本研究旨在探討選字測驗與閱讀能力的關聯性以及選字測驗區辨不同閱讀能力學生的效能。本研究所指的閱讀能力為閱讀理解（含字義理解與推論理解）及識字量的表現。研究對象為四所桃園市、新竹市、新竹縣的國小五年級，合計160位普通班學生，以及21位資源班學生，探討選字測驗與標準化閱讀理解、識字測驗的相關性，以及兩種班型學生在選字測驗總分以及「字音形」、「字義」兩種閱讀成分上的差異。
研究結果與發現如下：
一、選字測驗與閱讀理解、識字測驗的表現，對五年級普通班及資源班的學生皆達高度相關，且對資源班的學生的相關性高於普通班學生。
二、兩種班型學生在選字測驗的總分表現上，普通班學生顯著高於資源班學生，在「字音形」、「字義」兩種干擾選項上的表現普通班學生皆顯著高於資源班學生。
三、兩種班型的學生皆是「字音形」的表現分數優於「字義」，普通班學生在兩種干擾選項的表現中呈現較顯著的差異。
四、選字測驗能有效區辨不同閱讀能力的學生，可用於篩選出疑似閱讀障礙學生，幫助教師及時了解學生的困難點並做出教學調整。

The study to explore the relevant abilities of the Maze test for students in regular classes and resource classes in fifth grade of elementary schools. The study divides reading ability into two parts: literacy and comprehension. The research sample is four elementary schools in Taoyuan City, Hsinchu City, and Hsinchu County. There are 160 students in ordinary classes and 21 students in resource classes. The study explores the correlation between Maze task and standardized reading and literacy tests, as well as two differences between class types in the total score of the Maze test and the two reading components of "pronunciation and font " and" meaning".The research results and findings are as follows:
1.The Maze test is highly correlated highly correlated in ordinary classes and resource classes, and the correlation is high among students in resource classes.
2.In terms of the total score of students in the two class types in the Maze test, the students in the ordinary class were significantly higher than the students in the resource class. The score of the two interference options of " pronunciation and font " and "meaning" in resource class were significantly higher than ordinary class.
3.Students in both classes performed better on " pronunciation and font " than on " meaning", and students in the ordinary class showed a more significant difference of the two interference options.
4.The Maze test can identify students with dyslexia and that can effectively help teachers understand students' difficulties in a timely manner and make teaching adjustments.

