Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118715
題名: 心理師與輔導教師合作現況及合作信念之研究:以心理師的觀點
The Investigation of Collaboration Situation and Belief between School Psychologists and School Counselors: A Perspective of School Psychologists
作者: 林傳陽
Lin, Chuan-Yang
貢獻者: 陳婉真
Chen, Wan-Chen
林傳陽
Lin, Chuan-Yang
關鍵詞: 心理師
輔導教師
跨專業合作
合作現況
合作信念
School counselor
School psychologist
Interdisciplinary collaboration
Collaboration situation
Collaboration belief
日期: 2018
上傳時間: 17-七月-2018
摘要: 自2014年通過「學生輔導法」後,心理師與輔導教師的合作越來越普遍,然而,目前心理師與輔導教師的合作情形,是否符合心理師的期待?本研究旨在「以心理師的觀點」瞭解心理師對輔導教師的合作現況、合作信念、以及兩者之間的差異情形。本研究抽取125名任職於學生輔導諮商中心之國中小心理師作為研究對象,先以驗證性因素分析考驗自編之「心理師與輔導教師合作現況量表」以及「心理師與輔導教師合作信念量表」是否具有良好的適配程度。接著,本研究以描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、獨立樣本t檢定等統計方式瞭解心理師與輔導教師的合作概況。最後,本研究以相依樣本t檢定及單因子變異數分析等統計方式探究不同背景心理師的合作差異情形。\n\n本研究結果發現如下:\n一、量表編製:「心理師與輔導教師合作現況量表」以及「心理師與輔導教師合作信念量表」皆具有良好的信效度。\n二、合作現況:心理師與輔導教師之合作程度中間偏高。比較三個層次之間的差異,專業層次的得分平均數顯著高於系統層次,系統層次的得分平均數顯著高於關係層次。\n三、合作信念:心理師與輔導教師之合作信念強烈程度偏高。比較三個層次之間的差異,專業層次的得分平均數顯著高於系統層次,系統層次的得分平均數顯著高於關係層次。\n四、合作現況及合作信念之間的比較:心理師與輔導教師的合作信念,在專業層次以及系統層次上,顯著高於合作現況;而在關係層次上,心理師與輔導教師的合作現況以及合作信念並無顯著差異。\n五、不同背景變項的心理師與輔導教師合作之差異情形:\n(一)性別方面:不論是合作現況量表或者合作信念量表,心理師在不同性別下都沒有達到顯著的差異。\n(二)年齡方面:「31-35歲」以及「36-40歲」的心理師,與輔導教師在專業層次、關係層次以及總量表上的合作現況,顯著高於「30歲以下」的心理師。\n(三)執業年資方面:在專業層次上,「4-6年」以及「7-9年」的得分平均數顯著高於「1年以下」以及「1-3年」;在關係層次上,「4-6年」的得分平均數顯著高於「1-3年」;在總量表上,「4-6年」以及「7-9年」的得分平均數顯著高於「1-3年」。\n\n本研究根據研究結果提出相關之建議,供心理師與輔導教師在訓練養成、實務現場、生涯規劃方面,以及未來相關研究作為參考。
Since Student Guidance and Counseling Bill was enacted in 2014, the collaboration between school psychologists and school counselors is becoming more and more prevailing. However, does the current collaboration with the school counselor meet the expectation of the school psychologist? This paper is aim to investigate collaboration situation and belief, and the differences between the two, from a perspective of school psychologists. A total of 125 school psychologists who work in the Student Counseling Center participated in the study. First, this paper developed “Collaboration Situation between School Psychologist and School Counselor Scale, CSS” and “Collaboration Belief between School Psychologist and School Counselor Scale, CBS”, and examined the reliability and validity of the two scales by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After that, this study used statistical methods such as descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA), and independent sample t-test to understand the collaboration between school psychologists and school counselors. At last, this study used statistical methods such as paired sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) to explore the differences in collaboration between school psychologists from different backgrounds.\n\nThe main findings of this study were as follows:\n1.The reliability and validity of CSS and CBS are supported.\n2.Collaboration Situation: The level of collaboration situation between school psychologists and school counselors is middle-high. Comparing the differences between the three aspects, the average score of the profession aspect is significantly higher than the system aspect, and the average score of the system aspect is significantly higher than the relationship aspect.