轉介前介入在學障鑑定之可行性研究：以原住民低成就國小學童為例

The Feasibility of a Pre-Referral Intervention Program in LD Identification: Using an Reading Intervention Program for Aboriginal Underachievers as an Example

10.6172/BSE200706.3202003

陳淑麗(Shu-Li Chen)；洪儷瑜(Li-Yu Hung)；曾世杰(Shih-Jay Tzeng)

原住民 ； 學習障礙 ； 轉介前介入方案 ； 教學反應 ； Aboriginal students ； learning disability ； pre-referral intervention program ； response to instruction

特殊教育研究學刊

32卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

47 - 66

繁體中文

本研究旨在建立一個轉介前介入方案，來區分在特教鑑定上，難以區分的學障與一般低成就兒童。本研究對47位國語文低成就的原住民學童進行11週的補救教學，根據研究執行的歷程，本研究將轉介前介入的流程設計分為五個階段，階段一：低成就學童的篩選；階段二：提供轉介前的介入方案；階段三：評估轉介前的介入成效；階段四：根據成效的判斷，決定後續的服務型態；階段五：學障鑑定。 本研究再以多元方式檢驗此模式的可行性，主要發現為（一）補救教學可以在學習障礙診斷工作流程實施；（二）學障鑑定透過轉介前介入，能有效篩檢一般低成就，各階段人數逐漸降低，具有篩選功能；（三）轉介前介入能有效降低轉介特教鑑定的數量，且成本低效益高；（四）以專業心評教師的「學障研判」為效標，結果顯示被診斷為學障者，有很高的比率是對教學反應較差的，偽陰性的比率很低。研究結果支持轉介前介入是一個有效且可行的方案，唯，以補救教學為轉介前介入的方式，也會遭遇一些執行上的問題。

The purpose of the study was to introduce a Learning Disabilities Identification model which would include the ideas of pre-referral intervention and response-to-intervention. To test the feasibility of the model, we designed and implemented a pre-referral intervention program in order to identify students with learning disabilities from a group of 47 low-achieving aboriginal students. The process of identification consisted of 5 stages: (1) screening out of low achievers; (2) conducting a pre-referral intervention; (3) evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention; (4) based on the results of (3), determining appropriate educational services for low-achieving aboriginal students; (5) LD identification. Researchers also examined the feasibility of the model by means of various approaches. The main findings were: (1) it is feasible to include a pre-referral intervention program in the LD identification process; (2) students' responses to intervention served to distinguish LD learners from low achievers, and the number of suspected LD learners decreased at each successive stage; (3) pre-referral intervention reduced the number of students who needed to receive further LD identification; (4) using independent evaluation as a criterion, those who were diagnosed as LD learners were very likely to have poor responses to intervention. The percentage of false negatives was low. The research findings supported the assumption that pre-referral intervention is feasible and can effectively discriminate ”low-achieving” and ”possible learning-disabled” groups. The implementation and difficulties confronted are described in detail.

