應用 Q 研究法於探討中央輔導委員對輔導健康促進學校經驗的看法

Abstract

背景：臺灣健康促進學校 ( Health Promotion Schools, HPS ) 政策推行逾十年，中央輔導團制度亦逐漸成形，透過專業委員協助縣市與學校整合健康議題。然而，對中央輔導委員實際參與輔導歷程中的主觀看法與實務經驗，尚缺乏系統性研究。本研究旨在探究中央輔導委員對其參與縣市與學校端輔導工作的主觀看法與觀點類型，補足相關研究缺口。方法/設計：採 Q 研究法分兩階段進行。第一階段進行 Q 排序與問卷調查，對象為111至112學年度參與HPS計畫之中央輔導委員，共回收54份有效資料， Q 樣本以30個陳述句作為調查工具。透過紙本或線上平台完成排序後，進行因素分析與轉軸處理。第二階段邀請完成Q 排序且被歸類之委員進行訪談，進一步了解其所屬類型與輔導經驗之關聯。結果：分析結果歸納出四種類型：Ⅰ 政策綜合型、Ⅱ 計畫增能型、Ⅲ 專業成效型、Ⅳ 正向互動型。各類型在價值認知、排序重點與輔導觀點具差異，訪談內容亦補充各類型之質性支持，與排序結果相互印證。結論：本研究呈現中央輔導委員對 HPS 輔導歷程之主觀觀點與類型差異，研究成果可供政策調整、委員培訓與輔導策略設計之參考，亦建議後續延伸至地方輔導團與縣市合作模式，促進 HPS 支持系統。Background: The Health Promotion Schools ( HPS ) initiative has been implemented in Taiwan for over a decade, during which the central counseling group system has gradually taken shape. Professional consultants assist local governments and schools in integrating health-related topics. However, there remains a lack of systematic research on the subjective perspectives and practical experiences of central counseling members involved in the HPS process. This study aims to explore the subjective viewpoints and typologies of central counselors regarding their guidance work with local governments and schools, thereby addressing existing research gaps.Methods/Design: This study employed Q methodology in two phases. The first phase involved Q-sorting and a questionnaire survey, targeting central counselors participating in the HPS program during the 2022–2023 academic year, yielding 54 valid responses. The Q sample consisted of 30 statements. Participants completed the sorting task via paper-based or online platforms, followed by factor analysis with rotation. In the second phase, selected counselors who had completed the Q-sorting and been categorized into specific types were invited for interviews to further explore the relationship between their typologies and counseling experiences.Results: The analysis identified four distinct types: ( I ) Policy-Integrative Type, ( II ) Capacity-Building Type, ( III ) Professional-Effectiveness Type, and ( IV ) Positive-Interaction Type. Each type demonstrated differences in value orientation, sorting priorities, and counseling approaches. Interview data provided qualitative support for each type, which aligned with the sorting outcomes.Conclusion: This study reveals the subjective viewpoints and typological diversity among central counselors regarding the HPS counseling process. The findings offer practical implications for policy refinement, counselor training, and guidance strategy development. It is also recommended that future research extends to local counseling groups and models of collaboration with local governments to strengthen the HPS support system.