學前識字困難高危險群幼兒之鑑別：學前教師評定搭配認知測驗兩階段篩選機制區辨效能之檢驗

Identifying Preschool Children at Risk of Learning Difficulties in Chinese Characters Reading: An Evaluation of a Two-Stage Identification Procedure Combining Preschool Teacher Ratings and Cognitive Assessment

10.6172/BSE.201607.4102002

宣崇慧(Chung-Hui Hsuan)；蔡建鈞(Henry J. Tsai)

教師評定 ； 認知評量 ； 篩選機制 ； 識字困難 ； Difficulty in word recognition ； Identification Procedure ； Teacher Rating ； Cognitive Assessment

特殊教育研究學刊

41卷2期（2016 / 07 / 31）

27 - 55

繁體中文

閱讀習得與早期語言理解及識字解碼發展有關（Gough & Tunmer, 1986），故語言理解及解碼技能可作為閱讀發展預測指標。本研究主要目的在於早期鑑別學前識字困難高危險群學童，如下逐步檢驗學前教師評定搭配認知測驗兩階段篩選機制，對國小一年級學童識字困難篩選之成效：一、檢驗學前預測變項與識字發展的相關；二、第一階段學前教師評定初篩的分類效果；三、第二階段搭配認知評量的區辨效能；四、分析兩階段篩選機制的整體效能。本研究採縱貫研究，在大班測量早期預測指標分數（教師評定量表、直接測量認知及識字），再追蹤國小一年級學童識字發展。以叢集抽樣篩選171名大班幼兒，第二年有139名學童繼續參與。結果顯示，學前識字與國小一年級學童識字呈高度相關，其他與國小一年級學童識字顯著相關者為教師評定之認字解碼與詞素理解兩分項、直接測量之語言理解、注音解碼、快速自動唸名與詞素理解。在階段分析方面，教師評定之識字解碼及詞素理解總分（33%以下）對國小一年級學童識字困難（25%以下）篩選的敏感度為53.33%，結果並不理想，故加入學前識字為篩選條件（教師評定及學前識字其中一項低於33%），如此使篩選敏感度提升至93.33%。以第一階段正確預測識字困難及假陽性識字困難為效標，第二階段認知評量為預測變項做區辨分析，結果顯示，語言理解、符號聲韻解碼與快速自動念名符合最佳區辨組合，整體正確性為66.7%，預測敏感度為78.6%。兩階段綜合篩選效能為73.33%，但仍有26.67%的假陰性錯誤，此與父母親社經地位及幼兒成熟度有關。

