臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

「中華民國品質學會」自九十一年起，為推廣資訊軟體品質觀念，推動資訊軟體品質教育，協助各界提升資訊軟體品質，舉辦軟體品質工程師認證(Certified Software Quality Engineer, CSQE)考試，並由「中華民國資訊軟體協會」開設相關的培訓課程，至今已舉辦共26期，共培育了871位學員。惟目前並無針對資訊軟體品質課程培訓的成效作探討，因此本研究主要目的有三項：(1)評估CSQE課程對結訓人員在職場上實際的知識應用程度與個人效益；(2)分析不同學員背景變項與培訓成效之間的關係；(3)探討培訓成效中的培訓滿意度、知識吸收度、知識應用度與個人效益間的關係。
本研究以Kirkpatrick學者所提出的「四階層評估模式」作為理論基礎，編製「CSQE培訓成效評估調查問卷」作為研究工具，以曾參與CSQE培訓課程的學員為研究對象，共寄出523份正式問卷，回收122份，回收率為23%，有效問卷116份，可用率為22%。經統計分析後，根據本研究發現，獲致如下結論：(1)本研究學員的CSQE課程培訓成效良好。(2)學員的年齡、學歷、工作職稱、工作年資、及培訓年度等個人背景變項不會影響CSQE培訓總成效，但會影響培訓所帶來的個人效益之薪資與升遷。(3)CSQE培訓課程的培訓滿意度、知識吸收度、知識應用度及個人效益之間有顯著正相關。

In order to popularize software quality concept, advance software quality education, and promote the importance of software quality to domestic software-related industries, Chinese Society for Quality (CSQ) of Taiwan initiated a “Certified Software Quality Engineer (CSQE)” examination in 2002. Meanwhile, to promote CSQE in domestic software industry, Information Service Industry Association (CISA) of Taiwan has offered CSQE training program since 2003. But to date there is no report on evaluating the effectiveness of CSQE Training program. Hence, this thesis aims to explore the following three issues: (1) Evaluate the real benefits of CSQE training program for those finishing courses; (2) Analyze the relationship between trainee’s background and the training program’s effectiveness; (3) Investigate the relationships among the trainee’s training satisfaction, individual knowledge absorption degree, individual knowledge implication in the field, and individual benefit.
Based on Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model, this study was carried out by questionnaire in order to evaluate the effectiveness of CSQE training program. Trainees that attended the CSQE training program were targeted as a sample. A total of 523 questionnaires were sent to these subjects. Returned questionnaires numbered 122, with a response rate of 23%, but only 116 of the questionnaires were effective. Thus, there was an effective response rate of 22%. Data was analyzed by using statistical analysis methods. The research findings were as below: First, the effectiveness of CSQE training program is positive. Secondly, the trainee’s backgrounds including age, education, title position, work experience and training’s year don’t have significant effects on the effectiveness of the CSQE training program. Third, there is a positive relationship among trainee’s satisfaction, individual knowledge absorption degree, individual knowledge implication in the field and individual benefit.

摘 要 I
ABSTRACT III
誌謝 V
目 錄 VII
表 目 錄 IX
圖 目 錄 XI
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 3
1.3 研究目的 4
1.4 研究架構及步驟 5
1.5 研究範圍與限制 6
1.6本文架構 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
2.1 軟體品質工程師認證 9
2.2　培訓成效評估的內涵 13
2.2.1培訓成效評估的概念與定義 13
2.2.2培訓成效評估的目的與功能 14
2.3培訓成效評估的模式 18
2.3.1培訓成效評估模式的種類 18
2.3.2 Kirkpatrick的階層評估 20
第三章 研究設計 25
3.1研究架構 25
3.2研究假設 26
3.3 研究工具 29
3.3.1 研究方法 29
3.3.2 研究變項 29
3.4研究對象 33
3.5資料分析方法 33
第四章 結果分析與討論 35
4.1樣本描述 35
4.2各構面因素分析與信度檢定 42
4.2.1 因素分析 43
4.2.2 信度分析 47
4.3個人背景變項與相依變數之變異數分析 49
4.3.1個人背景變項與CSQE培訓總成效之變異數分析 49
4.3.2個人背景變項與培訓滿意度之變異數分析 50
4.3.3個人背景變項與知識吸收度之變異數分析 51
4.3.4個人背景變項與知識應用度之變異數分析 53
4.3.5個人背景變項與培訓個人效益之變異數分析 54
4.3.6個人背景變項與學習與成長之變異數分析 55
4.3.7個人背景變項與工作績效之變異數分析 56
4.3.8個人背景變項與薪資與升遷變異數分析 58
4.3.9研究結果與發現 59
4.4相關性分析 64
4.4.1培訓滿意度與知識吸收度之相關性分析 64
4.4.2知識吸收度與知識應用度之相關性分析 64
4.4.3知識運用度與個人效益之相關性分析 68
4.4.4研究結果與發現 70
第五章 結論與建議 73
5.1 研究發現與討論 73
5.1.1研究發現 73
5.1.2研究建議 75
5.2研究貢獻 77
5.3後續研究建議 78
參考文獻 79
附錄A 研究問卷 83
作者簡介 89

