本研究滿的旨在(1)將國外31題知覺自主性量表(Perceived Enactment of Autonomy Scale)翻譯成中文版，(2)依實証資料修訂中文版量表，使之適合於台灣老人族群作答而又不失其原量表的信效度。本分兩階段進行，前半段為中文版老人知覺自主性量表的翻譯，步驟包括:(1)翻譯及回覆翻譯(2)小組討論譯文(3)以雙語教檢測譯文的相近性(4)遴聘老年護理及心理專家進行原文及譯文的相近性及內容效度檢視;後半段以老年人口為對象，進行訪談測試並進而驗證中文版量表之信效度。採用便利取樣，以問卷訪談的方式收集226位65歲以上社區老人之資料。研究工具包括個人基本資料、初步中文版知覺自主性量表、士氣量表和生活滿意自評。取得的資料以SPSS for Windows 8.0版統計軟體分析，包括頻率、百分比、相關分析、Cronbach’s α及因素分析。初步中文版量表經刪除和總分相關不顯著(p>0.05)的6個項目後，剩餘25題再作因素分析，最後剩三個因素20題項。將新量表再測其測其信、效度，結果顯示縮減成20題項的新量表有良好的內在一致性信度(α=0.865)、折半信度(r=0.862)以及再測信度(r=0.93;ICC=0.93)，因素分析顯示萃取出的三個因素可解釋老人知覺自主性的44.16%變異量，且單項和分量表總分之相關係數介於0.444~0.826(p<0.001)，表示此新量表具有良好的建構效度。以士氣和生活滿意自評當效標評估新量表的同時效度，也顯示與知覺自主性呈現顯著相關(p<0.001)，表示此新量表具良好的同時效度。總之，根據本研究的結果，將英文版知覺自主性量表(PEAS)譯成中文，且細項經過修正及刪減的過程，使原量表變成含20題項的正式中文版知覺自主性量表後，信、效度均能維持原量表的水準，用於我國老年人的研究，是一個可接受的簡化量表。

　　　　　 The purpose of this study were (1) to translated English autonomy scale, Perceived Eanctment Autonomy scale (PEAS) into Chinese Preceived Eanactment Autonomy scale, and (2) to consolidate the scale based on the empirical data. There were two stages in this research: checking the validity and feasibility of translated PEAS; and examinating of reliability and validity of translated PEAS for a sample of older Taiwanese population. A convenient sample of 226 subjects who were 65 years or older was recruited in community. Questionnaires and interviews were utilized to collect data. Measurements consisted of three scales: A 31-items Chinese version PEAS, a 17-time morale scale and a satisfaction scale. Using SPSS package, frequency, percentage, correlation, reliability, and exploratory factor analysis were analyzed. On the basis of statistical and substantive data, 11items were deleted from initial Chinese version PEAS. The examination of reliability and validity of the 20-item scale revealed a high internal consistency reliability (α=0.865), good split-half reliability (r=0.862) and good test-retest reliability (r=0.93;ICC=0.93) Factor analysis on the 20-item Chinese version PEAS identified 3 factors totally accounted for 44.16% of variance of the scale scores. The Pearson's r for item and subscale scores were between 0.444 to 0.826 (p<0.001). That means this new development scale has fine constructure validity. The criteria to measure the concurrent validity of Chinese version PEAS, life satisfaction and morale, both were significantly positively correlated with Chinese version PEAS as predicted. In conclusion, this study has provided adequate evidence supporting psychometric properties of original and Chinese version of PEAS transcultrually. The Chinese version on PEAS can be an adequate scale to be utilized in future researches, which refer to elder Taiwanese population.