近年來校園暴力日趨嚴重，許多研究者對此問題欲深入探討及分析。學者Dodge & Coie(1987)提出自發式攻擊及反應式攻擊作為瞭解攻擊行為的向度，且理論成因跟社會適應的表現有所不同，然而國內缺乏針對攻擊類型的研究與中文攻擊行為評估量表。因此本研究試圖透過翻譯及驗證Little & Jones等人(2003)所發展之模型與攻擊行為評估量表，以期使國內引入攻擊類型分類的模型，並使評估少年攻擊行為時能夠更精準。 / 翻譯的攻擊行為評估量表，將攻擊行為依照攻擊形式與攻擊功能分成六個分量表，分別是：純粹的外顯攻擊、反應式外顯攻擊、工具式外顯攻擊、純粹的關係攻擊、反應式關係攻擊、工具式關係攻擊；因此本量表既能夠評估外顯與關係攻擊，亦能夠評估工具式與反應式攻擊。 / 研究者以361名國中學生作為受試者，以自陳問卷蒐集所需資訊，效度驗證除了以SEM進行模型適配度分析之外，另以人際互動、負向情緒、敵意歸因與結果預期作為效標變項，進行效標關連效度之考驗。研究結果顯示此中文攻擊行為評估量表具有良好的效度。 / 在效度驗證之外，本研究尚進一步討論攻擊形式與功能對於上述四個效標變項的解釋力，結果發現在工具性挑釁情境中，只有攻擊功能對效標具有顯著的解釋力；而在關係挑釁情境中，攻擊形式與功能均對效標有顯著解釋力。 / Because violence in the campus becomes more and more serious in recent years, many reserachers want to study and analyse this probem. Dodge & Coie(1987) found theoretical and social adaptive distinction by dividing aggression into proactive aggression and reactive aggression. However, there are few studies in Taiwan and there is no the Chinese aggressive scale which is divided aggression into proactive(instrumental) aggression and reactive aggression. This research attempts to use Little et al.’s (2003) Model and to translate their aggressive scale into Chinese. With Little et al.’s Model and Chinese aggressive scale , it will be more accurate in assessing adolescent aggressive behavior. / According to form and function, the translated aggressive scale divides aggression into six subscales, which including: pure overt aggression, instrumental overt aggression, reactive overt aggression, pure relational aggression, instrumental relational aggression, reactive relational aggression. The aggressive scale not only can assess overt and relational aggression, but also can assess instrumental and reactive aggression. / The 361 research subjects were junior high school students. Necessary information was collected by using self- rated questionnaire. In order to examine the validity of the aggressive scale, this research not only evaluated model fit with SEM but also examined criterion-related validity of aggressive scale and the criterion are interpersonal index, negative emotion, hostility, and outcome expectance. The results showed the aggressive scale have appropriate validity. / Besides testing validity, this research further discussed if the four criterion could be explained by the form and function of aggression .The results showed the criterions in the instrumental provocative situation can be explained only by the function of aggression. However, the criterions in the relational provocative situation can be explanted by both the form and function of aggression.