請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31052
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 毛慧芬 | |
dc.contributor.author | Wan-Yin Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳莞音 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T02:27:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-02-02 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-02-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-01-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 內政部統計處(2006)。九十五年第六週內政統計通報(94年身心障礙者福利服務概況)。台北:內政部。
行政院衛生署(2003)。輪椅衛教手冊。台北:衛生署。 毛慧芬、林佳琪、黃小玲、陳莞音、紀彣宙、蔡伯如(2006)。台北市輔具服務認知及滿意度調查。職能治療學會雜誌,24,頁55-66。 毛慧芬、姚開屏、黃小玲(2006)。科技輔具服務成果評量—標準化評量工具建立與服務成效驗證。(國科會一般型研究計畫,NSC93-2314-B-002-094, NSC94-2314-B-002-019)台北:台灣大學職能治療學系。 李淑貞、曾明碁、黃玉怡、藍婉淑(2006)。ISO 9999:2002 (E) 身心障礙者輔助器具之11大分類中文名稱修正版。輔具之友,19,頁71。 吳英黛、胡名霞、柴惠敏、吳雪玉、毛慧芬(2004)。全國輔具使用現況調查研究。行政院衛生署委託研究報告。 身心障礙者醫療及輔助器具補助方法(民88)。中華民國八十八年十月六日台(88)內社字第八八九零六五二號令修正衛生署醫字第八八零五九一六九號公佈。 身心障礙者輔具資源與服務整合方案(2002)。上網日期:2003/5/21。World Wide Web: http://www.cc.nctu.edu.tw/~hcsci/service/assist_s.htm. 邱崇懿、羅鈞令(2005)。嬰幼兒日常職能活動活動量表之同時效度。職能治療學會雜誌,23,頁1-12。 胡名霞、柯志昌、柴惠敏、吳英黛(2004)。失能者輔具使用現況之初測報告。物理治療,29(6),頁396-403。 張宏哲(2006)。銀髮族與輔具。輔具之友,19,頁3-8。 黃小玲、羅鈞令、張彧、林佳琪、毛慧芬(2003)。復健病患出院後使用輔具之狀況。台灣醫學,7(5),頁681-688。 黃旐濤、陳建忠、黃一峰(2001)。身心障礙者輔具應用狀況分析及需求評估研究報告(國科會身心障礙者補助科技研究,NSC 89-2614-H-364-003-F20)。新竹:玄奘人文社會學院社會福利學系。 畢柳鶯(2001)。身心障礙者復健研究發展中心之營運規劃與發展之研究。內政部委託研究報告。 傅立葉、周月清、洪永泰、鄭夙芬(2000)。「台北市身心障礙者生活需求調查」研究報告書。台北市政府社會局委託研究報告。 鄧復旦、梁秋萍、周適偉、林聰樺、潘建理、裴育晟、朱岳喬、黎建中、杜國賢(2004)。身心障礙者對於個別化醫療復健輔助器具設計服務需求暨市場供需調查。台灣復健醫誌,32(1),頁1-10。 蔚順華、張雅如、石冀贏、江傳江(2000)。肢體障礙者個別化復健輔具之研究(行政院衛生署科技研究發展計畫,DOH90-TD-1193)。台北:國立陽明大學。 Algood, S. D., Cooper, R. A., Fitzgerald, S. G., Cooper, R., & Boninger, M. L. (2005). Effect of a pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair on the functional capabilities of persons with tetraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 380-386. Assistive Technology Act of 1998, Public Law 105-394. Beattie, A. (1981). Aids to daily living for the patient with Parkinson’s disease. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 53-33. Benedict, R. E., Lee, J. P., Marrujo, S. K., & Farel, A.M. (1999). Assistive devices as an early childhood intervention: evaluating outcomes. Technology and Disability, 11, 79-90. Bertocci, G., Karg, P., & Hobson, D. (1997). Wheeled mobility device database for transportation safety research and standards. Assistive Technology, rercwm.pitt.edu. Brandt, A. & Iwarsson, S. (2001). Do certain groups of older people benefit the most from the use of powered wheelchairs? In J. Winters(ed.), RESNA Proceedings 2001(pp. 212–214), Arlington: RESNA Press. Brandt, A., Iwarsson, S., & Stahl, A. (2003). Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: a follow-up study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 343-353. Bursick, T. M., Trefler, E., Hobson, D. A., & Fitzgerald, S.(2000). Functional outcomes of wheelchair seating and positioning in the elderly nursing home population. The Proceedings of the Annual RESNA Conference (pp.316-318). Orlando,FL, June 28-July 2. Chan, S.C. & Chan, A.P. (2006). The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assistive Technology, 18, 25-33. Chronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing. (4th ed.). Harper and Row, New York. Cook, A.M., & Hussey, S.M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Cooper, R.A., Trefler, E., & Hobson, D.A. (1996). Wheelchairs and seating: Issues and practice. Technology and Disability, 5, 3-16. Davis, G. M., Kofsky, P. R., Kelsey, J. C., & Shephard, R. J. (1981). Cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength of wheelchair users. Canadian Medical Association journal, 125, 1317-1323. Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). PIADS: The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale. Toronto: Authors. Day, H., Jutai, J., & Campbell, K. A. (2002). Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and road ahead. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 31-37. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Developmental of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8, 3-13. Demers, L., Ska, B., Giroux, F., & Weiss-Lambrou, R. (1999). Stability and reproducibility of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, 3(4), 42-52. Demers, L., Wessels, R.D., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, P., & De Witte, L. P. (1999). An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6(3), 159-175. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2000). Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 12, 96-105. Demers, L., Wessels, R., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B., & De Witte, L.P. (2001). Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 187-191. Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D.L., & Wolfson. C. (2002). Reliability , validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 21-30. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7, 3-8. DeRuyter, F. (1997). The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6(1), 89-104. Ferguson-Pell, M. (1995). Jay Medical Lectureship: Seating and wheeled mobility research-The key to our future. