本研究以Pentomino（五連方）為題材，發展電腦化空間能力測驗題庫，依據「空間定位」、「空間視覺」與「空間知覺」三項空間能力內容指標發展十二種題型，每種題型各十題，共一百二十題。此一百二十題固定分配為二十個題組，每個題組包含每個題型各一題，共十二題，而兩兩題組間各有六題相同之共同題。
施測過程中，題庫系統每次隨機選擇一個題組給受試者施測，總計收集每個試題各兩百次之有效受試資料。運用BILOG-MG for Windows 3.0估計試題之鑑別度參數、難度參數與猜測度參數，保留鑑別度參數估計值大於0.4、難度參數估計值介於-4與4之間、猜測度參數估計值小於.25之試題，共計115題，信度 為.94 ，但並不是很符合IRT單向度之假定。
本研究之電腦化空間能力測驗題庫之主要實施困難為無法確認每位受試者由網頁瀏覽相同試題時是否有相同的呈現樣式，以及受試者資料與答題反應的真實性。本研究後續研究建議將來能運用電腦動畫，以呈現立體圖形，使得試題內容更具變化性。

The purpose of this study was to develop a computerized item bank of spatial ability with the themes of pentomino. According to “spatial orientation”, “spatial vision”, and “spatial perception”, twelve item types were developed, ten items were constructed for each type, and the bank had 120 items in total. These 120 items were further assigned into twenty test forms with each form including one item for each type, therefore each test form had twelve items; however, there were six items in common in two neighboring forms.
In administering the test, the item bank system randomly selected one form for each examinee. There were 200 responses collected for each item. The item analysis was performed using BILOG-MG for Windows 3.0. The criteria for items to remain in the item bank were to select items whose discrimination parameter estimates larger than 0.4, difficulty parameter estimates ranging between –4 and 4, and guessing parameter estimates less than .25. The final item bank had 115 items, =.94, but the IRT hypothesis of one dimensionality was hardly sustained.
The major difficulties of administering the computerized test of spatial ability were to having the same item format presentation for each examinee while taking the test on website, and to making sure if the subject personal information and item responses were real. Further research was suggested that computer animation can be used to help enrich the variation of the item presentation.

一、中文部分
內政統計資訊服務網（2005年6月9日）。台北市：內政部統計處。2005年6月11日，取自http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/index.asp
王寶墉（1995）。現代測驗理論。台北：心理。
左台益、梁勇能（2001）。國二學生空間能力與van Hiele 幾何思考層次相關性研究。師大學報：科學教育類，46(1,2)，1-20。
何榮桂（1990）。項目反應理論及其應用。項目反應理論研討會，中國測驗學會。
何榮桂（無日期）。項目反應理論。2002年12月10日，取自  http：//cat.ice.ntnu.edu.tw/catteach/frist.htm
余民寧（1993）。測驗理論的發展趨勢。載於中國測驗學會（主編），心理測驗的發展與應用（23-62頁）。台北市：心理。
余民寧（1995）。成就測驗的編製原理。台北市：心理。
余民寧（無日期）。試題反應理論的介紹（十一）—題庫的建立。學力e試網。2003年1月20日，取自：http://www.edutest.com.tw/e-irt/index.htm
李茂能（2001）。電腦化適性測驗的過去、現在與未來。台灣教育，604，52-61。
李偉俊（1998）。電腦化適性測驗（CAT）視覺化系統的建立與應用-以SPM視覺化測驗（SPM-VT）為例。台東特教簡訓，7，46-56。
林世華（1993）。美國教育測驗服務社的介紹。載於中國測驗學會（主編），心理測驗的發展與應用（231-242頁）。台北市：心理。
林幸台、吳武典、王振德、蔡崇建、郭靜姿、胡心慈（2001）。綜合心理能力測驗-編製技術報告。台北市：心理。
洪蘭（1999）。活用智慧。台北市：遠流。
國民中小學九年一貫課程各學習領域綱要〔公告〕（2003年1月15日）。台北市：教育部。2004年10月18日，取自http://140.122.120.230/ejedata/kying/20031241215/index.htm?open
國民中小學九年一貫課程數學學習領域綱要〔公告〕（2003年11月14日）。台北市：教育部。2004年10月18日，取自http://140.122.120.230/ejedata/kying/200311181720/數綱_PDF/6-1六之附錄一%20五大主題說明.pdf
康鳳梅、鍾瑞國（2000）。師範院校機械相關系學生工程圖學空間能力之研究。師大學報：科學教育類，45（1），59-71。
張麗芬（1989）。兒童空間認知能力發展之研究。教育與心理研究，12，249-281。
許家吉、洪碧霞、吳鐵雄（1995）。電腦化動態圖形歸類測驗發展之研究。測驗年刊，42，29-59。
許擇基（1998）。適性測驗的適用性。文教新潮，3，4，17-23。
陳新豐（1999）。多媒體線上適性測驗系統發展之探討。台灣教育， 577，45-48。
鄭海蓮、施宣光（1999）。在自動化編製平行測驗程序中使用古典測驗理論試題指標與試題反應理論試題參數之比較。（國科會專題報告，計畫編號：NSC88-2413-H-011-001）
應立志（1996）。項目反應理論與適性測驗之探討。台中商專學報，28，61-76。

