本研究以閱讀障礙的各種缺陷能力假說為切入點，針對國小中、高年級組與 國中組閱讀障礙學生進行各種缺陷能力的檢驗，以確定臺灣閱讀障礙學生的亞型 及其比例。本研究包含國小中年級、高年級，以及國中閱讀障礙學生共105 名， 三年齡層各35 名，各年齡層又各有生理年齡控制組與閱讀水準控制組15 名。本 研究之研究方法主要採用集群分析對閱讀障礙學生進行亞型分類，輔以多變量共 變數分析與無母數統計比較不同亞型閱讀障礙學生之認知能力。本研究之研究工 具包含挑選樣本用的常見字流暢性測驗與聽覺理解測驗，分類亞型用的組字規則 測驗、聲韻覺識測驗、唸名測驗，以及用以檢驗亞型外在效度之閱障亞型問卷 （研究者自編）。本研究之研究結果主要有三：一、本研究整體樣本可被區分為聲 韻覺識缺陷亞型、快速唸名缺陷亞型、組字規則暨快速唸名缺陷亞型，以及未達 特定缺陷亞型等四型；再者，國小中年級組閱讀障礙學生中，有74.3% 的學生為 聲韻覺識缺陷亞型，而國小中年級組以及國中組閱讀障礙學生中，各有42.9% 與 54.3%學生屬於組字規則暨快速唸名缺陷亞型，另各有28.6% 與22.9% 屬於快速 唸名缺陷亞型；最後，閱讀障礙學生之三類亞型中於所測量之認知能力中，多數 之表現是同時落後於閱讀水準控制組以及生理年齡控制組，較可能是屬於較嚴重 之缺陷問題。根據本研究之研究結果，可初步獲得臺灣閱讀障礙學生之亞型分類 的狀況，且分類情形亦與其不同年齡層呈現不同的結果，此結果有助於未來實務 現場的教學與相關研究的檢驗。

Purpose: This study examined the subtypes and ratios of developmental dyslexia in Taiwan and addressed three research aims: (1) examining the ratio of Chinese children with developmental dyslexia, (2) comparing the cognitive and reading-related abilities of Chinese children with and without various subtypes of developmental dyslexia, and (3) investigating the patterns of various subtypes of Chinese children with dyslexia in three age levels. Methods: A total of 195 Chinese-speaking children were recruited for this study; of the children with developmental dyslexia, 35 were in the third to fourth grades, 35 were in the fifth to sixth grades, and 35 were in the seventh to ninth grades. The other children were considered typically developing children and were matched according to chronological age (chronological-age control group; N = 45 in total, 15 for each dyslexic group) and reading level (reading-level control group; N = 45 in total, 15 for each dyslexic group). Eight instruments were used in the study: the Assessment of Sight-word Reading and Fluency and Assessment of Auditory Comprehension were used to select participants with and participants without dyslexia; three measures of orthographic knowledge, a measure of phonological awareness, and a measure of rapid automatized naming were used to classify participants with and participants without developmental dyslexia into subtypes; and a questionnaire developed by the researcher regarding developmental dyslexia subtypes was used to examine the external validity of the developmental dyslexia subtypes used in the present study. Results/Findings: The results are summarized as follows. First, the participants were classified as phonological awareness deficient, rapid automatized naming deficient, orthographic skills and rapid automatized naming deficient, and nonspecific deficient. Second, in the lower age group, 74.3% of the participants exhibited phonological-awareness deficiency; in the middle and higher age groups, 42.9% and 54.3% of the participants exhibited orthographic-skills and rapid-automatizednaming deficiency, and 28.6% and 22.9% exhibited rapid-automatized-naming deficiency, respectively. Finally, the participants assigned to three subtypes of developmental dyslexia exhibited lower cognitive and literacy-related abilities than did the participants assigned to both the chronological-age control group and reading-level control group. These results imply that the problems associated with all subtypes of developmental dyslexia in the present study tended to be a deficit rather than a delay. Conclusions/Implications: The results of the present study indicate that different subtypes of children with developmental dyslexia exist in Taiwan and that the patterns of the subtypes differ among age levels. The results are anticipated to benefit teachers and researchers.