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Seating Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA. Freedman, V. A., Martin, L. G., & Schoeni, R. F. (2002). Recent Trends in Disability and Functioning Among Older Adults in the United States. JAMA,228, 3137-3146. Fuhrer, M. J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 528-535. Fuhere, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2003). A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 11243-1251. Galvin, J. (1995). Comments on DeRuyter’s “Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology.” Assistive Technology, 7, 12-13. Gelderblom, G. J. & De Witte, L. P. (2002). The assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs .Technology and Disability, 14, 91-94. Gitlin, L. N., Luborsky, M. R., & Schemm, R. L. (1998). Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist, 38, 169-180. Hammel, J. (1996). What’s the outcome? Multiple variables complicated the measurement of assistive technology outcomes. Rehab Management, 9, 97-99. Hass, U., Brodin, H., Andersson, A., & Persson, J. (1997). Assistive technology selection: a study of participation of users with rheumatic arthritis. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 5, 263-275. Jacques, G. E., Ryan, S., Naumann, S., Milner, M., & Cleghorn, W. L. (1994). Application of quality function development in rehabilitation engineering. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 2, 158-164. Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L.P., Linssen, B.A., & Schrijvers, G. (2000). Satisfaction with and use of assistive devices and services for outdoor mobility. Technology and Disability, 13, 173-181. Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L.P., Linssen, B.A., & Schrijvers, A.J. (2002). Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 550-557. Jones, M.L., & Sandford, J.A. (1996). People with mobility impairments in the United States today and in 2010. Assistive Technology, 8, 45-53. Keith, R. A. (1998). Patient satisfaction and rehabilitation services. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1122-1128. Kohn, J. G., Mortola, P., & LeBlanc, M. (1991). Clinical trials and quality control: checkpoints in the provision of assistive technology. Assistive Technology, 3, 67-74. Kohn, J. G., LeBlanc, M., & Mortola, P. (1994). Measuring quality and performance of assistive technology: results of a prospective monitoring program. Assistive Technology, 6, 120-125. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of the observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Lenker, J. A. & Paquet, V, L. (2003). A review of conceptual for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15, 1-15. Levy, R. (1987). Evaluation of technology: Some arguments for a qualitative approach. Design Studies, 8, 224-230. McNaughton, S. (1993). Connecting with consumers. Assistive Technology, 5, 7-10. Mills, T., Holm, M. B., Trefler, E., Schmeler, M., Fitzgerald, S., & Boninger, M. (2002). Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 38-46. Minkel, J. L. (1996). Assistive technology and outcome measurement: where do we begin? Technology and Disability, 5, 285-288. Nunally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. R. (1994). Psychometric theory, third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Phillips, B. & Zhao, H. (1993). Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology, 5, 36-45. Plyum, S.M., Keur, T.J.A., Gerritsen, J., & Post, M.W.M. (1997). Community integration of wheelchair-bound athletes: A comparison before and after onset of disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 11, 227-235. Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M.P. (1993). Correlation. In L. G. Portney & M. P. Watkins (Eds.); Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (pp. 439-456). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange. Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M.P. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Reid, D., Laiberte-Rudman, D., & Hebert, D. (2002). Impact of wheeled seated mobility devices on adult user’s and their caregivers’ occupational performance: a critical literature review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 261-280. Reid, D.T. (2004). Critical review of the research literature of seating interventions: A focus on adults with mobility impairments. Assistive Technology, 14, 118-129. Routhier, F., Vincent, C., Morissette, M. J., & Desaulniers, L. (2001). Clinical results of an investigation of paediatric upper limb myoelectric prosthesis fitting at the Quebec Rehabilitation Institute. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 25, 119-131. Sargent, C. A. (2002). Technology for mobility and locomotion. In D. A. Olson & F. Deruyter (Eds.), Clinician’s guide to assistive technology. