目的：探討二年期護理師護理能力自評結果與其他醫療人員及非醫療人員評核之差異。

方法：以醫療人員版及非醫療人員版問卷作為二年期護理師護理能力調查。評估者 包含主管、同儕、部屬、外部顧客及自評，共收案 210 人次。

結果：醫療版護理能力自評平均分數為 4.09±.38，在五大能力構面得分最高為資訊 技術構面、分數最低為實證專業執行構面。主管評核平均分數為 3.87±.48、同儕平均評核分數為 4.21±.49，在五大能力構面得分最高皆為品質改善技 術應用構面、分數最低為實證專業執行構面。醫療版評核結果對二年期護理師能力，p<.01 達顯著差異。非醫療版能力評核，部屬評核平均分數為 4.37±.61、外部顧客平均評核分數為 4.51±.48。兩者評核結果未達顯著差異，顯示部屬及外部顧客對二年期護理師能力評核達一致性。服務科別不同 在自評、主管及部屬評核結果皆達顯著差異，顯示科別不同，對護理能力表現有差異；而教育程度在部屬及外部顧客評核皆達一致性。

結論：透過 360 度評核方式，醫療團隊及外部顧客即時的回饋、護理師自我評估， 讓新進護理師了解護理能力的要求，減少實際表現間的差距，並提供具體資料作為臨床教師教學策略參考及課程內容修訂依據。

Purpose: To investigate the differences between self-evaluation results of nursing competency of the two-year nursing staff and other medical staff and nonmedical personnel.

Method: Medical staff version and non-medical personnel version questionnaires were used to survey the nursing competency of second-year nursing staff. A total of 210 subjects were recruited. The evaluators included supervisors, peers, subordinates, external customers and the trainees themselves.

Result: The results showed that the average self-evaluation score of medical care competency was 4.09 ± .38, and the highest score was for information technology, while the lowest score was for the empirical professional facet. The average score of the supervisors was 3.87 ± .48, and the average score of the peers was 4.21 ± .49. The highest score in the five major competencies fell in the improvement of the quality of technology application and the lowest score was for execution of empirical professional tasks. The assessments of the abilities of the two-year nurses and others groups of personnel were significantly different (p<.01). To the non-medical version of the competency assessment, the average score of the subordinate assessment was 4.37 ± .61, and the average score of external customers was 4.51 ± .48. The results of the two assessments did not reach significant differences, indicating that the subordinate and external customers made consistent assessments of the ability of the two-year nurses. Self-assessment, supervisory and sub-general assessment results all differed significantly among service divisions, showing that nursing performance differs in different disciplines. Education level was consistent across subordinate and external customer assessments.

Conclusion: Through a 360-degree evaluation, this study provided immediate feedback from the medical team and external customers and self-assessment by the nurses, so that the new nurses can understand the requirements of nursing competency, and reduce the gap between actual performances. The empirical information provided here can serve as a reference for clinical teachers for the revision of education strategies and course contents.