Purpose. Reading acquisition is based on early language comprehension and word decoding (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Therefore, language comprehension and cognitive decoding skills are applied as early predictors of reading development. This study aimed to identify preschool children at risk for learning difficulties in Chinese character reading. The identification procedure was conducted by using language comprehension and decoding skills as early predictors. The efficiency of a two-stage identification procedure that entailed combining preschool teacher ratings and cognitive assessments was evaluated for the following purposes: (1) to investigate the association between early predictors (including preschool teacher-rated scores and assessments of language comprehension, phonological Tzuyin decoding, rapid automatized naming (RAN), morphological awareness, and nonverbal IQ) and character reading ability during preschool and first grade; (2) to verify the classification accuracy of the procedure according to preschool teacher-rated scores and first grade character reading scores (i.e., the first stage of the identification procedure); (3) to examine the significance of classification prediction by applying a set of early predictors at the second stage of the identification procedure; and (4) to evaluate the combined outcome of the two-stage identification procedure. Methods. A total of 171 five-year-old preschoolers were recruited through cluster sampling. The participants' decoding skills, language comprehension, and morphological awareness were rated by their classroom teachers. Their language comprehension, reading-related cognitive skills (phonological Tzuyin decoding, RAN, and morphological awareness), and character reading skills were assessed individually. One year later, 139 children continued to participate. Their character reading skills were reassessed. Results and Conclusions. Character reading abilities in preschool and the first grade were highly correlated. The individually assessed cognitive skills and abilities that were rated by the preschool teachers, including decoding skills and morphological awareness, were significantly associated with first grade character reading. The classification adequacy recorded at the first stage of the identification procedure, using the sum of preschool teacher-rated scores (which were below 33%) as early predictors, revealed that 53.33% (n = 16) of the children were accurately classified as poor character readers (first grade character reading scores were below 25%). However, the result is not acceptable because of the high proportion of false-negative errors (46.67%; n = 14). To increase the sensitivity of the first identification stage, children's early character reading scores were used as alternative predictor. Children with either teacher-rated scores or an early character reading ability lower than 33% were identified as having a high risk of becoming poor character readers. This adjustment increased the sensitivity from 53.33% to 93.33% (n = 28). At the second identification stage, a direct discriminant function analysis was performed using three assessment variables as predictors of membership in two groups. The predictors were language comprehension, phonological Tzuyin decoding, and RAN. The groups were distinctly composed of true- and false-positive cases (n = 28 and 20, respectively) selected from the first identification stage. The predictors were significant for discriminating the groups. There was a 66.7% accurate classification rate evidenced through cross-validation of the given classification function. Among the true-positive cases, 78.6% (n = 22) were classified accurately. The combined outcome of the two-stage identification procedure revealed a 73.33% sensitivity for accurate classification of true-positive cases (22 of 30), although there was still a 26.67% false-negative error engendered by the effects of parent social economic status and age.

