本研究的目的是以精神科門診個案（疾病組）和社區民眾（正常組）為樣本進行中文版貝克焦慮量表（The Chinese version of Beck Anxiety Inventory，中文版BAI）的信效度研究。並且探究正常組和疾病組在中文版BAI的心理計量特徵以及找出區辨焦慮疾患的最佳切割點分數。本研究選取自台北市三個醫學中心精神科門診病患共230位，另以大台北地區的社區民眾112位為正常組樣本。每位參與研究的個案均先簽寫研究同意書，然後由研究人員利用迷你國際神經精神會談(Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview，M.I.N.I.)進行結構診斷性會談，以及填寫中文版貝克焦慮量表。本研究的內部一致性信度係數(Cronbach's α)為0.95；Guttman split-half為0.91。因素分析結果抽出2個因素：主觀焦慮反應、恐慌及身體症狀，累計解釋量為58.04%。研究結果與Beck所建構的因素相似，顯示具有良好的因素效度。研究結果也顯示中文版貝克焦慮量表與漢氏焦慮量表之間具有高相關，相關係數為.72。此外，本研究所建議的非焦慮疾患／焦慮疾患的最佳切割點為13/14分。在此切分點之下的敏感度為0.76，特異度為0.81，陽性預測值為0.86、陰性預測值為0.67。中文版貝克焦慮量表具有良好的信度和效度，適用於臨床焦慮病患之篩檢。
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is used to assess anxious symptoms in both clinical and nonclinical populations. However, cross-cultural reliability and validity have not yet to be fully established. The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the BAI. In this study, 230 psychiatric outpatients and 112 individuals from the community were included. All subjects received a psychiatric interview, and completed the study scales. To assess reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and Guttman split-half) was calculated. To assess validity, a component factor analysis with promax rotation was performed. The factor structure was compared with Beck's original hypothesis. To assess convergent validity, 82 psychiatric subjects were evaluated with Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) to compare against the Chinese version BAI score. Finally, sensitivity and specificity was determined to identify an optimal cut-off point to discriminate between anxious and non-anxious individuals._We found that the Chinese version of the BAI showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.95, Guttman split-half coefficient=0.91). Factor analysis showed a two-factor structure: subjective anxiety and panic-somatic symptoms. The total variance explained was 58.04%, similar to Beck's original construct and supporting factor validity. The Chinese version of BAI also showed good convergent validity with HAM-A (Pearson's correlation =0.72). Finally, 13/14 was the optimal cut-off point for discriminating between anxious and non-anxious individuals. These results support the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the BAI.