身心障礙者職業輔導評量人員標準化評量工具運用能力分析

• Main Author: 范文昇
• Other Authors: 吳明宜
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/80001772484053572864

碩士 === 高雄師範大學 === 復建諮商研究所 === 98 === The purpose of this study is to investigate the ability of employing standardized assessments of the Taiwanese vocational evaluators. Using the content-analysis research design, the researcher developed a “Standardized Assessment Use Capability Evaluation Checklist for Vocational Evaluators” and used it to evaluate the 133 vocational evaluation reports choosen from the 2008 National VE Program Evaluation, in order to understand the strength and weakness of employing standardized assessments among the Taiwanese vocational evaluators. The results are as follows. The rate of using assessment correctly is between 85.6% to 97.4%. The rate of scoring assessment correctly is 84.6%. The rate of interpretating assessment correctly is between 6.5% to 86.9%; this is the weakest capability of the Taiwanese vocational evaluators. More than 80% of the vocational evaluation reports are able to make interpretation based on norm comparison or client characteristics; but over 90% of the vocational evaluation reports ignore the within-individual comparison and make the interpretation uncomclusive. Moreover, over 80% of the vocational evaluation reports do not overuse unnecessary assessments and employ situational assessment or on-the-job trial sinotaneously to make multiple perspective interpretation, although the conclusion may not always be evidence-based. The use of the level A instrument and occupation information is uncommon, less than 10% are found in this study. As for test adaptation, there is over 50% of the clients who need but not obtain test adaptation due to the unawareness of the vocational evaluators. The evaluation scores of this research show positive mild correlation with the VE report scores of the 2008 VE Program Evaluation. One of the reasons is because this research focused on the capabilty of employing standardized assessment, but the 2008 VE Program Evaluation evaluate the capabilty of employing both standardized assessment and situational performance evaluaiton. The other reason is that some considerations in this research are common requirments to vocational evaluators in foreign countries but not in Taiwan. According to the findings, the researcher provides the following suggestions. When using standardized assessment, a vocational evaluator should read the manual in detail before utilizing the tool, apply test adaptation appropriately, clarify the purpose of referral and discuss the tool used with supervisor when in doubt, and be sensitive to regulation changes in order to provide accurate and appropriate assessment services. When scoring standardized assessment, a vocational evaluator can use scoring or statistics software to assist in calcuation. When interpreting standardized assessment, a vocational evaluator should stressed on both within and between individual comparison and increase the capability of integrating subtest findings into the final report. Furthermore, a vocational evaluator should also (1) improve cross-validation skills between the results of standardized assessments and other findings, (2) ongoingly practice in evaluation and report writing, (3) keep informed regarding resources of employment services, vocational training, sheltered emplolyment, sheltered workshop, and social welfare, and (4) attend on-the-job training to strengthen the capability of tool use and to avoid non-use because of unfamiliarity, particularly work samples. The government should provide grants for assessment instrument research and development, revise the occupation information databases in Taiwan, and establish a professional certification system for vocational evaluators.