目的:本研究目的在探討台中市職業輔導評量服務內容，包含職評服務的時數、職評 方法的選擇及職評建議的安置方向與輔導策略。方法:針對台中市 101-103 年度之職評報 告，透過次級資料分析方法，統計職評服務的時數、職評方法的選用比率及職評建議的安 置方向與輔導策略。並分析不同障礙類別與障礙程度是否影響職評服務。結果:1. 職評服 務平均時數為 26.6 (±8.9) 小時，在總評量時數中，各項評量時數佔最多者為情境評量佔26.1%，其次為標準化測驗 (20.2%)，工作樣本 (4.7%) 最少。肢體障礙個案平均標準化測 驗時數顯著大於智能障礙及精神障礙個案;智能障礙個案平均現場試作時數則顯著大於肢 體障礙個案。2. 職評工具使用頻率分別為晤談 100%、生理功能測驗 78.7%、標準化測驗78.7%、情境評量 68.4%、現場試作 43.6%，最後乃是工作樣本 38.7%。不同障礙類別及 障礙程度在使用評量項目總數上皆無顯著差異。3. 對於個案近期目標的安置方向建議，以 無法立即就業者最高有 34%，其次分別為支持性就業 30.9%、庇護性就業 29.4% 與一般 競爭性就業為 3.5%。肢體障礙及精神障礙相較於智能障礙個案，比較能進入較挑戰性的 就業場所。支持輔導策略中出現頻率最高為工作技能強化/工作行為輔導 70.9%，其次為 人際技巧強化 59.2%。結論:台中市身心障礙個案之職評服務平均時數相較高雄地區或國 外明顯較少，不同障礙類別及程度影響職評時數，但不影響使用評量項目總數。職評安置 建議中以無法立即就業比率最高，而智能障礙個案較少建議進入挑戰性較高的就業模式。 工作技能強化/工作行為輔導是建議比率最高的支持輔導策略。

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the vocational evaluation services in Taichung City, including the time spent on evaluation service, the selection of vocational evaluation methods, and the recommended vocational options and counseling strategies.Methods: Using secondary data from evaluation reports during 2012-2014, we analyzed the number of hours of vocational evaluation services, the type of evaluation methods used, the frequency of each method used, and placement options and recommended counseling strategies. In addition, the effects of different disability types and severity levels on evaluation services were investigated. Results: 1. The average number of service hours was 26.6 (±8.9) hours. The highest percentage of hours was spent on situational evaluation (26.1% of total hours), followed by standardized testing (20.2%). The evaluators spent the fewest hours on work sample tests (4.7%). People with physical disabilities spent a significantly greater average number of hours taking standardized tests than individuals with intellectual and mental disabilities. Those with intellectual disability spent significantly more hours making situational evaluations than those with physical disability. 2. The reports showed that each client was interviewed. A physical capacity test and a standardized test were each used in 78.7% of the reports, situational evaluation in 68.6%, on-site trials in 43.6%, and work sampletests in 38.7% of the reports. Differences in the total number of tests across the disability types and the disability levels were non-signi cant. 3. 34% of the participants were recommendednot to be employed at once, followed by supportive employment at 30.9%, sheltered workshop employment at 29.4%, and competitive employment at 3.5%. Persons with physical disability and mental disability but not intellectual disability were recommended to be employed in a more challenging employment setting. Regarding recommended counseling strategies, workskill strengthening/work behavior improvement was reported most frequently (70.9%), followedby interpersonal skill strengthening (59.2). Conclusion: The average number of service hoursof vocational evaluation in Taichung City was signi cantly lower than that in Kaohsiung area or abroad. Different disability types and levels influenced the number of evaluation hoursbut not the total number of tests. The highest percentage of the subjects reported inability to be employed immediately, and people with intellectual disability were recommended to beemployed in a less challenging employment setting. Work skill strengthening/work behaviorimprovement was the most recommended support counseling strategy.