本研究主要探討個人變項及家庭環境變項對幼兒早期閱讀能力之影響。研究方法是以測驗與問卷進行調查研究。以台北市公立幼稚園12所學校12個班，共312人為研究對象。研究工具包括：陳英豪、李坤崇、吳百能、及李華璋等人（民78）所編製的「幼兒認知能力測驗」和研究者自編的「認字測驗」、「兒童家庭閱讀環境調查問卷」。所得資料以多變項變異數分析進行處理。
本研究所得之主要發現如下：
1. 不同性別之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
2. 不同年齡之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
3. 不同智力之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
4. 在「認字測驗」的得分上,性別與年齡與智力間、性別與年齡間、性別與智力間、年齡與智力間皆無顯著差異。
5. 不同出生序之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
6. 不同閱讀動機之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
7. 在「認字測驗」的得分上，出生序、閱讀動機間無顯著交互作用。
8. 不同父母親教育水準之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
9. 不同父母親職業水準之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
10. 不同家庭收入水準之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
11. 不同父母閱讀習慣之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
12. 父母為幼兒出聲閱讀的年齡有異之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
13. 父母為幼兒出聲閱讀的次數有異之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
14. 在「認字測驗」的得分上，父母為幼兒出聲閱讀的年齡、次數間無顯著交互作用。
15. 不同親子閱讀互動之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
16. 不同訂閱報章雜誌數之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
17. 不同幼兒書數量之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
18. 不同故事錄音帶數量之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
19. 不同看電視時數之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。
20. 不同接觸文字機會之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上有顯著差異。
21. 在「認字測驗」的得分上,看電視時數、接觸文字機會間無顯著交互作用。
22. 有否教寫字之幼兒在「認字測驗」得分上沒有顯著差異。

This study aimed to explor the early reading abilities of kindergarten children with different individual and home-environmental variables. Three hundred and twelve preschoolers from 12 public kindergarten were selected as the subjects of this study.
All subjects were assessed on Preschool Cognitive Ability Test (PCAT). Recognize Word Test (RWT). and Home-Environment Questionnaire (HEQ). The data were analyzed by MANOVA. The main results showed as follows:
1.There were no significant differences between male and female subjects in RWT scores.
2.No significant differences were found in RWT scores between senior and junior subjects.
3.There were significant differences in RWT scores among those who had high. average and low intelligence.
4.The results revealed no interaction effect between genders and ages; between genders and intelligence;between ages and intelligence; among genders and ages and inte11igence.
5.There were significant differences among first , second and else birth subjects in RWT scores.
6.There were significant differences in RWT scores between high and low reading motivational subjects.
7.The results revealed no interaction effect between birth order and reaing motivation.
8.There were significant differences in RWT scores between subjects whose parental education level were high and low.
9.No significant differences were found in RWT scores between subjects whose parental vocation level were high and low.
10.No significant differences were found between subjects with high and low family income in RWT scores.
11.There were no significant differences in RWT scores between subjects with good and poor parental reading habits.
12.There were significant differences in RWT scores between srbjects whose parents read to them at early and late ages.
13.Therre sere significant differences in RWT scores between subjects whose. parents read to them frequently and less frequently.
14.The results revealed no interaction effect between ages and frequency that parents read to their child.
15.There were significant differences in RWT scores betwween subjects with high and low parent-child reading interaction.
16.No significant differences were found between subjects with high and low subscription to magazines in RWT scores.
17.There were significant differences among the groups with different number of books in RWTscores.
18.There were significant differences among the groups with different number of records in RWT scores.
19.No significant differences were found between subjects with high and low TV watching time in RWT scores.
20.There were significant differences in RWT scores between subjects with high and low opportunities to aproach literacy.
21.The results revealed no interaction effect between watching TV time and the opportunities of aproaching literacy.
22.There were no significant differences bdtween subjects with teaching and no-teaching writing in RWT scores.