\n3.Collaboration Belief: The level of collaboration belief between school psychologists and school counselors is high. Comparing the differences between the three aspects, the average score of the profession aspect is significantly higher than the system aspect, and the average score of the system aspect is significantly higher than the relationship aspect.\n4.Comparison between Collaboration Situation and Collaboration belief: The collaboration belief between school psychologists and school counselors is significantly higher than the collaboration situation at the profession aspect and the system aspect.\n5.The differences in collaboration between School Psychologists from different backgrounds:\n(1)Gender: Regardless of CSS or CBS, the school psychologists did not reach significant differences under different genders.\n(2)Age: The average scores of "31-35 years old" and "36-40 years old" are significantly higher than those of "under 30" at the profession aspect, relationship aspect, and the total CSS scale.\n(3)Year of practice: At the profession aspect, the average scores of "4-6 years" and "7-9 years" are significantly higher than "1 year and below" and "1-3 years". At the relationship aspect, the average score of "4-6 years" is significantly higher than "1-3 years". At the total CSS scale, the average scores of "4-6 years" and "7-9 years" are significantly higher than "1-3 years."\n\nBased on the above findings, the researchers proposed suggestions for practical sites for school psychologists and school counselors, educational development and career planning of school psychologists, and future related research as a reference.
參考文獻: 中文部分\n王川玉、葉一舵(2017)。臺灣學校輔導工作的新進展及其關鍵事件。學生事務與輔導,56(2),13-27。\n王俊明(1999)。問卷與量表的編製及分析方法。體育測驗與評價,139-158。台北:中華民國體育學會。\n王麗斐(2002)。建構國小輔導工作的未來。輔導季刊,38,1-7。\n王麗斐(2009)。臺北市國小駐區心理師服務現況與運作。取自https://goo.gl/72MDv4\n王麗斐、杜淑芬(2009)。臺北市國小輔導人員與諮商心理師之有效跨專業合作研究。教育心理學報,41,295-320。\n王麗斐、杜淑芬、羅明華、楊國如、卓瑛、謝曜任(2013)。生態合作取向的學校三級輔導體制:WISER模式介紹。輔導季刊,49(2),1-8。\n方惠生、戴嘉南(2008)。彰化縣專業諮商人員介入國小校園輔導工作實驗方案評估研究。諮商輔導學報,18,89-121。\n田秀蘭、王麗斐、王文秀、林美珠、林幸台(2000)。國小輔導師資培育模式之研究:輔導工作成效與教師諮商自我效能。八十八學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集,5,133-150。\n刑志彬(2009)。心理專業人員協助學校輔導工作之參與經驗探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹縣。\n刑志彬、許育光(2014)。學校心理師服務實務與模式建構初探:困境因應與專業發展期待分析。中華輔導與諮商學報,39,117-149。\n李如玉(2009)。諮商師完美主義與專業耗竭之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。\n李宛芸(2010)。中學輔導教師個案輔導工作團體督導之經驗研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化市。\n宋宥賢(2016)。臺灣校園專任輔導教師角色職責構建與專業定位促進之探究。新社會政策,46,115 -124。\n吳武典(1980)。學校輔導工作。臺北市:張老師文化。\n吳武典(1990)。輔導原理。臺北市:心理。\n吳芝儀(2005)。我國中小學校輔導與諮商工作的現況與挑戰。教育研究月刊,134,23-40。\n吳淑萍(2016)。大學校院諮商心理師工作壓力、專業認同與工作滿意之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學,桃園市。\n杜淑芬、王淑玲(2014)。學校輔導教師與外部諮商心理師的團隊合作。諮商與輔導,337,4-7。\n杜淑芬、王麗斐(2016)。諮商心理師與國小學校輔導行政人員跨專業合作面臨的諮商倫理議題與因應策略—以臺北市駐區心理師方案為例。臺灣諮商心理學報,4,63-86。\n余民寧(2006)。潛在變項模式:SIMPLIS的應用。臺北:高等教育。\n林孟平(1988)。輔導與心理治療。香港:商務印書館。\n林建平(2001)。兒童輔導與諮商。臺北市:五南。\n林勝義(2003)。學校社會工作服務。臺北市:學富。\n林美珠(2000)。國小輔導工作實施需要、現況與困境之研究。中華輔導學報,8,51-76。\n林家興(1994)。心理健康與輔導工作。