本硏究目的在發展適用於大學層級實習諮商員的「個別諮商能力評量表」，並 以此E迓探討個別諮商能力之組型。針對硏究目的，本硏究探討兩個問題：⑴我國 諮商教育者所建議的個別諮商能力架構爲何? ㈠個別諮商能力架構與評量 經Delphi調度之歸納與確認專家意見，得到六向度之個別諮商能乃架構：專業 行爲、過程技能、概念形成技能、個人化技能、人格傾向和理論礎。 本硏究進一步根據該個別諮商能力架構，編製「個別諮商能立評量表」，編製過程如下：(1)透過文憲分析與專家的錄影帶評量資料，形成個別諮商能力項目的評量標準；（2)以教師對109名大學層級實習諮商員的諮商能力評量進行项目分析，形成正式量表。 編製完成之後，以正式題本之49題項進行因素分析，結果顯示，量表架構與專家意見架構相似，只是在在過程技能之下再分出三個次向度：深層互動、訊息互動和基本溝通，因此，該量表結構具有專家判斷的邏輯效度，並具有因素分析之實徵效度。 其次，以Chronbach a考驗各分量表之内部一致性：並進進下列效度考驗：⑴以 分量表之間，以及分量表與總量表之間的Pearson積差和相關矩陣，考驗其聚斂和區辨情形：(2)以教師對實習諮商員在分項諮商能力與整體諮商能力知單项目評定分 数爲效標，考驗其效標關聯效度。結果顯示，該量表大抵具有良好信效度品質。 在八個諮商能力向度中，諮商教育者和督導最看重的是過程技能-基本溝通， 較不看眾的是過程技能-深層互動和理論基礎。再者，諮商教育者和督導對不同能力向度的看重程度，和實習諮商員在不同能力向度上的強弱，有一致的傾向。㈡個別諮商能力組型 不論是否涵括準實習諮商員，均可區分出三種個別諮商能力組型：第一和第三 的能力組型相若，只是第三種組型在專業行爲之外的各方面能力均較第一種爲高； 第二種在基本溝通上高於第三種，在訊息溝通和人格傾向上與第三種相若，在概念 形成技能和個人化技能上介於第一、三種之間，但較接進第一種，在理論基礎上和 第-種相若，在深層互動上低於第一種。本硏究推論：第一種組型代表個別諮商能 力之發展較弱的一群（準）實習諮商員，他們經過訓練與成長之後，可能可以具有 第三權能力組型：另有少部份實習諮商員在實習之後，其訊息互動和基本溝通能力 有了進一步的成長，但在概念形成技能、個人化技能、深層互動和理論基礎上，反 而有停滯或退步的跡象，該能力組型可能反映出諮商員在專業能力發展進人中期 時，所出現的困惑、混淆、搖擺與過猶不及。 本硏究根據硏究結果與限制，提出諮商教育、督導與硏究上的若干建議。

The purpose of this investigation was two-folded: to develop an instrumentof college-level counselors9 counseling ability, and,thereby, to identify counseling ability patterns with the developed inventory. Hence, the two research questions were the followings: (1) What was the framework of counseling ability recommended by counseling educators in Taiwan? (2) What were the counseling ability patterns of practicum counselors at col lege-level in Taiwan? The Delphi survey resulted in a six-dimension framework of counseling ability, including professional behaviors, process skills, conceptualization skills, personalization skills, personality characteristics, and theoretical foundation. An inventory based on the six-dimension framework was developed via the following process: (1) developing rating standards for each item based on expert rating data and literature analyses, (2) processingitem-analyses of 109 practicum counselors at college-level. Factor analysis of 49 items revealed a similar stucture as the Delphi framework. The only exception was that the dimension of process skills was further divided into three subdimensions: deep interaction, information interaction, and basic communication. The Chronbach Alpha was used to examine internal consistency of each subscale. The Pearson correlation coefficcient was used to examine the convergency and discriminance validity. Finally, concerning criterion-related validity, seven one-item 11-point Likert scales of overall counseling ability and six dimensions of counseling ability were used as criteria. These analyses revealed support for the reliability and validity of the Inventory. According to counseling educators’ and supervisors’ ratings, process skills-basic communication was considered most important, and process skills-deep interaction and theorectical fundation were least important. Furthermore, in terms of the importance, rated by the counseling educators and supervisors, and the performance, presented by practicum counselors, of subscales, a paralleling order was found. With cluster analysis, three practicum counselor clusters were found. The first cluster represented those with lower ability on all subscales, the third cluster those with higher counseling ability on all subscales, and the second cluster those with basic communication higher than the third, information interaction and personality characteristics similar with the third, conceptualization skills and personalization skills closer to the first, theorectical fundation similar with the first, and deep interaction lower than the first. It was theorized that: The practicum conselors propobaly develop from the first ability pattern to the third, and, then, to the second. The second reflected counselor in an transition stage in their professional development with confusion andswinging. Given the findings and limits of this sutdy, recommendations for counseling education, supervision, and research were proposed.