背景：目前用以測量員工工作感受之量表，以工作滿意最受到普遍應用。然而能運用於護理職場同時兼具測量正負向工作感受之中文版量表仍有待建置，故本研究以Erbin-Roesemann及Simms所發展「工作愉悅」與「工作挫折」的中文版量表加以驗證，期望廣泛運用於台灣護理與管理研究中。目的：旨在於驗證中文版工作愉悅與工作挫折量表，以能運用於護理人員對工作正負向感受之測量。方法：以授權使用之英文版工作愉悅與工作挫折量表，經中文化後，以南台灣某醫院護理人員為研究對象，有效樣本資料為887筆，除進行內在一致信度外，另以因素分析作為建構效度檢定。結果：中文版工作愉悅度量表，經因素分析後取得三個因素構面分別為「專業運用與發揮」、「知識學習與成長」、以及「工作挑戰與變化」，累積解釋變異量為72.12%，Cronbach's α值為.93。中文版工作挫折感量表，經因素分析後亦產生三個因素構面分別為「人際互動」、「資源運用」、以及「工作安排」，累積解釋變異量為65.27%，Cronbach's α值為.93。結論：中文版工作愉悅度與挫折感量表均具良好之信、效度驗證結果。可運用於護理人員對臨床工作正負向感受之測量，此有助於醫療機構日後重新設計護理臨床實務照護模式之參考。

Background: Several different questionnaires have been used to assess employee work attitudes and performance, with job satisfaction the most commonly used indicator. Chinese-version questionnaires able to assess work attitudes and performance in nursing still await development. This study evaluated the validity and reliability of Chinese versions of, respectively, work excitement (WE) and work frustration (WF) questionnaires originally developed by Erbin-Roesemann and Simms. The authors hope the Chinese-version WE and WF may be broadly applied in Taiwan as valid nursing and management research tools.Purpose: This study examined the reliability and validity of work excitement and work frustration in measuring factors that positively / negatively influence the work attitudes of nursing professionals in Taiwan.Methods: Chinese-version WE and WF questionnaires were back translated into English to assess validity. The authors recruited 887 nursing professionals from a hospital in southern Taiwan as participants. Factor analysis assessed internal reliability and construct validity.Results: In the Chinese version of the WE questionnaire, factor analysis identified the 3 factors of (1) usage and development of professional skills, (2) acquisition and development of knowledge, and (3) challenge and variation of the job. These three explained 72.12% of total variance; the Cronbach's α value was .93. Factor analysis of the Chinese version of the WF questionnaire identified the 3 factors of (1) interpersonal relationships, (2) resource application, and (3) work management. These three explained 65.27% of total variance; the Cronbach's α was .93.Conclusion: Examination of Chinese-version WE and WF questionnaires demonstrated high reliability and validity. These two questionnaires are valid for use in measuring positive and negative influences in clinical practice and appear applicable to all nursing staff levels. This result may be referenced in the future design of clinical nursing care models.