二、英文部分
Abrohms, A. (1992). Problem solving with pentominoes. Illinois: Learning Resources.
Albert, P., Joke, W., Adriaan, T., & Jack, V. H. (1999). Sex differences and menstrual cycle effects in human spatial memory. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 24(2), 175-192.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities : A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Casey, M. B. (1996). Understanding individual differences in spatial ability within females: Nature/nurture interactionist framework. Developmental Review, 16(3), 241-260.
Colom, R., Escorial, S., & Rebollo, I. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices are influenced by sex differences on spatial ability. Personality and Iindividual Differences, 37(6), 1289-1293.
Contreras, M.J., Colom, R., Shin, P. C., Álava, M. J., & Santacreu, J. (2001). Dynamic spatial performance: Sex and educational differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 117-126.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Dabbs, J. M., Chang, E. L., Strong, R. A., & Milun R. (1998). Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(2), 89-98.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Geary, D. C., Saults, S. J., Liu, F., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Sex differences in spatial cognition, computational fluency, and arithmetical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(4), 337-353.
Gladue, B. A., & Bailey, J. M. (1995). Spatial ability, handedness, and human sexual orientation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 20(5), 487-497.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure of intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1-4.
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Sex, brains, hands, and spatial cognition. Developmental Review, 16(3), 261-270.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Norwell, MA: Kluwer．Nijhoff.
Hirschhorn, D. (Ed.). (2001). Try it! Pentominoes. Illinois: Learning Resources.
Jeng, H. (1992). The effect of adaptive testing item selection methods on the precision of ability estimation and the examinee’s motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Jones, G. (1994). The puzzling world of tangrams and pentominoes. Ontario: Exclusive Educational Products.
Kyllonen, P. C., & Glück, J. (2003). Spatial ability: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Testing, 3(3), 215-217.
Linn, M. C.,＆ Petersen, A. C. (1986). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56,1479-1498.
Livesey, D. J., & Intili, D. (1996). A gender difference in visual-spatial ability in 4-year-old children: Effects on performance of a kinesthetic acuity task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(2), 436-446.
Livecube. (2002). Developing mental reasoning through 3-D pentomino concepts. Taipei: LiveSynergy.
Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, 4, 181-248.
McGee, M. G. (1979a). Human spatial abilities: Psychomertic studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological-Bulletin, 86 (5), 889-918.
McGee, M. G. (1979b). Human spatial abilities: Sources of sex differences. New York: Praeger.
Moffat, S. D., Hampson, E., & Hatzipantelis, M. (1998). Navigation in a “virtual” maze: Sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(2), 73-87.
O’Boyle, M. W., Hoff, E. J., & Gill. H. S. (1995). The influence of mirror reversals on male and female performance in spatial tasks: A componential look. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(6), 693-699.
Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2003). The mental cutting test “schnitte” and the picture rotation test-two new measures to assess spatial ability. International Journal of Testing, 3(3), 219-231.
Saccuzzo, D. P., Craig, A. S., Johnson, N. E., & Larson, G. E. (1996). Gender differences in dynamic spatial abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4), 599-607.
Spearman, C. (1927). The nature of “intelligence” and the principles of cognition. (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Stumpf, H., & Eliot, J. (1995). Gender-related differences in spatial ability and the k factor of general spatial ability in a population of academically talented students. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(1), 33-45.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Welcome to Gerard’s Pentomino Page. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2002, form the World Wide Web: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gp/pentomino.html