目標：本研究的主要目的在於評估兩位研究人員將問卷所蒐集工作內容資料歸類譯碼結果之一致性。方法：兩位研究人員根據我國「職業標準分類系統」之職業分類原則，針對145份社區老人(≧65歲)以問卷所蒐集之職業史資料，分別進行職業別歸類譯碼之工作，並以Kappa統計值評估一致性之程度。結果：在145筆有效資料中，兩位研究者大分類譯碼一致者共110筆(75.8%；Kappa＝0.70，95%信賴區間(CI)＝0.62－0.78)，大、中分類譯碼一致者106筆(73.4%；Kappa＝0.69，95% CI＝0.61－0.77)，大、中、小分類譯碼一致者101筆(70.0%；Kappa＝0.66，95% CI＝0.58－0.74)， 而大、中、小細分類譯碼均一致者共有98筆(68.6%；Kappa＝0.64，95% CI＝0.56－0.72)。進一步探討歸類不一致的原因，發現：原始問卷對所從事職業工作內容之描述不夠詳盡，是造成不一致歸類之主要原因。其次要原因分別為譯碼者之人為錯誤，以及原分類系統將同性質工作給予兩個不同的譯碼。結論：我國職業標準分類系統之信度仍佳，若能蒐集更詳盡之工作內容資料並加強譯碼者之訓練及標準化等工作，其信度必能更進一步提升。

　　　　　Objectives: To assess the inter-rater reliability for the Standard Occupational Classification System(SOCS) of the Republic of China. Methods: Information on the life-time longest-held occupation for a total of 145 adults 65 years and over was obtained from a longitudinal study using questionnaires to interview nearly 1600 community elderly on their work histories. Two investigators independently reviewed participants' work histories and categorized each participant's longest-held occupation into a job tit le designated by a four-digit number. Briefly, the SOCS is based on a 4-digit system. The first digit in the series represents the broadest job category while the subsequent digits are indicative of more specific details. The chance-adjusted agreement between the two raters was assessed by Kappa(K) and its 95% confidence interval(CI). Results: Among the 145 records studied, these two raters agreed on the first digit in the categorization for 110 (75.8%) records (K=0.69, 95% CI=0.62-0.78). They also agreed on the first two digits for 106 (73.4%) records (K=0.70, 95% CI=0.61-0.77), the first three digits for 101 (70.0%) records (K=0.66，95% CI=0.58-0.74), and all of the four digits for 98 (68.6%) records (K=0.64, 95% CI=0.56-0.72). Causes of disagreements included insufficient job information in the questionnaire, rater's mistakes, and two different SOCS classification codes for similar types of jobs. Conclusions: This study suggests that the reliability of the SOCS was substantial. Further improvement in the reliability can be achieved by training raters with standardized rating procedures and by providing sufficient information on work history to the raters.