臺北市:天馬。\n林家興、洪雅琴(2001)。學校人員對國中輔導工作及專業輔導人員試辦方案之評估研究。教育心理學報,32(2),103-120。\n林家興、洪雅琴(2002)。專業輔導人員參與國中輔導工作的概況與成效。教育心理學報,34(1),83-102。\n林家興(2002)。中學輔導教師與專業輔導人員工作內容的時間分析。教育心理學報,33(2),23-40。\n林家興(2005)。心理師執業之路。臺北市:心理。\n林家興、黃佩娟(2013):臺灣諮商心理師能力指標建構之共識研究。教育心理學報,44(3),735-750。\n林家興、林旻沛、黃佩娟、胡薇瑄、江信男(2015)。心理師能力評量表之編製及其信效度分析。教育心理學報,47(1),63-86。\n林幸台、宋湘玲、鄭熙彥、鄭麗紅(2004)。學校輔導工作的理論與實施。高雄市:復文圖書。\n林幸台、蕭文(1996)。先進國家輔導專業人員層級及專業標準制度之分析研究。教育部輔導工作六年計劃研究報告(編號17-01)。\n林萬億、黃韻如(2010)。學校輔導團隊工作:學校社會工作師、輔導教師與心理師的合作。臺北市:五南。\n林書勤(2011)。大學校院諮商心理師諮商自我效能、工作滿意與身心症狀之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n林怡光(2016)。專業輔導人員進駐國小的跨專業合作經驗-以諮商心理師的觀點反思(未出版之博士論文)。國立暨南國際大學,南投縣。\n林郁倫、陳婉真、林耀盛、王鍾和(2014)。心理師校園駐區服務的困境、需求與挑戰:由台北市國中輔導人員之觀點。輔導與諮商學報,36(1),37-64。\n林郁倫(2014)。國中輔導人員對心理師校園駐區服務的需求與滿意度研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n林淑華、吳芝儀(2017)。美國學校輔導諮商發展史及對台灣學校輔導工作之啟示。輔導季刊,53(2),48-59。\n周麗玉(2003)。承諾與實踐─國中輔導工作的專業發展空間。載於劉焜輝、洪莉竹、周麗玉、賈紅鶯、李玉嬋著,學校輔導工作的多元面貌─專業理念與實務的對話,161-222。臺北市:天馬。\n侯瑀彤(2014)。駐校心理師與國中學校輔導的合作模式建構(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n徐堅璽、吳英璋(2003)。校園中輔導專業人員之角色功能--淺談國中輔導教師、心理師與社工師在教改潮流下之合作基礎。學生輔導,85,8-21。\n翁家茵(2017)。諮商心理師之情緒勞務、情緒智力和情緒耗竭之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學,花蓮縣。\n倪薇婷(2008)。大學生情緒智力量表之編製(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。\n許育光(2005)。學校心理師培育課程之「應然」與「實然」-台灣「教育心理諮商」與「輔導諮商」碩士課程現況分析與探究。載於王郁琮(主持人),轉型與發展—創造師範教育新風貌學術研討會,51-65,國立彰化師範大學。\n許維素(1997)。輔導教師專業角色發展歷程之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n許維素(2013)。我的密蘇里遊學反思:臺灣學校輔導專業發展的發想(一)。諮商與輔導,329,52-56。\n許憶雯(2010)。國中輔導人員情緒智能與輔導自我效能之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n陳錦如(2007)。國小駐校諮商心理師角色功能之探究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學,臺北市。\n陳思瑜(2015)。國中輔導教師與專任專業輔導人員跨專業合作經驗探討-以新北市北區為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n陳誠文(2002)。國中生活科技科實習教師教學信念之個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。\n陳愉雅、張高賓(2012)。諮商心理師五大人格特質、壓力因應策略與專業耗竭之相關研究。家庭教育與諮商學刊,13,1-23。\n陳婉真、江守峻、邱郁涵、洪雅鳳(2017)。「輔導教師與心理師的跨專業合作量表」之編製研究:輔導教師的觀點。測驗學刊(審查中)。\n教育部國民及學前教育署補助置國中小輔導教師實施要點(2017年12月29日)。\n康慈恩(2009)。遊戲治療師進入校園實務運作經驗探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。\n張美娜(2016)。諮商心理師健康促進生活型態、生命意義感與專業耗竭之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東大學,屏東縣。\n游珠莉(2008)。資深國中教師教學信念與班級經營策略關係之個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n黃月霞(1998)。兒童輔導與諮商:班級經營、專業諮商、輔導課程。臺北市:桂冠。\n黃光國(2003)。中國人的權力遊戲。臺北市:遠流。\n黃君瑜、王欽毅、徐堅璽、柯書林、王智璿(2009)。臨床心理學在學校的應用。 應用心理研究,41,93-108。\n黃正昌、黃瑛琪、連秀鸞、陳玉芳(2012)。輔導原理與實務。臺北:心理。\n黃婷蔚、陳慈樸(2014)。諮商心理師專業耗竭與自我界限的覺察之倫理議題探討。家庭教育雙月刊,50,26–31。\n楊雅超(2012)。台灣地區大專院校諮商心理師人格特質與諮商專業倫理判斷傾向之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。\n楊士賢(1997)。國民小學級任教師班級經營信念與班級經營效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立師範學院,臺北市。\n趙曉美、王麗斐、楊國如(2006)。臺北市諮商師國小校園服務方案之實施評估。教育心理學報,37(4),345-365。\n趙文滔、陳德茂(2017)。中小學輔導教師在跨專業系統合作中的挑戰:可能遭遇的困境、阻礙合作的因素以及如何克服。應用心理研究,67,119-180。\n臺灣學校社會工作協會(2014)。2014年臺灣學校社會工作學術與實務研討會計畫書。取自https://goo.gl/tvTxze\n潘雅芳(1996)。國中教師科學信念與教學信念、教學行為的關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n劉焜輝(2003)。回到原點─學校輔導工作是向上提升或是向下沉淪。載於劉焜輝、洪莉竹、周麗玉、賈紅鶯、李玉嬋著,學校輔導工作的多元面貌─專業理念與實務的對話,1-91。臺北市:天馬。\n劉貞妙(2017)。私立高中職輔導教師與諮商心理師、社會工作師之跨專業合作經驗探討(未出版之碩士論文)。