臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性評估，以了解國小身心障礙教育教師對於網頁式AAC之可用性、對於網頁式AAC之行為意圖以及彼此間之關係，並調查國小身心障礙教育教師之背景變項，探討其背景變項是否與可用性及行為意圖有顯著差異。本研究方法為問卷調查法，研究工具為自編「網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性評估問卷」，透過實務研習以招募自願樣本並取得可用性評估問卷結果進行統計分析及回應待答問題。研究結果如下：
1.國小身心障礙教育教師認為網頁式輔助溝通系統具有高度可用性。
2.國小身心障礙教育教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統具有高度行為意圖。
3.國小身心障礙教育教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性與其行為意圖彼此間達顯著相關。
4.國小身心障礙教育教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性及行為意圖與其背景變項無顯著差異。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the usability evaluation of the Web-based Augmentative Communication System (AAC) to understand the Elementary Special Education Teachers' perceptions of the usability of the AAC and their behavioral intentions toward the AAC and to investigate whether the background variables of the Elementary Special Education Teachers would affect their perceptions of the usability of the AAC and their behavioral intentions toward the AAC. The method of this study was a questionnaire survey, and the research instrument was the self-administered “Usability Evaluation Questionnaire for Web-based AAC”. The participants of this study were special education teachers at elementary schools, who were recruited as voluntary samples through professional development, and who were given the results of the questionnaires to be statistically analyzed and answered the research questions. The results of the study are as follows:
1.The Elementary Special Education Teachers perceived the Web-based Augmentative Communication System to be highly usable.
2.The Elementary Special Education Teachers have highly behavioral intentions toward the Web-based augmentative communication system.
3.There was a significant correlation between the Elementary Special Education Teachers ' perceptions of the usability of Web-based augmentative communication and their behavioral intentions.
4.There is no significant difference between the Elementary Special Education Teachers’ usability and behavioral intention of the Web-based augmentative communication system and the background variables.

中文摘要 i
外文摘要 iii
謝誌 v
目次 vii
表次 x
圖次 xii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 5
第三節 名詞釋義 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 輔助溝通系統 9
第二節 可用性評估 17
第三節 科技接受模式 21
第四節 輔助科技設備可用性之相關研究 23
第三章 研究方法 31
第一節 研究設計 31
第二節 研究參與者 34
第三節 研究工具 40
第四節 實施程序 46
第五節 研究程序 60
第六節 資料處理與分析 63
第四章 結果與討論 65
第一節 國小身障教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性 65
第二節 國小身障教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統之行為意圖 75
第三節 國小身障教師對於網頁式輔助溝通系統之可用性與其行為意圖間之關係 78
第四節 不同背景變項對於系統可用性及行為意圖之差異分析 80
第五章 結論與建議 97
第一節 結論 97
第二節 研究限制 99
第三節 研究建議 100
參考文獻 101
中文部分 101
外文部分 102
附錄 107
附錄一 編輯介面之可用性問卷 107
附錄二 使用介面之可用性問卷 109
附錄三 專家審查調查問卷 111
附錄四 網頁式輔助溝通系統介紹與操作影片 133

王慧娟、吳柱龍、羅萬達（2011）。淺談輔助科技融入無障礙環境與大眾生活之關係。特殊教育輔助科技，（7），1-6。
周文賢（2002）。多變量統計分析。智勝。
吳明隆（2023）。結構方程模式─AMOS的操作與應用。五南。
洪淑華、黃靖文（2022）。基於科技接受模式探討國小學生因材網使用意圖之研究。學校行政，（139），114-133。
陳明聰（2009）。利用系統化文獻分析蒐集外在實證。特殊教育季刊，（111），1-7。
陳明聰、江俊漢、柯建全（2006）。綱路多表徵閱讀系統的發展興介面可用性的評估。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊，185-196。
陳玫真、黃營杉（2009）。網站可用性對消費者行為意圖影響之研究。東吳經濟商學學報，（67），79-106。
陳采寧（2020）。輔助溝通系統介入多重障礙學生之行動研究（系統編號：108NTNT0529009）[碩士論文，國立臺南大學]。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
陳美慧、張筱苓、王俊凱、席芸（2020）。輔助溝通系統（AAC）在不同服務場域的應用。台灣聽力語言學會電子學報，（92），1-14。
黃宜屏、吳雅萍、陳佩伶、陳明聰（2016）。輔助溝通介入對發展性障礙者表達性溝通成效探討：近六年臺灣研究系統性分析結果。特教論壇，（25），45-64。
樓永堅、曾威智（2016）。以後設分析法探討科技接受模式之研究。科技管理學刊，21（2），1-28。
楊熾康、鍾莉娟（2009）。台灣輔助溝通系統發展趨勢之探討。特教通訊，（42），1-6。
楊熾康（2011）。溝通與電腦輔具產品分級。輔具之友，（28），105-114。
歐真真（2016）。電子輔助溝通系統對國小中重度智能障礙兒童溝通與行為之介入成效（系統編號：099NPTT5284006）[碩士論文，國立臺南大學]。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
錡寶香（2006）。兒童語言障礙理論、評量與教學。心理。
Arthanat, S., Lesner, K., & Sundar, V. (2016). An evaluation framework to measure usability of Assistive Technology at workplace: a demonstration study. January of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44, 213–226. DOI:10.3233/JVR-150792
Bajcar, B., Borkowska, A., & Jach, K. (2020). Asymmetry in usability evaluation of the Assistive Technology among users with and without disabilities. January of Human–Computer Interactio, 36, 1849–1866.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1798084
Bevan, N., Carter, J., & Harker, S. (2015, August 2–7). ISO 9241-11 Revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998？Human-Computer Interaction Design and Evaluation. 17th International Conference, HCI International 2015 Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Beukelman, R. D., & Mirenda, P. (2023)。輔助溝通系統之原理與運用：支持複雜溝通需求之兒童與成人（藍瑋琛、王華沛、楊熾康、鍾莉娟、陳明聰、蔡孟儒、曹真、吳雅萍、陳明德）。華騰文化。（原著出版年：2012）
Brady, N. C., Bruce, S., Goldman, A., Erickson, K., Mineo, B., Ogletree, B. T., Paul, D., Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R., Siegel, E., Schoonover, J., Snell, M., Sylvester, L., & Wilkinson, K. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: guidance for assessment and intervention. American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 121(2).
