頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 身心障礙者職業輔導評量人員運用標準化評量工具的能力分析=The Capacity of Standardized Assessment Use among Vocational Evaluators in Taiwan |
---|---|
作 者 | 范文昇; 吳明宜; | 書刊名 | 復健諮商 |
卷 期 | 5 2011.12[民100.12] |
頁 次 | 頁47-72 |
分類號 | 548.2 |
關鍵詞 | 職業輔導評量; 職評人員; 標準化評量; Vocational evaluation; Vocational evaluator; Standardized assessment; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究採用內容分析法,使用自行設計的「身心障礙者職評人員標準化評量能力評鑑指標-職評報告檢核表」對 97年度全國身心障礙者職業輔導評量機構評鑑所選定之 133份職評報告進行評閱,以瞭解台灣職評人員運用標準化評量工具的優弱勢。 依檢核表分析結果如下:在工具的正確使用部分,正確率介於 86.6%~97.4%;在工具的正確計分部份,正確率達 93.8%;在工具的正確解釋部份,其正確率則介於 18%~91.2%,是職評人員昀弱的部份;有九成以上的職評報告可以比對常模或搭配受測者特質來做解釋,但是超過八成的職評報告忽略受測者的個體內比較,使得解釋不完整。在其他考量及觀察部分,超過八成的職評報告不會濫用標準化評量工具,且會同時使用情境評量或現場試作,以多元觀點來詮釋個案的職評結果,但是其結論則未必舉證充分。至於 A級工具及職業資料庫的使用並不普及,僅有少於 10%的使用率。關於測驗調整,則常因職評人員未認知到需要做調整,而有超過半數應做調整的個案未進行測驗調整。 根據研究結果,本研究提出以下建議:在評量工具使用方面:職評人員應(一)使用前仔細詳閱指導手冊、(二)適當使用測驗調整、(三)澄清轉介目的,有疑慮時可與專業督導討論工具使用、和(四)隨時注意法規異動,以提供正確及適切的評量服務;在評量計分方面:可使用套裝軟體或統計軟體協助計算;在評量解釋方面:(一)個體內外比較並重、和(二)加強將分測驗彙整到總報告中的能力;在其他方面:(一)加強標準化評量與其他評量的交叉驗證技巧、(二)持續不斷的評量及報告撰寫實作、(三)廣泛涉獵就業服務、職業訓練、庇護工場、小型作業所、社會福利相關的資源、(四)善用職業資料庫及可轉移工作技巧分析、(五)補助測驗研發、(六)修訂及擴充國內職業資料庫、和(七)建立職評專業認證制度。 |
英文摘要 | This study used content analysis method to understand the strengths and weaknesses of employing standardized assessments among Taiwanese vocational evaluators. The authors developed a “Checklist of Standardized Assessment Use for Vocational Evaluators” and used it to evaluate the 133 vocational evaluation reports choosen from the 2008 National VE Program Evaluation. The results were as follows. Regarding using assessment correctly, the correct rates were between 86.6% to 97.4%. Regarding scoring assessment correctly, the correct rate was 93.8%. Regarding interpretating assessment correctly, the correct rates were between 18% to 91.2%; this is the weakest part of standardized assessment use of Taiwanese vocational evaluators. More than 90% of the vocational evaluation reports were able to make correct interpretation based on norm comparison or client characteristics; but over 80% of the vocational evaluation reports ignored the within-individual comparison and make uncomclusive interpretations. Additionally, over 80% of the vocational evaluation reports did not use unnecessary assessments and employed situational assessment or on-the-job trial sinotaneously to make interpretation from multiple perspectives, although the conclusion may not always be evidence-based. The use of the level A instrument and occupation information were uncommon, less than 10% were found in this study. As to accommodation for test users, over 50% of the clients who needed accommodation did not obtain it because their vocational evaluators did not aware their needs. The authors provided the following suggestions based on the above findings. For correctly use of standardized assessments, a vocational evaluator was suggested to read the manual in details before utilizing a standardized assessment, to provide accommodation for test users if in needs, to clarify the referral purposes and discuss the according tools with supervisor when in doubt, and to be sensitive to regulation changes in order to provide accurate and appropriate assessment services. For correctly scoring of standardized assessments, a vocational evaluator was suggested to use scoring or statistic softwares for assistance. For correctly interpretation of standardized assessments, a vocational evaluator was suggested to emphasize on both within and between individual comparisons, and to integrate subtest scores into meaningful interpretations in the final reports. Other suggestions were also added to improve the capacity of vocational evaluators, such as (1) to cross-validate the results of standardized assessments with other findings, (2) to ongoingly practice in evaluation and report writing, (3) to update information of employment services, vocational training, sheltered emplolyment, sheltered workshop, and social welfare, and (4) to strengthen the capability of employing job search databank and transferable job skill analysis. As for the government, it was suggested to provide grants for instrument development, to revise the occupation information databases, and to establish a professional certification system for vocational evaluators. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。