南華大學,嘉義縣。\n鄭淑靖(2015)。諮商心理師人格特質、替代性創傷與生涯承諾之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。\n鄭如安、葉宣瑩(2011)。高雄市駐校心理師服務現況與困境之分析研究。美和學報,30(2),15-40。\n賴炘棠(2007)。臺北縣國民中學心理師進駐學校方案實施成效之評估(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n學生輔導法(2014年11月12日)。\n顏銘志(1996)。國民小學教師教學信念、教師效能與教學行為之相關研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立屏東師範學院,屏東市。\n藍雪瑛(1995)。我國國民中學國文教師教學信念及形成因素之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n羅雅茹(2014)。不同專業發展階段諮商心理師工作價值觀、共依附特質與生涯承諾之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n英文部分\nAndrews, A. B. (1990). Interdisciplinary and interorganizational collaboration. In A. Minahan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Work (p175-188). Washington, DC: NASW Press.\nAmerican School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.\nAmerican School Counselor Association. (2017). The essential role of middle school counselors. Retrieved February 09, 2018, from http://goo.gl/o7XRTx\nBagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76-94.\nCasto, R. M., & Julia, M. C. (Eds.). (1994). Interprofessional care and collaborative practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.\nD’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M. D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 116-131.\nDevellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\nEmmerling, R. J., & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Issues and common misunderstandings. Issues and Recent Developments in Emotional Intelligence, 1(1), 1-32.\nFornell, C. R. & Larcker, F. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-51.\nGergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modem psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.\nGaski, J. F., & Nevin, J. R. (1985). The differential effects of exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 130-142.\nGardner, S. (1994). Beyond collaboration to results: The future of services to children for the families. Fullerton, CA: California State University.\nGreen, B. L., Rockhill, A., & Burrus, S. (2008). The role of interagency collaboration for substance-abusing families involved with child welfare. Child Welfare, 87(1), 29-61.\nHarvey, O. J. (1986). Belief systems and attitudes towards death penalty and other punishments. Journel of Psychology, 54, 143-159\nHornby, S., & Atkins, J. (2000). Collaborative care: Interprofessional, interagency and interpersonal. Oxford, England: Blackwell.\nHair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\nHair, J. F., Black, W. C, Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.\nHu & Bentler (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.\nJones, J. A. (1970). Principles of guidance (5th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company.\nKnapp, M. S. (1998). Paths to partnership: University and community as learners in interprofessional education. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.\nKottler, J. A., & Brown, R. W. (1992). Introduction to therapeutic counseling (2nd. ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.\nLarson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M. A., & Toulouse, A. L. (1992). Development and validation of the counseling self-estimate inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(1), 105-120.\nLerner, R. M., & Simon, L. A. K. (Eds.). (1998). University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century: Outreach scholarship for youth and families. New York, NY: Garland.\nMcCroskey, J., & Einbinder, S. D. (Eds.). (1998). Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
\nMaslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.\nMcCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A Five-factor theory perspective (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.\nMulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.\nNational Association of School Psychologists, NASP. (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services. Retrieved February 09, 2018, from: http://www.nasponline.org/standards/2010standards.aspx\nNunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.\nPayzant, T. W. (1992). New beginning in San Diego: Developing a strategy for interagency collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 139-146.\nPollard, K. C. (2008). Non-formal learning and interprofessional collaboration in health and social care: The influence of the quality of staff interaction on student learning about collaborative behavior in practice placements. Learning in Health and Social Care, 7(1), 12-26.\nRobert, D. R. (1971). Critical behavior in effective and ineffective role fulfillment of school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 15, 262-265.\nRokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\nReichart, P. R. (1985). A questionnaire to assess preservice teacher beliefs about teachering. Ohio, OH: Ohio State University.\nRoberts, R. E., Attkisson, C. C., & Rosenblatt, A. (1998). Prevalence of psychopathology among children and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 715-725.\nShertzer, B., & Stone, S. C. (1981). Fundamentals of guidance (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Hough Miffin.\nSpann, L. & Fischer, J. L. (1990). Identifying co-dependency. The Counselor, 8, 27.\nSorebo, O., Christensen G. E., & Eikebrokk T. R. (2004). The impact of purposeful end-user computing activities on job performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 36(2), 111-124.\nThompson, R. A. (1995). Being prepared for suicide or sudden death in school: Strategies to restore equilibrium. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 17, 364-377.\nWalsh, M. E., Brabeck, M. E., & Howard, K. A. (1999). Interprofessional collaboration in children’s services: Toward a theoretical framework. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 183-208.\nWaxman. R. P., Weist, M. D., & Benson, D. M. (1999). Toward collaboration in the growing education mental health interfaces. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(2), 239-253.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
輔導與諮商碩士學位學程
103172002
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1031720021
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
002101.pdf1.99 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.