非語文學習障礙篩選量表效度研究

Abstract

非語文學習障礙是學習障礙的一種亞型，基於目前在學習障礙鑑定流程中，可能忽略這亞型。本研究目的在以非語文學習障礙相關的行為症狀為基礎，編製一份「非語文學習障礙篩選量表」（簡稱非語文學障量表），並分別由二個子研究，以神經心理測驗以及台北市鑑定的學習障礙學生亞型，考驗非語文學障量表的效度，期證實本量表在內容與臨床應用的正確性。 在研究一，本研究以台北縣市國小四至六年級953位普通班學生家長填答非語文學障量表，依量表分數抽選27位高危險組學生以及30位正常組學生，進行神經心理測驗評估，並比較兩組學生表現的差異。在研究二，從台北市國小四至六年級學生取得17位語文類型學障以及15位非語文類型學障個案，進行非語文學障量表之比較。主要發現如下：（一）在神經心理功能的表現上，非語文學障高危險組學生在語文與操作智商、知覺組織、視覺注意力、視覺與聽覺工作記憶、語文與非語文記憶、視覺空間建構、以及臉部情緒表情辨識等功能表現比正常組學生差；而在語文理解以及聽覺注意力的表現則和正常組學生無明顯不同。（二）在語文—非語文或是聽覺—視覺等神經心理差距組型的表現上，高危險組學生在聽覺—視覺注意力、聽覺—視覺工作記憶、語文—非語文記憶等差距組型表現的人數比例和一般群體所期望的人數比例不同，呈現出語文或聽覺優勢的人數較多；而在正常組學生中，神經心理差距組型表現的人數比例則和一般群體所期望的人數比例無明顯不同。（三）非語文類型學障學生在非語文學障量表的分數明顯高於語文類型學障學生。（四）非語文類型學障學生達到量表切截分數的人數明顯比語文類型學障學生達到的人數多。上述研究結果大致肯定非語文學障量表的效度。 基於上述結果，也進一步提出非語文學習障礙研究與實務工作相關的建議。Nonverbal learning disability (NLD) is a subtype of specific learning disability. However, it has been neglected in the existing tools and process for identifying learning disabilities. The study aims to conduct a “Screening Checklist for Nonverbal Learning Disabilities” (SCNLD) that is based on the behavioral symptoms of NLD, and to validate the SCNLD by tow studies. In the first study, high- risk NLD students screened by the SCNLD are compared with the matched group with neuropsychological assessments. Additionally, two subtypes of learning disabled students identified by special education system are compared with the SCNLD in the second. In the first study, the parents of 953 fourth-to-sixth graded students in elementary schools in Taipei County and Taipei City filled out the SCNLD. There were 27 students selected as high risk and 30 students as normal group on the basis of the SCNLD. All the selected students were administrated neuropsychological tests and the difference of the assessment of two groups were analyzed. In the second study, the SCNLD of 17 verbal type learning disabled students and 15 nonverbal type learning disabled students, who were identified by Bureau of Education in Taipei City were compared. The major findings are following: 1) The students of the high risk group performed not as well as the students of normal group in the functions such as verbal and performance intelligent quotient (IQ), perceptual-organization, visual attention, visual and auditory working memory, verbal and nonverbal memory, visual-spatial construction, and the identification of facial emotional expressions, but there was no significant difference between high risk group students and normal group students in verbal-comprehension and performance of auditory attention; 2) on the performance of verbal—nonverbal or auditory—visual neuropsychological discrepancy pattern, the high-risk students were different from the expectation by general populations in the ratios of number in auditory—visual attention, auditory—visual working memory, verbal—nonverbal memory, showing that more students had verbal or auditory advantages in high risk group whereas there were not significant difference between the ratios of number on the performance of neuropsychological discrepancy pattern in the normal group and the ratios of number on the performance expected by general populations; 3) the marks of nonverbal type learning disabled students were significantly higher than the verbal type learning disabled students in the SCNLD; 4) the number of nonverbal type learning disabled students were significantly more than verbal type learning disable students who reached the cutting-off of the SCNLD. The aforementioned results confirmed the validity of the SCNLD. The recommendations to the further studies and practices on NLD are made on the basis of the results.