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Scherer, M. J. (1991). The Matching Person and Technology (MPT) Model (and assessment instruments). Rochester, NY: Author. Scherer, M. J. (1993). The assistive technology device predisposition assessment: how does it measure up as a measure? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 665. Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. (1997). Outcome and Assistive Technology. REHAB management, Feb./Mar., 103-105. Scherer, M. J.(2002). Assistive Technology: Matching Device and Consumer for Successful Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simon, S.E. & Patrick, A. (1997). Understanding and assessing consumer satisfaction in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Outcomes Measurement, 1(5), 1–14. Smith, R.O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8, 71-81. Smith, C., McCreadie, M., & Unsworth, J. (1995). Prescribing wheelchairs: the opinions of wheelchair users and their carers. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9, 74-80. Stanley, R.K., Stafford, D.J., Rasch, E., & Rodgers, M.M. (2003). Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40, 301-307. Stickel, M.S., Ryan, S., Rigby, P.J., & Jutai, J.W. (2002). Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 115-125. Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Disability Act of 1988, Public Law 100-407. Trachtman, L. (1994). Outcome measures: Are we ready to answer the tough questions? Assistive Technology, 6, 91–92 Trefler, E., Fitzgerald, S. G., Hobson, D. A., Bursick, T. M., & Joseph, R.(2004). Outcomes of Seating and Mobility Intervention with Residents of Long Term Care Facilities. Assistive Technology, 16,18-27. Vachon, B., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Elderly nursing home residents’ satisfaction with manual and power wheelchair. In Proceedings of the RESNA ‘99 Annual Conference (pp.221-223). Arlington, VA: RESNA Press. Warren, C. G. (1993). Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology, 5, 61-65. Weiss-Lambrou, R. (1993). Technologie en réadaptation. Undergraduate course notes, ERT 3318 Technology in Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal. Quebec, Canada. Weiss-Lambrou, R., Tremblay, C., LeBlanc, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Wheelchair seating aids: how satisfied are consumers? Assistive Technology,11, 43-53. Wessels, D. T., & De Witte, L. P. (2003). Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of QUEST 2.0 with users of various types of assistive devices. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 267-272. Winter, P. L. & Keith, R.A. (1998). A model of outpatient satisfaction in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 33, 131-142. York, J. (1989). Mobility methods selected for use in home and community environments. Physical Therapy, 69, 736-747. Zastowny, T. R., Roghmann, K. J., & Cafferata, G. L. (1989). Patient satisfaction and the use of health services. Explorations in causality. Medical Care, 27, 705-723. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/31052 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 輔具結果評量是推展輔具服務的重要依據,而瞭解輔具使用者/消費者之主觀感受是輔具結果評量面向中極為關鍵的一環;台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量(The Taiwanese version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, QUEST-T)即因應以使用者為中心之評量趨勢而發展,成為國內少數專門測量輔具使用滿意度的標準化評量工具。QUEST-T的發展建立是以評量各類型輔具使用者之輔具使用滿意度為導向,然因不同形式之輔具,其滿意度之考量可能有所不同,故QUEST-T對於特定輔具項目之適用性尚待深入探討與驗證,就臨床實務而言,國內輔具使用比率以輪椅類輔具(wheeled mobility device)為大宗,故本研究擬以輪椅類輔具使用者為研究對象,檢視QUEST-T之心理計量特性,包括內部一致性、再測信度與建構效度,並探討其對於本土輪椅類輔具使用者之適用程度。
本研究以QUEST-T為評量工具,以輪椅類輔具使用者(手動輪椅、電動輪椅與電動代步車)為研究對象,收案來源為台北市某身心障礙團體與輔具中心,共計蒐集56份有效問卷,其中33名受訪者於一週後接受再測,結果顯示輔具類、服務類與個人主觀想法類項目之內在一致性Cronbach’s α值分別為.84, .80, .81,組內相關係數ICC各為.85, .83, .88,各題之再測信度加權卡帕值weighted Kappa為.35-.75,與國內原發展者之研究數據水準一致。而探討建構效度之因素分析結果顯示本研究可能受限於樣本數量較少,QUEST-T各類次量表之面向並不明確,仍需後續探討。另使用QUEST-T之總分高低劃分高分組、中間組與低分組,並以Kruskal-Wallis test檢定三組間之差異,再以Mann-Whitney U test經Bonferroni adjustment檢定兩組別於各題項滿意度分數之差異,結果顯示QUEST-T具有區辨高與低滿意度族群之敏感性。 本研究之結果驗證QUEST-T之心理計量特性可適用於輪椅類輔具使用者,並揭示輪椅使用者對於輔具使用的特殊考量,強調安全性、耐用度與維修服務之重要。然QUEST-T各面向之關係與建構尚未釐清有待探究,且服務類之題項再測信度強度較為薄弱,題目之內容說明可再加以修訂,對於次量表之運用則宜謹慎。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Outcome measures of assistive technology have been increasing emphasized by related professions, and considered as an important basis of assistive technology service. Moreover, subjective perception such as user/consumer satisfaction is the critical part of assistive technology outcome measurement. The Taiwanese version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology(QUEST-T)was hence developed under the trend of client-centered approach. QUEST-T is one of the few standardized instruments specific to measure satisfaction with the broad range of assistive technology devices(ATD)in Taiwan. However, it is questioned that different types of ATD might be with different considerations about satisfaction; the applicability of QUEST-T for measuring specific type of ATD still needs to be investigated. In Taiwan, wheeled mobility devices(WMD)is the type of ATD used with largest proportion of people with disabilities. So it is necessary to evaluate user satisfaction with WMD.
