| 摘要: | 本研究旨在編製一份適用於我國大專校院學生的「大學生學習困擾篩選量表」，用以評估大學生在學習方面的困擾程度，供大專校院導師或輔導專業人員預先篩選可能存有潛在學習困擾的學生，或協助瞭解低成就學生在學習方面的困擾情形。本量表以文獻探討和焦點團體訪談建立量表架構和內涵，經專家審查建立預試量表，依據預試結果進行分析，形成正式量表，經正式施測後，考驗量表的信、效度。本研究的研究對象為國內大專校院學生，研究樣本分為預試樣本（456人）、正式樣本（614人）、重測樣本（190人）、校標樣本（217人及212人）和建構效度樣本（187人）。研究工具為自編之「大學生學習困擾篩選量表」，以及「大學生學習與讀書策略量表」、「大學生身心適應調查表－第二版」。所得資料以SPSS進行各種統計分析。研究結果如下：
一、大學生學習困擾篩選量表共計120題，分成三個分量表：「學習準備困擾」、「學習過程困擾」及「學習表現困擾」，各分量表題數皆為40題。研究結果發現，大學生普遍學習困擾程度偏低；三個分量表中，以學習過程的平均困擾分數較高，其次是學習表現，再次是學習準備；「學習準備」以「學習環境」的困擾程度最高，「學習過程」以「時間管理」的困擾程度最高，而「學習表現」則以「課堂參與」的困擾的程度最高。
二、信度考驗
1.內部一致性信度：大學生學習困擾篩選量表的Cronbach’s α係數為.98，學習準備分量表的Cronbach’s α係數為.94，學習過程分量表的Cronbach’s α係數為.96，學習表現分量表的Cronbach’s α係數為.97，顯示本量表具有良好的內部一致性信度。
2.重測信度：施測間隔2～4週，大學生學習困擾篩選量表的重測信度為.77，學習準備分量表的重測信度為.71，學習過程分量表的重測信度為.74，學習表現分量表的重測信度為.75，所有相關均達.01顯著，表示本量表施測結果具備時間的穩定性。
三、效度考驗
1.內容效度：本量表題目經指導教授及4位專家學者根據量表構念及其所屬題目進行審查，審查結果合格率為100%，顯示本量表具有良好的內容效度。
2.校標關聯效度：本量表與「大學生學習讀書策略量表」呈負相關，相關係數介於-.54至-.69；與「大學生身心適應調查表－第二版」呈正相關，相關係數介於.35至.41，所有相關皆達.01顯著水準，顯示本量表具有同時效度。
3.建構效度：本研究以因素分析法考驗量表的因素內涵，結果大致符合原設計構念。
最後，本研究根據研究結果提出建議，供學校單位及相關專業人員進行學習輔導及研究之用。
The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid Learning Disturbance Inventory for College Students, which can be provided for assessment and screening. College mentors or counseling professions can use the inventory to pre-screen students who may have potential learning disturbance as well as to understand the problems that underachieving students may have in terms of learning. The structure and content of this inventory are formed by researching bibliographic information and interviewing focus groups. The pre-test inventory, which has been established through the examination of the experts, develops into the formal inventory after the analysis of the results of the pre-test. Afterwards, the reliability and validity of the inventory is examined after the formal test takes place. The subjects in this study are college students in Taiwan, divided into pre-test samples (n=456), formal test samples (n=614), test-retest reliability samples (n=190), two criterion-related validity samples (n=217, 212) ,and construct validity samples (n=187). The instruments of this study include Learning Disturbance Inventory for College Students (LDICS), Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), and College students’ Adjustment Check List II (CSACL-II).The data are analyzed with SPSS21. The results of the study are as follows:
1.Learning Disturbance Inventory for College Students includes 120 items and 3 sub-scales: learning readiness, learning process, and learning performance. Each sub-scale has 40 items.
2.Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s α of LDICS is .98, learning readiness sub-scales is .94, learning process sub-scale is .96, and learning performance sub-scale is.97. It shows that LDICS has very good internal consistency reliability. (2) Test-Retest reliability: the interval between the first test and the retest is two to four weeks. Value of the correlation of LDICS is .77, learning readiness sub-scales is .71, learning process sub-scale is .74, and learning performance sub-scale is.75. All the correlation coefficients reach .01 significantly correlated level. It demonstrates LDICS has good stability over time.
3.Validity: (1) Content validity: items are examined by one advisor and four experts, and the qualified percentage reached to 100%, which means LDICS has good Content validity. (2) LDICS is in negative correlation with LASSI (r=-.54~-.69, p<.01) and in positive correlation with CSACL-II (r=.35~.41, p<.01). It means LDICS has current validity. (3) Construct validity: Factor analysis is applied in the study to test the content of each sub-scales, and the result is generally in agreement with the original design constructs.
Finally, the study results will offer suggestions for college schools and related professions to apply to learning counseling and researches. |
