近年來，心向對學習的正向影響受到極大重視，但臺灣尚未有適用於國中生的心向量表。本研究之目的旨在發展適用於國中生的「智能心向量表」（Inventory of Intelligence Mindset, IIM）與「學習心向量表」（Inventory of Learning Mindset, ILM），期能提供了解國中生「心向」（mindset）的良好評量工具。量表發展分兩階段進行：第一階段以預試參與者198位國中生，進行項目分析、探索性因素分析與信度分析；第二階段以正式施測329位國中生，進行驗證性因素、因素間相關及效標關聯效度分析，並檢視年級與性別差異。研究結果發現：IIM為一階二因素，含成長智能心向與固定智能心向（共6題）；ILM為二階四因素，包括成長學習心向8題（含努力與自信、目標與挑戰）及固定學習心向7題（含悲觀與無助、迴避挑戰與失敗）。兩個量表模式均具有良好的適配度、組合信度與平均解釋變異量。此外，IIM與ILM各分量表具有良好的內部一致性信度，Cronbach’s介於.75～.86之間；IIM、ILM具有良好的跨性別、跨年級群組的恆等性。最後，不同性別與年級的國中生在IIM表現上無差異，但在ILM表現上有顯著差異。整體而言，IIM與ILM具有獨特性與統整性，且具有良好的信度與效度，可提供後續教育改革與相關研究有效的評量工具。

The positive influence of mindset on learning has been highly emphasized in recent years, but there are no mindset inventories for junior high school students in Taiwan. This study aims to develop “Inventory of Intelligence Mindset (IIM)” and “Inventory of Learning Mindset (ILM)” for junior high school students. This is a two-stage study. In the first stage of the pretest, 198 junior high school students were included to conduct item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability analysis. In the second stage of formal test, 329 junior high school students were employed to conduct confirmatory factor analysis, correlations between factors, and criterion-related validity, as well as to examine gender and grade differences on IIM and ILM. The results revealed that IIM consisted of two factors (growth intelligence mindset and fixed intelligence mindset). ILM was composed of four factors at two levels. The two levels were “growth learning mindset” which included 8 test items and the “fixed learning mindset” which consisted of 7 test items. The growth learning mindset further included the factor of “effort and confidence” and “goals and challenges”, whereas the fixed mindset further included the factor of “pessimism and helplessness” and “avoidance of challenges and failure”. Both the ILM and ILM models had good-fit indices, composite reliability, and average variance extracted. In addition, IIM and ILM had good internal-consistency reliability; the Cronbach’s for all factors ranged from .75 to .86. Measurement invariance across genders and grades were supported. Finally, no gender differences were found on the performance of IIM and ILM. However, grade differences were found on the performance of ILM. To conclude, with originality and integrity, IIM and ILM have good reliability and validity. The two inventories can provide valid instruments for further educational innovation and related research.