國內在特殊教育法及其相關法規立法之後，融合教育逐漸成為常態。為提供不同類 別與不同功能程度兒童之特殊需求的適切服務，結合復健醫療專業，以團隊合作方式介入的教育 模式成為學校融合教育的主流；然而醫療專業團隊與教育結合的服務模式有多種，彼此間之成效 差異並不清楚；本文獻回顧自身心障礙教育專業團隊設置與實施辦法實施後至今，國內所提出的 相關研究，進行系統性的文獻回顧，以檢視醫療專業團隊在學校場域中的合作模式，以及其相關 資源投入情形。方法：本研究以系統性回顧方式，分別透過三個資料庫，收集國內於1998年之後 發表，關於特教專業團隊的69篇相關研究，排除重複和不符合搜尋策略的論文，共回顧相關研 究論文28篇。結果：多數學生每週大約可分到0.5〜1.5小時的治療時數；各類治療師出席個案會議 的比例約50%左右，參與個別教育計畫設計的比例約40%，約75%會提供抽離式服務，多數採取 多專業合作模式服務，至於成效多為主觀感受之問卷評量。結論：國內學校現場的特教專業團隊 服務，有很高比例採取直接服務和多專業合作模式，並不符合國內法規規定及文獻之建議。以致 許多人認為有時數、經費、人力等資源不足的問題，是否與專業團隊合作介入的方式有關並不清 楚。相等的時數、經費與人力是否足以支持間接服務的專業間和跨專業合作模式運作，其間所能 得到的成效和運作的可能困難可以是未來研究的方向。

It has been a common practice to place students with special
needs in regular schools. In order to meet the different needs of children with various levels and types of disabilities, it is necessary for teachers to collaborate with rehabilitation professionals in the schools. In Taiwan, the collaborative teams deliver their services officially in school settings according to the Act of Special Education and the related regulations. Many studies have discussed these collaborative efforts. Although recommendations were offered as to how best to collaborate in a team, the efficiency of the collaboration between, different disciplines has been unclear. The purpose of this article was to review studies on the related service after the legislation in Taiwan for viewing the model of collaborative team in school settings and the investment of resource in Taiwan. Methods: A systematic review of 69 articles that were located from 3 databases about collaborative team in special education published in Taiwan since 1998.
At the end, 28 articles were reviewed after excluding repetitive or unmatched articles. Results:
The result showed that most of students were served 0.5〜1.5 hours every week. In all area of therapists, the proportion of presenting the case meeting is around 50%, of involving the IEP is around 40%. Around 75% of them had provided the pull-out service at least in one time, and most of them served in multidisciplinary model. Conclusions: A high proportion of professional services are provided directly through multidisciplinary team model although such method does not comply with the regulations and is not recommended by the literature. The inconsistency shows that we don’t acknowledge the way to evaluate if we have enough resource for the indirect interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary models.