Chin, P. J., Diehl, A. V., & Norman, L. A. (1988, May 15 - 19). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. CHI88: Human Factors in Computing Systems. Washington D.C., United States.
Dind, J. A., Starr, S. J., & Arora, S. (2021). iPad-based Apps to Facilitate Communication in critically ill patients with impaired ability to communicate: a preclinical analysis. January of Indian J Crit Care Med, 25(11), 1232–1240.
Vollmer, E. (2022, January 31). What is AAC or Augmentative Alternative Communication? Therapy Works. https://therapyworks.com/blog/language-development/what-is-aac/
Ferre, X., Juristo, N., Windl, H., & Constantine L. (2001). Usability basics for software developers. January of Ieee Software, 18, 21-29.
Granataa, C., Pino, M., Legouverneur, G., Vidal, J. S., Bidauda, P., & Rigaud, A. S. (2013). Robot services for elderly with cognitive impairment: Testing usability of graphical user interfaces. January of Technology and Health Care, 21, 217–231.
Götz, M. F., Stieger, S., Reips, U. (2017). Users of the main smartphone operating systems (iOS, Android) differ only little in personality. January of Plos One, 12(5), 31-35.
Henderson, R., & Divett, J. M. (2003). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic supermarket use. January of Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 59, 383-395.
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d) Usability Testing. Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved May 30, 2023, from https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/topics/ usability-testing
Interaction Design Foundation. (n.d) Usability Evaluation. Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved May 2, 2024, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/usability-evaluation#when_to_use_usability_evaluation-1
ISO. (n.d). Usability. ISO25000. Retrieved May 30, 2023, from https://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000 standards/iso-25010/61-usability
ISO 9241 (n.d). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. ISO online browsing platform. Retrieved Nov 15, 2023, from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en
Lajeunessea, V., Routhier, L., Vincent, C., Lettrea, J., & Michaud, F. (2018). Perspectives of individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury concerning the usability of lower limb exoskeletons: An exploratory study. January of Technology and Disability, 30, 63–76
Liu, Y., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2011). A usability-centred perspective on intention to use mobile payment. January of International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(6), 541-562.
McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29 (2), 107-116.
Nielsen, J. (January 3, 2012). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
Owens, E. R., & Farinella, A. K. (2019)。溝通障礙導論：以實證本位觀點為導向（錡寶香、楊淑蘭、李秀妃、劉惠美、童寶娟、詹妍玲、王淑娟、鄭靜宜、鍾莉娟、楊熾康、陳小娟）。華騰文化。（原著出版年：2012）
Reed, P. (2007). A resource guide for teachers and administrators about assistive technology. Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative.
Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Adamson, L. B., Cheslock, M., Smith, A., Barker, R. M., & Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research: JSLHR, 53(2), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)
Salanitri D., Hare C., Borsci S., Lawson G., Sharples S., & Waterfield B. (2015, August 2–7). Relationship between trust and usability in virtual environments: An ongoing study. Human-Computer Interaction Design and Evaluation. 17th International Conference, HCI International 2015 Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Schlosser, W. R. (2003). Roles of Speech Output in Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Narrative Review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(1), 5-27.
Sime, M. M., Bissoli, A. L., Lavino, Junior D., & Bastos-Filho T. F. (2021). Usability, occupational performance and satisfaction evaluation of a smart environment controlled by infrared oculography by people with severe motor disabilities. January of Plos One, 16.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256062
Moran, K. (December 1, 2019). Usability Testing 101. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-101/
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris G. M., Davis, B. G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward an unfiled view. January of MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 157-178.