本研究旨在結合項目反應理論、電腦化適性測驗、及動態評量之技術，提供一較傳統動態評量更有效、更精確的評量方式，使學習者的能力得以充分發展。為驗證系統效能，研究者實際設計一互動式多點計分評量系統。此系統包含兩個子系統－電腦化中介練習系統及電腦化適性測驗系統。電腦化中介練習系統乃針對受試者解題歷程中所發生的困難進行中介教學，使受試者的能力得以充分發展﹔而電腦化適性測驗系統則用以估計中介教學後受試者的能力。
本研究採用準實驗研究法，將受試者分成三組：自行練習組、傳統動態評量組及電腦化動態評量組，並利用共變數分析比較三組受試者之能力，以暸解互動式多點計分評量方法之效果。結果顯示，電腦化動態評量組的成績有高於另外兩組的傾向，但未達顯著水準。此外，為暸解受試者對互動式多點計分評量方法的感受，本研究在實驗後進行問卷調查，結果顯示，受試者十分喜歡互動式多點計分評量方法。由此可獲得三點結論：1、互動式多點計分系統可於測驗過程中提供受試者合適的提示。2、互動式多點計分評量系統較傳統動態評量更經濟、更便利。3、在態度調查中發現，學生十分喜歡互動式多點計分評量的方式。簡言之，本研究所提出的方法具有令人滿意的結果，此有助於未來動態評量的發展與應用。

This study proposed a new approach that combines IRT, computerized adaptive testing, and dynamic assessment. The purpose of proposed method is to maximize the zone of proximal development more effective, more efficient, and more accurate than the traditional dynamic assessment. Thus, the Interactive Polynomous assessment system (IPAS) was designed to prove the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method. The IPAS includes two subsystems: the computerized intervention subsystem and the CAT subsystem based on the GR model. Subjects were randomly assigned into three treatment groups: the experimental group which practice with a computerized intervenient system, the controlled group which practice themselves without any interventions, and the compared group which practice under direct teacher supervision, also called conventional dynamic assessment. The performance of three groups was compared. The performance of experimental group was higher than the other two groups, but not significantly. The results of this study lead to three conclusions. First, IPAS can provide adaptive interventions to students during measurement. Furthermore, it is more convenient and economical. Lastly, students enjoyed this system. To put it briefly, the proposed method improved traditional dynamic assessment successfully.

Ashlock, R.B. (1986). Error patterns in computation: A semi-programmed approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.
Babad, E., & Bashi, J. (1975). Final report: An educational test of the validity of learning potential measurement (RIEPrint No. 91). Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems.
Bachor, D., Steacy, N., and Freeze, D. (1986). A conceptual framework for word problems: Some preliminary results. Paper presented at the conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. NY: Marcel Dekker.
Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford Press.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Dynamic assessment: One approach and some initial data. Technical report No. 361. National Institute Of Child Health and Human Development, Washington, DC. (ERIC No. ED 26973).
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Liz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp.82-115). New York: The Guilford Press.
Chen, Lie-Ling (1993). Study of computational error patterns analysis for mathematics learning-disabled elementary students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chang-Hua University of Education. Chang-Hua, Taiwan.
Chin, Chin-Yi(1999). A computerized adaptive testing system of partial credit scoring. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University. Taipei, Taiwan.
Chuang, Li-chuan, Chiu, Shang-cheng, & Chiang, Shing-ho. (1997) The effects of dynamic assessment on learning buoyant concepts for the sixth graders. Psychological Testing, 44(1), 71-94.
Das, J. P., & Conway, N. F. (1992). Reflections on remediation and transfer: A Vygotskian perspective. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp.94-118). Springer-Verlag: New York, Inc.
De Ayala, R.J., Dodd, B.G. & Koch, W.R. (1992). A comparison of the partial credit and graded response models in computerized adaptive testing. Applied Measurement in Education, 5(1), 17-34.
Dodd, B.G., Koch, W.R. & De Ayala, R.J. (1989). Operational characteristics of adaptive testing procedures using the graded response model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 129-143.
Embretson, S. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141-172). New York: The Guilford Press.
Engelhardt, J.M. (1977). Analysis of children’s computational errors: A qualitative approach. Br. J. Education Psychol, 47, 149-154.
Guthke, J., & Wingenfeld, S. (1992). The learning test concept: Origins, state of the art an trends. In H. C. Haywood, & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp.64-93). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hambleton, R. K. & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory:Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
Hsu, Chia-Chi, Hun, Pi-Hsia, & Wu, Tieh-Hsiung (1995). The learning effects and discriminate validity of the computerized dynamic classification test. Psychological Testing, 42, 29-60.
Jan, Yueh-Meir (1998). Interactive-hint polytomous computerized adaptive testing. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University. Taipei, Taiwan.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 6-18.
Keane, K. J., & Kretschmer, R. E. (1987). Effect of mediated learning intervention on cognitive task performance with a deaf population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 49-53.
Koch, W. R., & Dodd, B. G. (1989). An investigation of procedures for computerized adaptive testing using paratial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 15-32.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lin, Xiu-Juan, Lin, Qing-Shan, & Zhang, Shao-Xun (1994). Study of measurement of spatial visualization learning potential by the dynamic assessment procedure associating with the item response theory. Psychological Testing, 41, 71-108.
Mayder-Olivares, A., Drasgow, F. & Mead, A. D. (1994). Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 245-256.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Mathematics. Educational psychology: A cognitive approach (pp. 345-373). Boston: Little, brown and company.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 116-140). New York: The Guilford Press.
Missiuna, C. (1986). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Calgary.
Rand, Y., & Kaniel, S. (1987). Group administration of the LPAD. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207-230.
Reinharth, B. M. (1989). Cognitive modifiability in developmentally delayed children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University.
Salvia, John, & Hughes, Charles (1990). Curriculum-Based assessment: Testing what is taught. New York: Macmillan.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(17).
Su, Jiann-Cherng (1997). Distance adaptive attitude testing system: design, implementation and evaluation. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan Normal University. Taipei, Taiwan.
Thomas, C. (1986). The effects of mediation on the performance of disadvantaged preschool children on two cognitive tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bryn Mawr College.
Urry, V. W. (1977). Tailolored testing: A successful application of latent trait theory. Journal of Education Measurement, 14, 181-196.
Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Green, B. F., Steinberg, L., Flaugher, R., Mislevy, R. J. & Thissen, D. (1990). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wu, Guo-Ming, Hong, Bi-Xia, & Chiou, Shang-Jen (1995). The helping effects, incremental and differential validities of the dynamic math word problem test. Psychological Testing, 42, 61-84.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.