The purpose of the current study is to examine the psychometric properties of QUEST-T including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and its applicability for people using WMD including manual wheelchair, power wheelchair and scooter. Fifty-six subjects were recruited from two centers of assistive technology and two disability organizations in Taipei. Among them, thirty-three participants were re-administered QUEST-T in a week by the same interviewer (an occupational therapist) for exploring the test-retest reliability. The results showed that the internal consistency of the device subscale, service subscale, and personal attitude toward ATD use subscale is acceptable (Cronbach’s α. .84, .80, .81, respectively). These subscales also achieved good test-retest reliability (ICC .85, .83, .88, respectively). For item level, the test-retest stability of items with weighted Kappa ranged from .37 to .75. The findings are consistent with previous study of QUEST-T. However, exploratory factor analysis in this study didn’t agree the construct of the QUEST-T with three dimensions due to the small sample size, and further study will be needed. Furthermore, subjects were divided into three groups: high, middle and low satisfaction by QUEST-T total scores. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare groups’ satisfaction differences in item performance, and then Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment was used to discriminate which two groups are significantly different in satisfaction. The result revealed that the QUEST-T is sensitive to identify high and low satisfaction groups. The results of this study confirm the psychometric properties and applicability of QUEST-T in people using WMD. Some special considerations about WMD usage in Taiwan were proposed, too. People using WMD in Taiwan addressed safety, durability and repair service of their WMD usage. Nevertheless, the three dimensional construct of the QUEST-T wasn’t confirmed in this study due to small sample size, and still required to be investigated. The test-retest reliability of the service subscale is weaker than the other subscales. It suggests that wording of the QUEST-T items could be revised in the future, and using subscales simply for assessing satisfaction should be with caution. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T02:27:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R93429005-1.pdf: 685139 bytes, checksum: d48368b591914bac497ca32f26538de8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要…………………………………………………………………I
英文摘要……………………………………………………………..III 目錄......... ...........................................VI 表圖目錄…………………………………………………………...VIII 第一章 前言…………………… ………………………………… 1 第二章 文獻回顧…………………………………………………….4 第一節 輔助科技的定義與分類…………………………………….4 第二節 輔助科技之重要性…………………………………………8 第三節 輪椅類輔具的分類..…………………………………….12 第四節 輔具使用結果評量................……… ………..14 第五節 魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量之發展………………….20 第六節 輔具使用滿意度之評量意涵…………………………….25 第三章 研究目的………………………………………………… 32 第四章 研究方法………………………………………………… 33 第一節 研究樣本………………………………………………….33 第二節 研究工具………………………………………………….34 第三節 研究流程………………………………………………….36 第四節 資料分析………………………………………………….37 第五章 研究結果.......................... ...... .39 第一節 樣本特性…………………… ……......39 第二節 各題項之描述性統計結果........................40 第三節 信度分析..................... ..........42 第四節 效度探討............... ... ......44 第五節 台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量之適用情況....47 第六章 研究討論........................... .49 第七章 結論............................ ....58 第一節 研究結論..................... 58 第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向........................59 參考文獻…………………………………………… .…....61 表......................................................74 圖......................................................84 附錄一:受試者參與研究同意書................. ........ 109 附錄二:台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量...............110 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量於輪椅類輔具使用者之應用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Application of the Taiwanese Version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology to People Using Wheeled Mobility Devices | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 姚開屏,張彧 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 結果評量,滿意度,輪椅類輔具,心理計量特性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | outcome measurement,satisfaction,wheeled mobility devices,psychometric properties, | en |
dc.relation.page | 114 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-01-29 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職能治療研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職能治療學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 669.08 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。