本研究旨在了解臺灣職業重建個案管理員與支持性就業服務員對其專業知識重要性的評定及具備程度，並比較兩類專業人員在評定知識範疇重要性及具備程度方面是否有顯著性的差異。研究者改編Leahy等人（2009）的問卷，問卷包含12項知識範疇及73個知識次範疇，以了解兩類專業人員對知識範疇及次範疇對其工作的重要性及自身的具備程度，研究共計取得96名職業重建個案管理員及162名支持性就業服務員有效問卷。研究結果顯示，兩類專業人員對不同知識範疇對其職務重要程度的認定排序有所不同。「個案與案量管理」對職管員而言是最重要的，而「就業開拓與安置服務」則是支持性就服員認為最重要的。此外，職管員在其中六項知識範疇的重要性評比顯著高於支持性就服員，凸顯職管員及支持性就服員對其職務所需知識範疇的重要性有所區分。雖然兩類專業人員在身心障礙者職業重建的過程中扮演不同的角色，整體而言，職管員及支持性就服員認定其工作所需的中等重要程度的知識範疇仍有九個一致，顯示兩類專業人員有多個共同的專業知識範疇。在評定中等程度重要性的知識範疇中，職管員僅有「個案與案量管理」達中等以上具備程度，而支持性就服員僅有「就業開拓與安置」達中等以上具備程度。雖然這些人員已取得職業重建專業人員的資格認證，但研究顯示，他們在認定職務所需重要知識的具備程度仍顯不足。本研究建議職業重建領域有必要檢討目前養成教育及培訓制度的不足之處，而現職的兩類專業人員均需接受繼續教育以充實仍未完全具備的專業知識。

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to examine the importance and preparedness of knowledge domains for vocational rehabilitation case managers and supported employment specialists in Taiwan and to determine whether any differences in knowledge domains existed between the two professional groups. Methods: The author revised the inventory presented by Leahy et al. (2009). The inventory used in this study contained 12 knowledge domains and 73 knowledge subdomains. The inventories of 96 vocational rehabilitation case managers and 162 supported employment specialists were analyzed. Results/Findings: Results revealed that the two professionals ranked the importance of knowledge domains differently. ＂Case and Case Load Management＂ and ＂Job Development and Placement Services＂ were rated as the most important knowledge domains by vocational rehabilitation case managers and supported employment specialists, respectively. Overall, vocational rehabilitation case managers rated six knowledge domains to be significantly more important than those rated by supported employment specialists, and these domains were ＂Individual Counseling,＂ ＂Career Counseling and Assessment,＂ ＂Case and Caseload Management,＂ ＂Medical, Functional, and Environmental Aspects of Disabilities,＂ ＂Foundations, Ethics, and Professional Issues,＂ and ＂Rehabilitation Services and Resource.＂ Among the 12 knowledge domains, vocational rehabilitation case managers rated only 1 domain as below medium importance and supported employment specialists rated 3 domains as below medium importance. The results also showed that the levels of preparedness of vocational rehabilitation case managers in ＂Career Counseling and Assessment＂ and ＂Case and Caseload Management＂ were significantly higher than those of supported employment specialists. Conversely, the level of preparedness of supported employment specialists in ＂Vocational Consultation and Services for Employers＂ was significantly higher than that of vocational rehabilitation case managers. Among the knowledge domains that were rated as above medium importance, ＂Case and Case Load Management＂ and ＂Job Development and Placement Services＂ were rated as above medium preparedness for vocational rehabilitation case managers and supported employment specialists, respectively. Conclusions/Implications: The results of this study provide empirical evidence for the vocational rehabilitation profession. Although the two professionals ranked the importance of the 12 knowledge domains differently, they rated the same nine knowledge domains as of medium importance for their work. The results present that the two professionals have several common knowledge domains. Although all the participants were qualified professionals, their preparedness for several essential knowledge domains were insufficient. It is necessary to examine the current preservice training curriculums and qualifications for certification. Moreover, current vocational rehabilitation case managers and supported employment specialists should receive continuing education to increase their levels of preparedness in the required knowledge domains.