本研究旨在瞭解國三學生選擇甄選入學學校的抉擇歷程，並探討學生的性別、社經地位、學業表現與其甄選入學抉擇歷程之關聯性。 本研究採用問卷調查法，以自編的國三學生甄選入學抉擇歷程問卷作為研究工具，採用分層比例方便叢集抽樣，共得到936份有效問卷，回收率為93.6％。研究姿現如下。 一、國三學生的甄選入學抉擇歷程可以區分出三個階段，國一前後進入覺察任務階段，開始接觸高中職五專資訊，瞭解自己身負選擇畢業後升學就業方向的責任；到了國三才漸浙進入設定範圍階段，開始認真考慮甄選入學學校科別；一直到篡本學力測驗結束或接到利驗成績之後，國中生才進入形成決定階段，確定要申請的學校科別。 二、在整個抉擇歷程中，國中生最頻繁也最重要的高中職五專資訊來源，是高中職五專所發送的簡介資料與雅甄簡章。 三、不同階段有不同的重要他人。在覺察任務階段，老師被視為最重要的資訊提供者；但在設定範圍與形成決定兩階段，父母的意見最具影響力。 四、不同階段有不同的考慮因素。在覺察任務階段，國三學生最看重的資訊內容是未來職業出路、學校聲望、錄取情形、未來進修管道；在設定範圍階段，則依據興趣、能力成績、父母期望、學費等因素，刪除不符合自我概念的選項，替自己設定二至五個選擇範圍；在形成決定階段，則依據學力測驗成績，比較自己原先的設限範圍與測驗成績所顯示的可取得範圍，從而做出最後決定。 五、性別、社經地位、學業表現均與甄選入學抉擇歷程相關。不同性別在重要資訊提供者、設定範圍時閒、設限範圍、重要篩選理由等方面具有顯著差異，差異方向與性別角色刻板化相符。不同社經地位者在覺察任務時問、重要篩選理由、形成決定時問、重要選擇理由等方面具有顯著差異；不同學業表現者在覺察任務時間、重要資訊內容、設定範圍時間、設限範圍、重要篩選理由、形成決定時間、影響決定者等方面均呈現顯著差異，社經地位低、學業表現差者的生涯抉擇階段發展較遲緩，在多元入學制度中可能更居弱勢。前述發現符合本研究所提出的甄選入學抉擇研究架構，形似Gottfredson(1981)設限與妥協理論之縮影，亦可視為Gati(1986)依序刪除模式的精繳化。研究者針對此研究結果提出未來研究及實務工作方面的建議。

The purpose of this study was to explore the decision making process and influencing factors for Junior high school students in their application for senior high school admission. In addition, this study investigated the differences due to sex, academic performance and socioeconomic status in the decision making process. Data were collected from 936 Grades 9 students applying for senior high school admission. The results were as the follows. 1. The decision making process could be divided into three phases. At first grade, junior high school students entered Awareness Phase, in which period they received educational information and understood their responsibility for future plan. At third grade, junior high school students entered Prescreening Phase, in which period they started to collect information and thought about their choice on application. Junior high school students entered Decision-making Phase after they finished entrance examination or got the result of examination. This was the final phase and junior high school students would decide which school to apply. 2. In the process of decision-making, the most important and frequent educational information resources for junior high school students were from senior high schools or junior colleges. 3. There were different significant others in different stages. In Awareness Phase, teachers’ suggestions were considered the most helpful resources, but in Prescreening Phase and Decision-making Phase, parents’ opinions were rated as the most influential factors. 4. There were different selection strategies in different phases. In Awareness Phase, the most important information for junior high school students was about occupational opportunity, school reputation, recruitment criteria, and educational opportunity. In Prescreening Phase, junior high school students identified the considered choice based on the most important selection criteria, interest, ability and academic performance, parental expectation and tuition. They eliminated options whose characteristics are not compatible with the selection criteria. Usually, they set up a range of acceptable 2 to 5 options for future exploration. In Decision-making Phase, they compared their entrance exam scores and their acceptable range to make their final decision. 5. Decision-making process was significantly related to sex, socioeconomic status, and academic performance. Sex was related to beginning time of Awareness Phase, information content, beginning time of Prescreening Phase, acceptable range, selection criteria, beginning time of Decision-making Phase, influential others and influential factors in decision-making. Those sex differences were consistent with gender-stereotype. Socioeconomic status was related to information resources, beginning time of Awareness Phase, selection criteria, beginning time of Decision-making Phase and influential factors in decision-making. Academic performance was related to beginning time of Prescreening Phase, acceptable range, and selection criteria. It was indicated that students with low socioeconomic status and poor academic performance were in disadvantage going through multiple institutions of recruitment. Obtained results were consistent with Gottfredson’s (1981) circumscription and compromise theory and Gati’s (1986) sequential elimination model. Discussion and implications were provided based on the results of study for future research and practice.