本研究以台灣與密西根的現有參與監獄性罪犯心理治療方案之臨床人員為對象(各42及91人)，以問卷調查之方式研究瞭解兩地臨床人員在臨床經驗上、對性罪犯心理治療態度上、及對現有方案之支持程度與建議上之異同及可能之相關性。 在有效問卷均33份之分析中重要發現如下：一、發現兩地臨床人員之臨床經驗上，臨床人員參與治療方案多久、所治療過之個案數、平均治療每位個案之時間、及治療所採用之模式均達顯著差異;甚至台灣南部與北部之臨床人員，在平均治療每位個案之時間、及治療所採用之模式上，亦達顯著差異。二、兩地臨床人員在三項臨床經驗(參與治療方案長度、治療個案數、治療期長度)對三項對性罪犯治療態度(值得治療性、治療有效性、治療技術熟悉度)之預測關係上，在台灣沒有一項達顯著；但在密西根，臨床人員之廣度臨床經驗(含參與治療方案長度、及治療個案數)對所有的性罪犯需要治療能顯著預測，而對治療技術的熟悉度則達亦顯著之預測。三、對現有治療方案之支持程度上，密西根臨床人員對現有方案之支持程度顯著高於台灣。四、兩地臨床人員不支持現有治療方案之理由：在密西根其主要的理由為治療方案太短且太結構化；在台灣其主要的理由為只有診斷並沒有提供治療(北部臨床人員)，及並不是每位性罪犯都需要被治療。五、兩地臨床人員對現有方案建議項目之優先順序稍有不同，其共同認為前三項之優先建議，即性罪犯假釋後繼續社區治療方案、提供臨床人員訓練、及釐清哪類性罪犯需要治療。

　　　　　This study compared the clinicians of sex offender treatment programs in Taiwan andMichigan (42 and 91, respectively) in terms of their clinical experience, their attitudes towardthe treatment of sex offender, and the interactions between them, as well as their supportivenessand suggestions on the current treatment program. From the valid responses (both were 33 responses), the important findings are as thefollowing: (1) Four factors are considered as factors of clinical experience-attending length,numbers of clients, treating term, and treating form. All of them reach significant differencebetween Michigan and Taiwan. Even treating term and treating form are also significantlydifferent between northern and southern Taiwan. (2) None of the three kinds of clinicalexperience can significantly predict the three kinds of perception of treating sex offenders in Taiwan. But in Michigan, the extensive clinical experience including the length of attendingtreatment and the number of (clients) can significantly predict sex offenders deserving to be treated and also the familiarity of treatment technique. (3) The average degree of support to thecurrent treatment program in Michigan is significantly stronger than that of Taiwan. (4) InMichigan, the main reasons for nonsupport current program are that the treatment is too shortand too structural; In Taiwan, the reasons are that they only doing the diagnosis instead oftreatment and not every sex offender needs to be treated. (5) Regarding clinicians' suggestionsfor the current treatment program, though the priority is somewhat different, the three mostfavorite suggestions in both areas are continuing community treatment program after beingparoled, providing training to clinician.