1. 王瓊珠、洪儷瑜、陳秀芬(2007)。低識字能力學生識字量發展之研究：馬太效應之可能表現。特殊教育研究學刊，32(3)，1-16。
   連結：
2. 宣崇慧(2014)。二年級「持續型」與「晚發型」識字困難學童早期區辨效能之檢測。特殊教育研究學刊，39(2)，61-86。
   連結：
3. 宣崇慧、林寶貴(2002)。學前聽障及聽常兒童讀寫萌發情形與口語發展能力之探究。特殊教育與復健學報，10，35-57。
   連結：
4. 宣崇慧、盧台華(2006)。聲韻覺識能力及口語詞彙知識與國小一至二年級學童字、詞閱讀發展之關係與影響。特殊教育研究學刊，31，73-92。
   連結：
5. 宣崇慧、蘇政輝、陳必卿、余孟儒、王涵、張文真、邱郁芬(2012)。學前聲韻處理、快速唸名與視覺記憶能力預測小一學童識字困難效能之檢測。特殊教育研究學刊，37(1)，53-78。
   連結：
6. 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—篩選或教師轉介比較。特殊教育研究學刊，34(1)，1-22。
   連結：
7. 黃毅志(2003)。「台灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構與評估：社會科學與教育社會學研究本土化。師大教育研究集刊，49(4)，1-31。
   連結：
8. 黃毅志(2008)。如何精確測量職業地位？「改良版台灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構。台東大學教育學報，19(1)，151-160。
   連結：
9. 曾世杰（2006）：聲調覺識測驗工具說明。取自www.tald.idv.tw/modules/xfsection/download.php?fileid=21 [Tzeng, Shih-Jay (2006). The illustration of phonological awareness test. Retrieved from www.tald.idv.tw/modules/xfsection/download.php?fileid=21]
10. Cabell, S. Q.,Justice, L. M.,Zucker, T. A.,Kilday, C. R.(2009).Validity of teacher report for assessing the emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,40(2),161-173.
11. Carnine, D.,Silbert, J.,Kameenui, E. J.(1997).Direct instruction reading.Upper Saddle River:Merrill.
12. Catts, H.W.,Fey, M. E.,Zhang, X.,Tomblin, J. B.(1999).Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation.Scientific Studies of Reading,3(4),331-361.
13. Chan, L.,Nunes, T.(1998).Children's understanding of the formal and functional characteristics of written Chinese.Applied Psycholinguistics,19(1),115-131.
14. Chow, B. W. Y.,McBride-Chang, C.,Cheung, H.,Chow, C. S. L.(2008).Dialogic reading and morphology training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy.Developmental Psychology,44(1),233-244.
15. Chung, W. L.,Hu, C. F.(2007).Morphological awareness and learning to read Chinese.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,20(5),441-461.
16. Ehri, L. C.(1995).Phases of development in learning to read words by sight.Journal of Research in Reading,18(2),116-125.
17. Ehri, L. C.(1992).Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding.Reading acquisition,Hillsdale:
18. Frith, U.(Ed.)(1985).Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia.London:Erlbaum.
19. Gijsel, M. A.,Bosman, A. M. T.,Verhoeven, L.(2006).Kindergarten risk factors, cognitive factors, and teacher judgment as predictors of early reading in Dutch.Journal of Learning Disabilities,39(6),558-571.
20. Gough, P. B.,Tunmer, W. E.(1986).Decoding, reading , and reading disability.Remedial and Special Education,7(1),6-10.
21. Ho, C. S.-H.,Bryant, P.(1997).Phonological skills are important in learning to read Chinese.Developmental Psychology,33(6),946-951.
22. Ho, C. S.-H.,Chan, D. W.-O.,Tsang, S.-M.,Lee, S.-H.(2000).The Hong Kong test of specific learning difficulties in reading and writing.Hong Kong:Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Research Team.
23. Hsuan, C. H.(2011).The role of morphological awareness in Chinese reading from preschool to grade 3.18th Annual conference of Society for Scientific Studies of Reading (SSSR),St. Pete Beach, Florida:
24. Hsuan, C. H.(2013).Prediction of morphological awareness in Chinese character reading and reading comprehension from kindergarten to grade 5.20th Annual conference of Society for Scientific Studies of Reading (SSSR),Hong Kong, China:
25. Hu, C.-F.,Catts, H. W.(1998).The role of phonological processing in early reading ability: What we can learn from Chinese.Scientific Studies of Reading,2(1),55-79.
26. Huang, H. S.,Hanley, J. R.(1997).A longitudinal study of phonological awareness, visual skills, and Chinese reading acquisition among first-graders in Taiwan.International Journal of Behavioral Development,20(2),249-268.
27. Kendeou, P.,van den Broek, P.,White, M. J.,Lynch, J. S.(2009).Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills.Journal of Educational Psychology,101(4),765-778.
28. Lee, L.-J.(1989).Tucson, Arizona,University of Arizona.
29. Mantzicopoulos, P. Y.,Morrison, E.(1994).Early prediction of reading achievement.Remedial and Special Education,15(4),244-251.
30. McBride-Chang, C.(Ed.),Chen, H.-C.(Ed.)(2003).Reading development in Chinese children.London:Praeger.
