目的：本研究目的為分析一百學年度公開一級大專男子排球聯賽，發球型態之球速與技術表現。方法：於比賽現場記錄發球型態並以測速槍測得球速，並於事後以錄影帶分析方式進行技術表現評分。以皮爾森相關考驗球速與技術表現之關聯性，並以單因子變異數分析（one-way ANOVA），考驗不同發球型態的球速與技術表現，如達顯著差異（α = .05），再以薛費法（Scheffé）進行事後比較。結果：結果顯示，跳躍平擊發球（55%;2.34分）為主要的發球方式且技術表現效果最好，其次為跳躍發球（25.7%;2.30分）與肩上發球（19.3%;2.22分）。跳躍發球在技術表現與球速間達顯著的關聯性（p ＜ .05），而肩上發球與跳躍平擊發球則無（p ＞ .05）。從技術表現分析不同發球型態的球速，肩上發球在16.6 m/s、跳躍平擊發球15.8 m/s、跳躍發球23.9 m/s時，能夠獲得最佳的效果。結論：跳躍平擊發球在直接得分能力上雖略低於跳躍發球，但是在失誤率上較低，因此成為比賽主要之發球型態。而三種不同型態的發球，隨著球速的提升越能獲得較高的技術表現，但失誤風險也隨之提高。

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to carries out a comparative analysis among the serve modes and speed and its effectiveness at the most excellent level, which participating in 2011 College Volleyball League Men’s Group preliminary contests. Methods: A total of 4,343 serves were analyzed, overhead serve 837 times, jump overhead serve 2,390 times, and jump serve 1,116 times. Serve speed were record by radar gun and skill performance were evaluated by experts. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, One-way ANOVA and Scheffé method were applied to examine the difference (α = .05). Result: The analysis has shown the predominance and significant effectiveness of jump overhead serve (55%, 2.34 score) compares with jump serve (25.7%, 2.30 score) and overhead serve (19.3%, 2.22 score). There was a significant relationship with effectiveness and ball speed in jump serve, but the others were not. The average ball speed at best skill performance, jump serve (23.9 m/s) was significant faster than overhead serve (16.6 m/s) and jump overhead serve (15.8 m/s). Conclusion: The jump overhead serve was the primary serve type because of the percentage of error, and the jump serve had the best performance in scoring. In entire serve types, the higher ball speed was not only improved skill performance but also increased the error rate.