[1]「軟體品質工程師培訓班甲單元及乙單元講義」，中華民國資訊軟體協會。
[2]陳光辰，「個人特性對教育訓練成效及工作績效表現之影響之研究－以電子製造業為例」，碩士論文，國立清華大學，民國九十四年。
[3]江琬瑜，「訓練成效評估之研究」，碩士論文，國立中央大學，民國八十七年。
[4]孟偉銘，「台北市國民小學教師在職進修之評鑑研究」，碩士論文，私立淡江大學，民國八十八年。
[5]林奕如，「變革管理課程」訓練成效之評估及影響訓練成效因素之探討」，碩士論文，國立中央大學，民國八十八年。
[6]林震岩，「多變量分析:SPSS的操作與應用:SPSS operation and application」，智勝文化出版，民國96年。
[7]吳明隆，「SPSS統計應用學習實務:問卷分析與應用統計」，知城數位科技，民國94年。
[8]楊松德，企業訓練專業人員工作手冊，行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局，民國87年。
[9]張文貴，軟體品質工程師(CSQE)的認證給軟體業注入強心針，品質月刊40卷6期，民國93年。
[10]中華民國品質學會網址，http://www.csqa.org.tw/。
[11]中華民國資訊軟體協會網址，http://web.cisanet.org.tw/。
[12]Alliger, G. M & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-342.
[13]Anderson, S. B., & Ball, S. (1978). The profession and Practice program Evaluation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 41, 242-260.
[14]Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K.(1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, p63-105.
[15]Birnbrauer, H. (1987). Evaluation Techniques that Work. Training and Development Journal, 41(7),54.
[16]Brinlerhoff, R. O. (1988). Achieving Results from Training. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 40, 231-240.
[17]Bushnell, D. S.(1990). Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training & Development, 43, 329-348
[18]Carnevale, A.P., Gainer, L.J., & Schulz, E.R.(1990). Evaluation framework, design and report, Training and Development Journal, V44(7), PP. 15-23
[19]Goldstein, I. L. (1986). Training in Organization: Needs Assessment Development and Evaluation. Monterey, CA: BOOKs/Cole, 41(6),52.
[20]Gordon, J. R. (1986), Human Resource Management. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 41, 269-326.
[21]Hamblin, A. C.(1974). Evaluation and Control of Training. London: McGraw-Hill, 43(5),49.
[22]Hick, W. D. and Klimoski, R. J.(1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542-552.
[23]Kaufman, R. & Keller, J. M. (1994). Levels of evaluation: beyond Kirkpatrick. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 5(4), 371-380.
[24]Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 32(11), 22-24.
[25]Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1975). Evaluating Training Programs. Madison, Wis.: American Society For Training and Development, 35(9), 282-294.
[26]Knowles, M. S.(1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species(4th ed.). Houston: Gulf publishing Co, 29(12), 242-254.
[27]Larid, D. (1986). Approach to training and development, 2th, MA: Addison Wesley, Inc, 35(6), 212-244.
[28]Latham, G. P. & Wesley, K. N. (1991). Developing and training human resources in organizations. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 29 (12), 25-36.
[29]Newstrom, J. W. (1978). Catch-22: The problem if incomplete evaluation of training. Training and Development Journal, 32(11), 22-24.
[30]Parker, B. (1986). Summative evaluation in training and development. Journal of industrial Teacher Education, 23(2),29-55.
[31]Parry S. B. (1996),"Measuring training’s ROI", Training and Development, 50(5), PP. 72-77.
[32]Phillips, J. J. (1983). Handbook of training Evaluation and Measurement Methods. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 29 (9), 23-28.
[33]Phillips, J. J. (1991). Handbook of training Evaluation and Measurement Methods-Instructor’s Manuel, Gulf Publishing Company, 2nd ed.
[34]Steiner, T.T., & Kelly, F.(1976).A key factors approach to assessing management development, Personnel Journal, V55, PP. 344-361.
[35]Tesoro, F. M. (1991). The Use of The Measurement of Continuous Improvement Model For Training Evaluation, P. D. Purdue University,29 (9), 242-260..
[36]Worthern, B. and Sanders, J. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. New York: Longman, 31 (6), 28-42.