我國勞動部（時為勞委會）曾參考日本職業精神疾病認定制度，於2009年發布「工作相關心理壓力事件引起精神疾病認定參考指引」，其中羅列多項職場內外生活壓力事件，本研究將這些事件項目發展為心理壓力強度評估量表，並運用質性訪談蒐集量表內容對於台灣職場脈絡的適用性評估，以及工作者填答壓力強度分數的影響因素。方法：2010~11年間徵得36位來自製造業、服務業、營造業與公共行政業的正職、約聘、派遣工作者參與量表試填與訪談，透過半結構式大綱深入瞭解受訪者填答問卷的難易程度，以及生活壓力事件發生情境和壓力強度評分的考量因素。結果：個人對於生活事件的壓力強度評估經常需要對照對於他人類似經驗的觀察，並隨著發生時間遠近、事件嚴重度的認知、所扮演的社會角色、有無支援體系、個人價值觀等原因而對生活事件的壓力強度判斷產生個別差異，另組織人手不足以及高難度的業績目標對於台灣職場而言可能是值得納入評估表的壓力來源，而收入減少事件雖然在參考指引中被歸類為職場外事件，但工作者的收入減少和職場內的薪資條件亦有相關。結論：在政策面，本研究針對壓力評估表的後續修訂提供實證依據，另對於企業在員工壓力管理與協助方案的規劃，也提供議題設定優先順序的參考。

Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor (formerly the Council of Labor Affairs) has referred to the Japanese occupational mental illness system issued a 2009 document, entitled “Evaluation guidelines for psychiatric diseases induced by work-related mental stress”, which lists a number of stressful life events inside and outside of the workplace. In this study, these events were established as a psychological stress intensity assessment scale, and qualitative interviews were used to evaluate the applicability of the content of the measurement scale for the Taiwanese workplace, as well as to determine the factors influencing worker stress intensity. Methods: In this study, we recruited 36 regular, contract-based and dispatched workers from the manufacturing, service, construction and public administration industries to participate in the scale test and indepth interview in 2010~11. A semi-structured outline was employed to determine the difficulty the respondents had in filling out the questionnaire, and to examine the context in which the participants’ stressful life events occurred as well as to consider factors in the rating mechanism as part of the process of completing the stress intensity evaluation scale. Results: Individual assessment of the intensity of stressful life events was often affected by the observation of other people’s experiences, and, over time, the perceived severity of the events, the social role, social support system, and personal values about stressful life events produced individual differences. Understaffing and unrealistic performance goals were potential sources of stress for Taiwanese workers and are worth including in evaluation guidelines. Additionally, while income reduction was classified as a non-work event, the workers' income reduction were often highly correlated with salary conditions in the workplace. Conclusions: In terms of policy implications, this study provides an empirical basis for revision of the stress assessment table in the evaluation guidelines, and also provides a reference for priorities in the planning of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) as well as in the improvement of training techniques to cope with stress.