31. McBride-Chang, C.,Ho, C. S.-H.(2005).Predictors of beginning reading in Chinese and English: A 2-year longitudinal study of Chinese kindergartens.Scientific Studies of Reading,9(2),117-144.
32. McBride-Chang, C.,Lam, F.,Lam, C.,Chan, B.,Fong, C. Y.-C.,Wong, T. T.-Y.,Wong, S. W.-L.(2011).Early predictors of dyslexia in Chinese children: Family history of dyslexia, language delay, and cognitive profiles.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,52(2),204-211.
33. Metsala, J. L.(Ed.),Ehri, L. C.(Ed.)(1998).Word recognition in beginning literacy.Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Morrison, E.,Mantzicopoulos, P. Y.(1990).Predicting reading problems at kindergarten for children in second grade: SEARCH as a screen.Remedial and Special Education,11(4),29-36.
35. O'Connor, R. E.,Jenkins, J. R.(1999).Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade.Scientific Studies of Reading,3(2),159-197.
36. Shu, H.,Pen, H.,McBride-Chang, C.(2008).Phonological awareness in young Chinese children.Developmental Science,11(1),171-181.
37. Tabachnick, B. G.,Fidell, L. S.(2001).Using multivariate statistics.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon.
38. Tong, X.,McBride-Chang, C.,Shu, H.,Wong, A. M.-Y.(2009).Morphological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and spelling errors: Keys to understanding early Chinese literacy acquisition.Scientific Studies of Reading,13(5),426-452.
39. Underwood, G.(Ed.)(1978).Strategies of information processing.New York:Academic Press.
40. Vellutino, F. R.,Scanlon, D. M.,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 specific reading disability.Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4),601-638.
41. Wolf, M.,Bowers, P. G.(1999).The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias.Journal of Educational Psychology,91(3),415-438.
42. Wong, S. W. L.,McBride-Chang, C.,Lam, C.,Chan, B.,Lam, F. W. F.,Doo, S.(2012).The joint effects of risk status, gender, early literacy and cognitive skills on the presence of dyslexia among a group of high-risk Chinese children.Dyslexia,18(1),40-57.
43. Wu, X.,Anderson, R. C.,Li, W.,Wu, X.,Li, H.,Zhang, J.,Zheng, Q.,Zhu, J.,Shu, H.,Jiang, W.,Chen, X.,Wang, Q.,Yin, L.,He, Y.,Packard, J.,Gaffney, J. S.(2009).Morphological awareness and Chinese children's literacy development: An intervention study.Scientific Studies of Reading,13(1),26-52.
44. Yeung, P.-S.,Ho, C. S.-H.,Chik, P. P.-M.,Lo, L.-Y.,Luan, H.,Chan, D. W.-O.,Chung, K. K.-H.(2011).Reading and spelling Chinese among beginning readers: What skills make a difference?.Scientific Studies of Reading,15(4),285-313.
45. 王嘉珮(2011)。臺北市，國立臺北教育大學特殊教育研究所=Department of Special Education, National Taipei University of Education。
46. 王瓊珠(2002)。學習障礙家長與教師手冊。臺北=Taipei:心理=Psychological。
47. 林彥同(2001)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學特殊教育研究所=Department of Special Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University。
48. 林寶貴、黃玉枝、黃桂君、宣崇慧(2009)。修訂學齡兒童語言障礙評量表指導手冊。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:教育部=The Ministry of Education。
49. 宣崇慧(2010)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（2/2）行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（2/2）,行政院國家科學委員會=National Science Council。
50. 宣崇慧(2014)。科技部專題研究計畫成果報告科技部專題研究計畫成果報告,科技部=Ministry of Science and Technology。
51. 宣崇慧(2007)。二年級學童讀字相關認知因素及運用聲韻原則習字模式之探究。特殊教育研究學刊，32(3)，17-37。
52. 宣崇慧、賴姿帆(2011)。國小學習困難學童學前學習表現之探究。7 屆國際學習障礙學術研究研討會，臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:
53. 洪儷瑜編、王瓊珠編、陳長益編(2005)。突破學習困難：評量與因應之探討。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。
54. 康金雲(2010)。臺中市=Taichung, Taiwan，國立臺中教育大學教育測驗統計研究所=National Taichung University of Education。
55. 張毓仁、曾世杰(2008)。國小三年級唸名速度緩慢學童與一般學童閱讀認知能力之比較。教育與心理研究，31(1)，79-203。
56. 陳榮華、陳心怡(2003)。魏氏幼兒智力量表修訂版指導手冊。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:中國行為科學=Chinese Behavioral Science。
57. 曾世杰、簡淑真、張媛婷、周蘭芳、連芸伶(2005)。以早期唸名速度及聲韻覺識預測中文閱讀與認字：一個追蹤四年的相關研究。特殊教育研究學刊，28，123-144。
58. 黃秀霜(2001)。中文年級識字測驗。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。
59. 黃芸(2003)。桃園市，中原大學心理研究所=Department ,f Psychology, Chung Yuan Christian University。
60. 楊中芳編、高尚仁編(1991)。中國人、中國心：發展與教學篇。臺北=Taipei, Taiwan:遠流=Yuan-Liou。