996).Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory.Psychological Review,103(2),284-308.
22. Lehman, S.,Joy, V.,Kreisman, D.,Simmens, S.(1976).Responses to viewing symptomatic behaviors and labeling of prior mental illness.Journal of Community Psychology,4,327-334.
23. Leyser, Y.,Abrams, P. D.(1983).A shift to the positive: An effective programme for changing pre-service teachers` attitudes toward the disabled.Educational Review,35(35),43.
24. Link, B. G.,Cullen, F. T.,Frank, J.,Wozniak, J. F.(1987).The social rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter.American Journal of Sociology,1461-1500.
25. Link, B. G.,Phelan, J. C.(2001).Conceptualizing stigma.Annual Review Sociology,27,363-385.
26. Link, B.,Cullen, F.(1983).Reconsidering the social rejection of ex-mental patients: Levels of attitudinal response.American Journal of Community Psychology,11,261-273.
27. Lynch, R. T.,Thuli, K.,Groombridge, L.(1994).Person-first disability language: A pilot analysis of public perceptions.Journal of Rehabilitation,60(2),18-22.
28. Macrae, C. N.,Bodenhausen, G. V.,Miline, A. B.,Jetten, J.(1994).Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67,808-817.
29. Mead, G. H.(1962).Mind, self and society
30. Norwich, B.(1999).The connotation of special education labels for professionals in the field.British Journal of Special Education,26(4),179-183.
31. Orlansky, M. D.(1984).Public perceptions of terms relating to blindness and visual impairment.Journal of Rehabilitation,50(3),46-49.
32. Panda, K. C.,Bartel, N. R.(1972).Teacher perception of exceptional children.The Journal of Special Education,6,261-266.
33. Pendry, L. F.,Macrae, C. N.(1994).Stereotypes and mental life: The case of the motivation but thwarted tactician.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,30,303-325.
34. Peterson, G. F.(1975).Factors related to the attitudes of nonretarded children toward their EMR peers.American Journal of Mental Deficiency,79,412-416.
35. Phelan, J. C.,Link, B. G.,A. V. Horwitz,T. L. Scheid(1999).The labeling theory of mental disorder(I): The role of social contingencies in the application of psychiatric labels.A handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems,139-150.
36. Reschly, D. J.,Lamprecht, M. J.(1979).Expectancy effects of labels: Fact or artifact?.Exceptional Children,46(1),55-58.
37. Rizzo, T. L.,Wright, R. G.(1988).Physical educators` attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps.Mental Retardation,26,307-0-309.
38. Rothlisberg, B. A.,Hill, R.,D` Amato R. C.(1992).Social acceptance of mentally retarded children by nonlabeled peers
39. Salvia, J.,Clark, B.,Ysseldyke, J. E.(1973).Teacher retention of stereotypes of exceptionality.Exceptional Children,39(8),651-652.
40. Sandberg, L. D.(1982).Attitudes of nonhandicapped elementary school students toward school-aged trainable mentally retarded students.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded,17,30-34.
41. Van Bourgondien, M. E.(1984).Children`s responses to retarded peers as a function of social behavior, labeling, and age.53(5),432-439.
42. Ysseldyke, J. E.,Foster, G. G.(1978).Bias in teachers` observations of emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children.Exceptional Children,44(8),613-615.
43. 吳武典、梁能(1978)。對殘障者的態度調查研究。測驗年刊，25，85-93。
44. 吳麗君(1987)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
45. 李碧真(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
46. 杞昭安(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
47. 林明地(2002)。校長學―工作分析與角色研究取向
48. 林美和(1985)。社會大眾對中度智能不足者的認識與態度研究。社會教育學刊，14，59-78。
49. 林美珍(1983)。大學生對特殊兒童的社會態度。教育與心理研究，6，55-73。
50. 邱佩瑩(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
51. 洪雪萍(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文。
52. 洪儷瑜、丘彥南、張郁雯、蔡明富(2001)。學生適應調查表指導手冊
53. 孫實義(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中國文化大學兒童福利研究所碩士論文。
54. 張照明(1996)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
55. 郭秀鳳(1996)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
56. 陳奎熹(1982)。教育社會學
57. 陳皎眉、杜富漢(1984)。對殘障者態度之研究。中國社會學刊，8，91-112。
58. 黃志龍(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
59. 黃富廷(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
60. 葉祥溪(1993)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文。
61. 蔡文佩、李選(1997)。軍中基層領導幹部對精神疾患態度與接納行為之探討。榮總護理，14(4)，425-435。
62. 蔡明富、洪儷瑜(2005)。還原「ADHD標記」真相？―不同標記與行為訊息對國小師生之知覺影響。特殊教育研究學刊，28，167-190。
63. 蔡明富、洪儷瑜(2004)。國小教師與同儕對注意力缺陷過動症標記之知覺。特殊教育研究學刊，26，293-317。
64. 蔡進雄(2003)。學校行政與教學研究
65. 饒敏(1996)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。

1. 蔡明富(2008)。性別、標記及行爲訊息對國小學生知覺的影響—以注意力缺陷過動症爲例。特殊教育學報，28，123-153。
2. 蔡明富(2013)。ADHD 資優標記與行為嚴重度相關訊息對國中學生知覺之影響。高雄師大學報：教育與社會科學類，35，65-90。
3. 蔡明富(2015)。國小普通班學生對雙重特殊標記訊息之知覺研究：以ADHD資優學生為例。特殊教育與復健學報，31，1-30。
4. 黃惠玲、黃惠玲(2008)。注意力缺陷過動疾患研究回顧。應用心理研究，40，197-219。
5. (2009)。注意力缺陷過動症資優生干擾行為輔導實務。資優教育，112，20-28。