本研究旨在探討克漏字、問題回答與一分鐘朗讀三種不同課程位測量之信、效度，以及其運用於國中資源班學生接受閱讀策略教學之閱讀成長監控的效果。研究對象分為二部分，信度取樣自台北市某國中七年級324名學生，施測克漏字與問題回答七個複本；效度及成長監控則是101學年度參與台北市資源班國中語文精進課程的32名學生，實施常見字流暢性測驗、詞彙成長測驗、篇章理解測驗與閱讀理解成長測驗等閱讀成分測驗，以及克漏字、問題回答與一分鐘朗讀三種課程本位測量。
　　研究資料以描述統計、積差相關、迴歸分析與變異數分析等方法分析所得研究結果及發現如下：
一、克漏字與問題回答具複本信度，但整體之複本信度略低於文獻研究之發現。克漏字、問題回答與一分鐘朗讀皆具效標關聯效度，且其效度隨效標成分不同而有差異，克漏字與識字解碼、詞彙知識與閱讀理解的效標有顯著正相關；問題回答與詞彙知識、閱讀理解的效標有顯著正相關，且因其與閱讀理解之相關顯著，與識字解碼則無，亦具區辨效度；一分鐘朗讀與識字解碼、詞彙知識之效標亦具顯著正相關。
二、不同課程本位測量因其形式不同與閱讀成分的關係也不相同。克漏字形式與識字解碼、詞彙知識及閱讀理解成分皆有顯著相關，但與識字解碼、詞彙知識關係較為穩定；問題回答形式與詞彙知識、閱讀理解成分的效標有顯著相關，且與閱讀理解之關係最為穩定；一分鐘朗讀則是與識字解碼、詞彙知識之效標有顯著相關，與識字解碼之相關較高，不過其與二種成分之關係較不穩定。三種課程本位測量對識字解碼、詞彙知識與閱讀理解的總解釋量皆有貢獻，但依成分不同所佔比例不盡相同。
三、不同課程本位測量對閱讀成長的敏感度有差異，以克漏字反應最快，在下學期之斜率改變達顯著水準；問題回答之成長反應次之，在全學年之表現改變達顯著水準；而一分鐘朗讀在一學年或下學期均未能反應成長，對國中補救教學最不敏感。

The purposes of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of three different curriculum-based measurement (CBM), cloze, question answering, and oral reading fluency. Also examining the effectiveness of CBM in reading progress monitoring of students receiving strategic reading instructions in resource rooms of junior middle schools was another purpose.
Participants for reliability were 324 seventh-grade students in Taipei, each completing three alternate-form of cloze and question answering. There were 32 participants for validity and progress monitoring in resource rooms of junior middle schools in Taipei, who completing three reading comprehension tests and three CBM.
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation, regression analysis and two-way ANOVA. The results of the study were as follows :
1. Cloze and question answering have alternate-form reliability. Although reliability for both cloze and question answering were slightly lower than findings of literature. Criterion-related validities for cloze, question answering and oral reading fluency were different with comprehension of criterion. Cloze demonstrated the most significant positive correlation with criterion of word study, lexical knowledge and reading comprehension. Question answering demonstrated significant positive correlation with criterion of lexical knowledge and reading comprehension. Oral reading fluency demonstrated significant positive correlation with criterion of word study and lexical knowledge.
2.The correlations between CBM and reading comprehension varied when different forms of CBM applied. Correlations for the cloze were consistent and statistically significant with word and vocabulary knowledge. Correlations for question answering were consistent and statistically significant with reading comprehension. Correlations for oral reading fluency can be statistically significant with word and vocabulary knowledge, yet less consistent compared with the other 2 measurements.
3.Therefore sensitivity to reading progress in the three CBM were different. Cloze was most sensitive to the growth for students in resource rooms of junior middle schools, followed by question answering. Oral reading fluency was insensitive to growth in students.

一、中文部分
王薰葦（2010）。使用課程本位測量於介入反應模式中鑑定閱讀障礙學生可行性之研究。臺北市立教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
王梅軒、黃瑞珍（2005）。國小課程本位閱測驗方法之信與效度。特殊教育研究學刊，29，73-94。
邢敏華（1995）。評介課程本位測量在特殊教育上的應用。特殊教育季刊，54，1-6。
林素貞（2005）。國民小學低年國語文課程本位測量之編製報告。特殊教育研究學刊，28，75-96。
林苑萱（2013）。國民中學身心障資源班課程實施現況之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
柯華葳（2006）。教出閱讀力。台北：天下雜誌。
柯華葳（2010）。閱讀成分與閱讀發展。載於柯華葳主編：中文閱讀障礙（pp. 25-42）。台北市：心理。
柯華葳（2011）。語文課與閱讀能力的培養。教育研究月刊，210，5-14。
洪儷瑜（2012）。以能力素養為本位的語文補救教學－國中語文精進課程說明。載於洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、劉淑貞、李思慧、李珮瑜主編，國民中學語文精進教材推廣版－模組一：記敘文（故事）教師手冊（第1-19頁）。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究與評鑑中心。
洪儷瑜、王瓊珠（2010）。閱讀障礙概論。載於柯華葳主編：中文閱讀障礙（pp. 1-2）。台北市：心理。
洪碧霞、邱上真（1999）。國民中小學國語文成就測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜、蘇宜芬（2010）。篇章理解測驗。未出版。
洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2011）。詞彙成長測驗。未出版。

洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2007）。常見字流暢性測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜、蘇宜芬、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2011）。閱讀理解成長測驗。未出版。
洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、李珮瑜、李思慧、詹琇晴、曾瓊禎（2013）。因應國中低成就學生教學輔導模式之建置子計畫－「國中國語文低成就學生之補救教學」之推動與執行（101.8.1~102.7.31）期末報告。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究與評鑑中心。（NSC100-10-H-003-097-MY2）
張青紟（2006）。國中小身心障礙資源班教師實施課程與教學調整之現況與困境研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張世彗（譯)（2012）。評量與IEP過程。載於洪儷瑜等譯：學習障礙與其他障礙之學習困難（J. W. Lerner & B. Johns著）。台北：華騰。（原著第12版出版於2012年）。
張毓仁、吳明隆、胡芝妮（2011）。國小四、五和六年級學童國語文課程本位朗讀流暢能力之比較。教育研究月刊，210，49-61。
葉靖雲（1993a）。課程本位閱讀測驗的效度研究。特殊教育學報，8，273-323。
葉靖雲（1993b）。課程本位測量與特殊教育的問題解決。載於臺北市教師研習中心（編）：學習障礙與資源教學（pp. 194-203）。臺北市：臺北市教師研習中心。
葉靖雲（1996）。課程本位評量的理論與應用。載於國立彰化師範大學特教中心（編）：學習障礙有效教學（pp. 41-53）。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學特教中心。
葉靖雲（1998）。課程本位閱測驗的效度研究。特殊教育與復健學報，6，239-260。
葉靖雲（2003）。課程本位測量。載於「2003特殊教育學術研討會」會議手冊。國立臺灣師範大學。
葉靖雲（2005）。課程本位閱讀測量的效度再探。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC92-2413-H-018-009）。
教育部（2008）。教育部近年重大閱讀政策。教育部電子報，312。2008年6月19日，取自 http://epaper.edu.tw/e9617_epaper/topical.aspx?topical_sn=206
教育部（2010）。悅讀 101：教育部國民中小學提升閱讀計畫。教育部電子報，404。2010年4月8日，取自 http://epaper.edu.tw/topical.aspx?topical_sn=436
教育部（2013）。國民教育階段特殊教育課程綱要總綱。2014年4月23日，取自http://sencir.spc.ntnu.edu.tw/site/c_principle_001/index/process
_t_key/212/mode_t_key/-1/data_t_key/-1/code/001/kind_code/001
臺灣2015 PISA國家研究中心（無日期）。PISA宗旨。2014年1月16日，取自http://pisa2015.nctu.edu.tw/pisa/index.php/tw/about-pisa-tw/
introduction-tw
盧台華（2008）。高級中等以下學校特殊教育課程發展共同原則及課程綱要總綱。臺北：教育部。
盧台華、呂美娟、施青豐、李玉錦（譯）（2002）。特殊教育課程與教學（J. L. Bigge & C. S. Stump著）。台北：學富。

二、西文部分
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 542-551.
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
Deno, S. L. (2005). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 , 3-12.
Deno, S. L. & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for databased special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1-15.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., ＆ Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507-524.
Deno, S. L., Marston, D., Shinn, M., ＆ Tindal, G. (1983). Oral reading fluency: A simple datum for scaling reading disability. Topics in Learning ＆ Learning Disabilities, 2(4), 53-59.
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K.K. & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262-300.
Espin, C., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking progress toward meeting high-stakes sandards. . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 60-75.
Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 149-156.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 199-208.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum ? Exceptional Children, 61(1), 15-24.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 45-59.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(3), 1-16.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.minisink.com/fileadmin/user_upload/es/UsingCBMReading.pdf
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7-21.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(1), 16 –28.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading & Writing, 2, 127–160.
Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading,and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade? School Psychology Review, 34(1), 9-26.
Hale, A. D., Henning, J. B., & Hawkins, R. O. (2011). Reading assessment methods for middle school students: An investigation of reading comprehension rate and maze accurate response rate. Psychology in the Schools. 48(1) 28-36.
Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance：Whatitisand why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessment Special Children. New York: The Guilford Press.
McCormick, S. (1995). Assessment for verifying general reading level. In S. McCormick (Ed.), Instructing students who have literacy problems (pp. 105-130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixson, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193-203.
Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63–69.
Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V (pp. 141 – 157). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using Curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
Tich´a, R., Espin, C. A., & Wayman, M. M. (2009). Reading progress monitoring for secondary-school students: Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to growth of reading-aloud and maze-selection measures. . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 132-142.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1-9.
Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, Wexler, J., Romain, M. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338–345
Watson, S. M., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B. & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 79–89.
Wren, S. (2000). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework. Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/framework.pdf