本研究旨在建構大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標－以JCSEE方案評鑑標準為基礎，並提出結論與建議，以供大學實施系所自我評鑑之參考。 研究方法上，先以文獻分析初擬出大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，接著以專家問卷進行指標的刪修和確定，再利用模糊德菲術問卷整合專家學者對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化方式求得各指標的權重，完成我國大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下： 一、本研究建構之大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，計有五大類，三十個標準，六十項指標。 二、參考「JCSEE方案評鑑標準」建構大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑指標，其方法可行。 三、本研究建構之大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑五大類標準中，以「適切性標準」較為重要。 四、大學系所自我評鑑之後設評鑑各類別標準中，分別以「有意義的過程和結果」、「脈絡的可行性」、「回應與包容導向」、「可靠的資訊」、「評鑑檔案化」較重要。 最後，本研究根據研究結果，提出相關建議，俾供教育主管機關、大學系所以及後續研究之參考。 / The purpose of the study is to construct of meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation - based on the JCSEE program evaluation standards, in order to provide conclusions and suggestions for the university to implement the departmental self-evaluation. According to the research methods, first, through the analysis of literature review, it preliminarily develops the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation. Second, the expert’s questionnaires modified the preliminary indicators. Third, by using the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire about important indicators evaluated by experts are integrated. Final, normalization of fuzzy number’s total score determined the weight of each indicator, establishing the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation. The main conclusions follow: 1. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consist with five major categories, 30 standards, 60 indicators in total. 2. The method is feasible that constructing the meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation based on the JCSEE program evaluation standards. 3. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consist of five major categories, the ‘propriety standards’ is the most important. 4. The meta-evaluation indicators of university departmental self-evaluation consists with 30 standards, ‘meaningful processes and products’ in utility standards, ‘contextual viability’ in feasibility standards, ‘responsive and inclusive orientation’ in propriety standards, ‘valid information’ in accuracy standards, and ‘evaluation documentation’ in evaluation accountability standards are the most important. In conclusion, the findings and results in the hope of providing suggestions for educational administrative institutions, university departments, and future studies.