1. 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，29，117-150。
   連結：
2. 陳淑麗、曾世杰、洪儷瑜(2006)。原住民國語文低成就學童文化與經驗本位補救教學成效之研究。師大學報：教育類，51(2)，147-171。
   連結：
3. 曾世杰、邱上真、林彥同(2003)。幼稚園至國小三年級學童各類唸名速度能力之研究。師大學報：教育類，48(2)，261-290。
   連結：
4. Barbara, G.,Anthony, B.,Keith, S.,Dennis, A.(2003).The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students in early elementary school.Journal of Special Education,34(2),90-103.
5. Beck, R.(1991).Project RIDE.Teaching Exceptional Children,57(2),60-61.
6. Berninger, V.,Abbott, R. D.(1994).Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: new views on measurement issues.Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brook.
7. Chalfant, J.,Pysh, M.(1989).Teacher assistance team: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams.Remedial and Special Education,10,49-58.
8. Chall, J. S.(1996).Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers.Cambridge, Mass:Brookline Books.
9. Coutinho, M. J.,Oswald, D. P.,Best, A. M.(2002).The influence of sociodemographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as having learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education,23(1),49-59.
10. Frankenberger, W.,Fronzaglio(1991).States` definitions and procedures for identifying children with mental retardation: Comparison over nine years.Mental Retardation,29,315-321.
11. Fuchs, D.,Mock, D.,Morgan, P. L.,Young, C. L.(2003).Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,18(3),157-171.
12. Fuchs, L. S.,Fuchs, D.(1998).Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,13(4),204-219.
13. Fuchs, L. S.,Fuchs, D.,Speece, D. L.(2002).Treatment validity as a unifying construction for identifying learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly,25,33-45.
14. Graden, J. L.,Casey, A.,Bonstrom, O.(1985).Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part Ⅱ. The date.Exceptional Children,51(6),487-496.
15. Graden, J. L.,Casey, A.,Christenson, S. L.(1985).Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part Ⅰ. The model.Exceptional Children,51(5),377-384.
16. Kovaleski, J. F.,Tucker, J. A.,Stevens, L.(1990).Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative.Educational Leadership,53(2),44-47.
17. Kush, J. C.,Watkins, M. W.,Ward, T. J.,Ward, S. B.,Canivez, G. L.,Worrell, F. C.(2001).Construct validity of the WISC-Ⅲ for white and black students from the WISC-Ⅲ standardization sample and for black students referred for psychological evaluation.School Psychology Review,30(1),70-88.
18. MacMillan, D. L.,Reschly, D. J.(1998).Overrepresention of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined.The Journal of Special Education,32(1),15-24.
19. Maheady, L.,Towne, R.,Algozzine, B.,Mercer, J.,Ysseldyke, J.(1983).Minority overrepresentation: A case of alternative practices prior to referral.Learning Disability Quarterly,6(4),448-456.
20. Mercer, C. D.,Jordan, L.,Allsopp, D. H.,Mercer, A. R.(1996).Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments, reading: The lingering problems of treatment resisters.Learning Disabilities Research and Practices,15(1),55-64.
21. Pikulski, J. J.(1994).Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective program.The Reading Teacher,48(1),30-39.
22. Shanahan, T.,Barr, R.(1995).Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at risk learners.Reading Research Quarterly,30,958-996.
23. Speece, D. L.,Case, L. P.,Molloy, D. E.(2003).Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,18(3),147-156.
24. Torgesen, J. K.,Alexander, A.,Wagner, R.,Rashotte, C.,Voeller, K.,Conway, T.(2001).Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and longterm outcomes from two instructional approaches.Journal of Learning Disabilities,34(1),33-58.
25. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Lyon, G. R.(2000).Differentiating between difficultto-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability.Journal of Learning Disabilities,33(3),223-238.
26. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Sipay, E. R.,Small, S.G.,Pratt, A.,Chen, R.,,Denckla, M. B.(1996).Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of special reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
27. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,Tanzman, M. S.(1998).The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability.Journal of School Psychology,36(4),367-397.
28. Warner, T. D.,Dede, D. E.,Garvan, C. W.,Conway, T. W.(2002).One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups.Journal of Learning Disabilities,35(6),500-508.
29. Ysseldyke, J. E.,Algozzine, B.,Shinn, M. R.,McGue, M.(1982).Similarities and difference between low achievers and students classified learning disabled.Journal of Special Education,16(1),73-85.
30. 王榮德(1992)。流行病學方法論－猜測與否證的研究。台北:健康世界。
31. 任秀媚(1986)。山地單語與山地雙語兒童語文能力及智力之比較研究。新竹師專學報，13，193-208。
32. 柯華葳(1999)。閱讀理解困難篩選測驗。台北:教育部特殊教育工作小組。
33. 柯華葳、邱上真(2000)。學習障礙學生鑑定與診斷指導手冊。
34. 洪儷瑜(2005)。行政院國家科學委員會專題計畫成果報告，(NSC91-2413-H-003-020, NSC9202413-003-020)行政院國家科學委員會專題計畫成果報告，(NSC91-2413-H-003-020, NSC9202413-003-020),台北:國立臺灣師範大學。
35. 洪儷瑜(1995)。學習障礙者教育。台北:心理出版社。
36. 洪儷瑜(2006)。台灣學習障礙教育之發展。特殊教育季刊，100
37. 洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬(2004)。識字量評估測驗。
38. 洪儷瑜、張郁雯、陳秀芬、陳慶順、李瑩玓(2003)。基本讀寫字綜合測驗。台北:心理。
39. 洪儷瑜、陳秀芬(2004)。故事朗讀測驗。
40. 教育部(1998)。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定原則鑑定基準。台北:教育部。
41. 九十四年度特殊教育統計年報
42. 陳淑麗、洪儷瑜、曾世杰、鍾敏華(2006)。原住民學生國語文補救教學方案前驅研究。當代教育研究，14(4)，63-98。
43. 陳榮華(1997)。魏氏兒童智力量表第三版（中文版）指導手冊。台北:中國行為科學社。
44. 曾世杰(1999)。學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷。嘉義:國立中正大學心理學系。
45. 黃毅志(2002)。台灣地區社會變遷基本調查計畫台灣地區社會變遷基本調查計畫,未出版

1. 陳虹君、孟瑛如、吳東光(2013)。國小資源班及普通班教師針對閱讀困難學生使用多媒體閱讀理解網路教材之現況。人文社會學報，9(2)，127-156。
2. 陳虹君、孟瑛如、吳東光(2014)。RTI 理念融入多媒體閱讀理解教材以提升一般生及閱讀低成就學生在閱讀及識字成效之教學研究。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，28(1)，1-23。
3. 陳淑麗(2010)。轉介前介入在學障鑑定的重要性與可行性。特殊教育季刊，115，13-22。
4. 黃秋霞、黃秋霞(2011)。轉介前識字教學介入對國小一年級識字困難學童的學習效果─III。屏東教育大學學報，37(教育)，129-174。
5. 劉載興、許哲銘、何淑玫(2010)。初探國小階段學校本位轉介前介入服務模式的建構—以德音國小為例。特殊教育季刊，115，23-30。
6. 呂偉白(2014)。美國多層次補救教學鑑定模式之評析。當代教育研究季刊，22(1)，87-126。
7. 吳瑋聰(2009)。應用差距標準與教學反應分析於學習障礙學童鑑定。國小特殊教育，48，32-40。
8. 蕭偉智(2009)。普教與特教的接軌—談攜手計畫與介入反應模式(RTI)。中等教育，60(4)，134-147。
9. 楊巧玲(2021)。重思學習障礙之定義與鑑定：一個特殊教育社會學的觀點。教育研究集刊，67(3)，1-42。
10. (2008)。回應性介入(RTI)內涵及其對國內融合教育之啟示。國小特殊教育，45，68-77。
11. (2018)。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。東臺灣特殊教育學報，20，40-69。