本研究依據 Ihilevich 與Gleser 的進步評估量表（Progess Evaluation Scales, PES），編譯而成適應評估量表（成人版、青少年版、兒童版），並進行信度、效度之研究，以探討其應用於國內社區心理衛生中心評估工作的可行性。三種版本的量表各都包含家庭生活適應、職業生活適應、人際關係適應、情緒生活適應、休閒生活適應、問題處理能力、對自己的態度、適應困難大小等八個分量尺，可用案主自評、家屬評、治療者評三種方法評定之。本研究除考驗其重測信度及治療者之評分者間信度之外，並採用多重特質多重方法矩陣（Multitrait-multimethod matrix, MTMM），來考驗其輻合效度與辨別效度，並用多變項分析統計法考驗其對個案組與非個案組之間或不同診斷組之間的區辨能力。本研究之實徵樣本包含：成人個案194人，青少年個案43人，兒童個案56人，青少年非個案（自評）84人，青少年非個案（家屬評）15人，兒童非個案（家屬評）49人。結果發現：（1）各個案組的量表總分之評分者間信度從 .89～.93；重測信度從 .78～.85顯示三種版本的量表具有良好的信度。（2）各個案組的 MTMM矩陣分析顯示，三種版本的量表大體上具有良好的輻合效度與辨別效度。（3）青少年組及兒童組的量表分數能區辨個案組與非個案組，量表總分具有最佳之區辨效度（.42～.69）。（4）成人個案由治療者評及案主自評之量表分數能區別適應不良、精神官能症和精神病三個不同的診斷組。（5）三種版本的量表具有低到中度的內部相關，量表分數與人口變項間則大部份沒有相關，僅少數有低的相關。

This research translates and edits the Progress Evaluation Scales (PES) into Chinese, and studies reliability and validity to determine applicability in the evaluation of Community Mental Health Centers in Taiwan. The PES has three slightly different for ms (adult, adolescents' and children's forms) which can be rated by clients, significant others and therapists. They consist of eight scales including family interaction, occupation, getting along with others, feeling and mood, use of free time, coping, attitude toward others, and problems. In addition to the test-retest reliability and interrater reliability, the convergent validity and discriminant validity are also examined by the analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM). The discriminative validities between client and nonclient groups or among different diagnostic groups are also examined using multi-variate analysis. The empirical samples consisted of 194 adult clients, 43 adolescent clients, 56 child clients, 84 nonclient adolescents for self rating, 15 nonclient adolescents and 49 nonclient children rated by parent. The results were: (1) The interrater reliabilities of total scale among all client groups ranged from .89 to .93; test-retest reliabilities ranged from .70 to .85, both indicating a fairy good reliability of all three PES forms. (2) The analysis of the MTMM matrix indicates good convergent validity and discriminant validity of all three PES forms. (3) The scale scores can discriminate between the client and nonclient groups. The total scores have the best discriminative validities (.42 to .69) (4) The scale ratings of adult clients by therapists and clients can be differentiated from three different diagnostic groups; maladjustment, neurosis, and psychosis. (5) In general, three are only low to moderate positive intercorrelations among all scales. Relatively few correlations between demographic variables and ratings were significant at .05 level. In conclusion, the PES has satisfactory reliability and validity, and can be recommended as one of the measurement instruments for use in the community mental health program evaluations.