| Summary: | 博士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 特殊教育學系 === 101 === Abstract
The current study included two main sections, section one was to analyze relationship between intelligence profiles, academic ability, personal, family variables and the result of LD identification by the samples of 375 students in the LD identification program from Tainan and Kaohsiung cities. Section two of the study was to compile the dummy data questionnaire to confer the decision-making factors of 313 special education teachers from Tainan and Kaohsiung cities.
It is included in section one that: 1)students in the learning disability identification program got higher scores in PIQ than VIQ. Among factor indexes , students’ performance of POI is the best,and PSI, VCI were in the order while the FDI was in the lowest status; 2) there was similarity of inner strong and weak profile with the difference of whole FIQ in different areas; 3)students who were suspected to be learning disability in metropolis got better scores on literacy ability and reading comprehension ability than students in on metropolis, and 4) in the result of logistic regression analysis, we found out that area, gender and VIQ would effect the probability of passing rate when controlling other variables.
It is included in section two that: 1) In the character effect of cases , male ,no behavior problem , parents with higher education level, IQ above 90, with the difference of inner intelligence , with the IQ-academic discrepency , whole ability difficulty, perceptual or perceptual-motor cooperating difficulty, failing in RTI would get higher passing rate;
2) Among all variables, the most important factor for decision-making of staffs would be FIQ with the affection over 20%.After that ,there would be affection on inner IQ advantages and disadvantages,psychological process difficulties,the difference on IQ nd academic performance between 12% to 15%.There would be also affection on RTI effectiveness, difficulty in listening,speaking, reading, writing, counting between 6% to 7%.Other variables would have less affection on family background in passing decision making while gender, age, area, school size and the caseload would have little differences; 3) the consistence of rating among special education teachers between 0.2 to 0.6. There would be also a tendency of increasing with the professional background , experiences and psychological assessment license. Finally, by the result of cluster analysis ,special education teachers could be divided into strict group and loose group. The passing rate in strict group would be lower than loose group while they estimated the same case.
Key words: learning disabilities; identification; logist regerssion analysis; conjoint analysis
|
|---|
