背景:提供民眾可理解的健康訊息，確保健康的行為以及健康結果是重要的醫護職責。英語系的國家已發展許多工具，進行衛教教材的適用性評值，但在中文系的國家中很缺乏。
目的:本研究主要進行教材適用性評估（Suitability Assessment of Materials [SAM]）的中文翻譯，利用嚴謹的翻譯及檢測過程，提供有效的工具評值中文書面衛教教材的適用性。
方法:翻譯過程包括：前向翻譯、反向翻譯以及翻譯等義測驗，用以評值語義與內容的對等性。舉行專家小組討論原英文版與反向翻譯英文版之間的差異。以內容效度指數呈現SAM中文版的內容效度。兩位評分者分別以SAM中文版進行7份衛教教材的適用性評值，計算Cohen’s Kappa係數以估計評分者間的一致性；計算Cronbach’s α值測試工具的內在一致性。
結果:SAM英文版與中文版間存在許多不一致性，專家小組針對兩個版本22個評值項目中存在差異者，一一交互討論確認。中文版總量表內容效度指數達 .99，Cohen’s Kappa同意係數為 .25，以及ronbach’s α值為 .91。
結　論／實務應用:本研究發現，SAM中文版是一有效且可信的工具，可用於臨床評值中文書面衛教教材
的適用性。

Background: It is essential to provide readily comprehensible health information to the public to increase healthy behaviors and improve outcomes. Researchers in English-speaking countries possesswell-developed instruments to evaluate the suitability of health education materials. However, few of these instruments are available for use in Chinese-language environments.
Purpose: This study aimed to translate the SuitabilityAssessment of Materials (SAM) into Chinese. Researchers used a rigorous translation
and testing process to provide a valid instrument to evaluate the suitability of health education materials written in Chinese.
Methods: The translation process included forward- and backtranslations
and a test for translation equivalence that evaluated semantic and content equivalence. A panel discussion was held on the discrepancies between the original English and backtranslated English versions. The content validity index was calculated to confirm the validity of the SAM Chinese version. Two raters used the Chinese-version SAM to evaluate seven health education handouts. A Cohen’s kappa coefficient was calculated to estimate interrater agreement, and Cronbach’s alpha assessed the internal consistency of the instrument.
Results: Discussions on the differences between the original English and initially translated Chinese versions of the SAM resulted in a final 22-item SAM Chinese version. The content validity index of the final Chinese-language SAM scale was .99, the Cohen’s kappa coefficient of agreement was .25, and the Cronbach’s alpha value was .91.
Conclusions/Implications for Practice: The SAM Chinese version is a valid and reliable instrument with potential use in evaluating the suitability of health education materials written in Chinese.