中文文獻：
中文文本分析研究團隊（2013）。中文文本自動化分析系統。
http://www.chinesereadability.net/CRIE/?LANG=CHT
王梅軒（2003）。國小課程本位閱讀測量之信度與效度研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺 北市立師範學院，臺北市。
王梅軒、黃瑞珍（2005）。國小課程本位閱讀測量方法之信度與效度研究。特殊教育研究學刊，29，73-94。
王慧豐、陸正威（2001）。國小資源班數學科解決問題課程本位評量應用之研究。東台灣特殊教育學報，3709，109。
王薰葦（2011）。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（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
王瓊珠（2010）。課程本位閱讀測量。載於柯華葳（主編），中文閱讀障礙（181-200）。心理出版社。
吳玉珍、劉佩雲（2014a）。課程本位閱讀測量之研究現況與發展趨勢。師資培 育與教師專業發展期刊，7(2)，149-174。
吳玉珍、劉佩雲（2014b）國小學生字母朗讀流暢度電腦化測驗之編製與發展。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，9(1)，53-82。
孟瑛如、張淑蘋、范姜雅菁、陳虹君、周文聿（2015）。國民小學四至六年級識字診斷測驗。心理出版社。
孟瑛如、魏銘志、田仲閔、周文聿（2015）。國民小學四至六年級閱讀理解診斷測驗。心理出版社。
邱皓政（2020）。量化研究與統計分析（第六版）。臺北市，五南出版社。
柯華葳（2010a）中文閱讀障礙。心理出版社。
柯華葳（2010b）閱讀成分與閱讀發展。心理出版社。
柯華葳（2020）淺談課文本位閱讀理解策略教學提升國小學生閱讀理解能力。台灣教育評論月刊，9(5)，98-103。
洪碧霞、邱上真（1997）國民小學國語文低成就學童篩選工具系列發展之研究。特殊教育學刊，26903，83。
范文碩（2014）。選字測驗之發展與應用:國中學障生閱讀成長評估及其預測效度（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺南大學，臺南市。
張世慧（2011）。課程本位評量理論與實務。臺北市立大學特殊教育中心。台北市。
張琇涵（2014）。中文兒童文本特徵分析（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。
張靖涓（2008）。選詞測驗監控國小四年級閱讀障礙學生閱讀表現之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。
教育部特殊教育年報（2020）。取自https://www.set.edu.tw/
陳致瑜（2020）。國小四至六年級學生於選字測驗與閱讀能力之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台中教育大學，臺中市。
陳淑麗、洪儷瑜（2003）。學習障礙國中學生在不同差距標準差距之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，1708，85
陳麗如（2001）。特殊學生鑑定與評量。臺北市，心理出版社。
黃秀霜（2001）。中文年級識字量表。臺北市：心理出版社。
楊舒嬿（2013）。國小中高年級學童不同認知成分對閱讀理解表現之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學。嘉義縣。
葉靖雲（1993）。課程本位的效度研究。特殊教育學報，8，273-323
葉靖雲（1998）。課程本位評量的效度在探。特殊教育與復健學報，6，239-260
葉靖雲（2005）。課程本位閱讀測驗的效度研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題成果報告，未出版。
翰林編輯部（2022）高年級閱讀小達人4。新北市。翰林出版社。
蕭素禎（2005）。課程本位閱讀測驗對國小四年級閱讀障礙兒童閱讀成效監控模式之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。

英文文獻：
Brown-Chidsey, R., Davis, L., & Maya, C. (2003). Sources of variance in curriculum based measures of silent reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40(4), 363-377.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Johnson Jr., P., & Fernstrom, R. (2005). Comparison of grade-
level controlled and literature- based maze CBM reading passages. School
Psychology Review, 34(3), 387-394.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternatives.
Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.75
Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systemsfor data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children,19(8), 1-16.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184-192.
Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62,497-514.
Faykus, S. P., & McCurdy, B. L. (1998). Evaluating the sensitivity of the maze as an indexof reading proficiency for students who are severely deficient in reading. Education& Treatment of Children, 21(1), 1-21.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: reading aloud and Maze. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 421-432.
Joseph, L. (2015). Understanding, Assessing, and Intervening on Reading Problems (2nded.). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149
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.
McMaster, K. L., Espin, C. A., & van den Broek, P. (2014). Making connections: linking cognitive psychology and intervention research to improve comprehension of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 17-24.
Muijselaar, M. M. L., Kendeou, P., de Jong, P. F., & van den Broek, P. W. (2017). What does the CBM-Maze test measure? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 120-132.
Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: construction methods, reliability, and validity. Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 195-218.
Pressley, M. (2002) Cognitive Science of Reading. Contemporary Educational. Psychology, 22, 247-259.
Shin, J., Deno, S. L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for
curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special
Education,34(3), 164-172.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Ticha, 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.
Tolar, T. D., Barth, A. E., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., & Vaughn, S.(2012). Psychometric properties of maze tasks in middle school students.
Taylor, C. D., Meisinger, E. B., & Floyd, R. G. (2016). Disentangling verbal instructions, experimental design, and sample characteristics: results of curriculum-based measurement of reading research. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 53-72.
Tindal, G., Nese, J. F. T., Stevens, J. J., & Alonzo, J. (2016). Growth on oral reading
fluency measures as a function of special education and measurement sufficiency. Remedial and Special Education, 37(1), 28-40.
Whitley, S. (2019). Oral reading fluency and maze selection for predicting 5th and
6thgrade students’ reading and math achievement on a high stakes summative
assessment. Reading Improvement, 56(1), 24-35.