目標：探討大台北地區區域級以上醫院之品管圈團隊結構（團隊合作規範、團隊任務凝聚力）與團隊衝突處理行為之相關性。方法：採橫斷式問卷調查法，有效樣本為大台北地區16家醫院263個品管圈團隊 1914成員，回收率達86.80%。研究工具包括Chatman及Flynn之團隊合作規範量表、Van de Van及Ferry之團隊任務凝聚力量表和Rahim之衝突處理行為量表，量表Cronbach's alpha值範圍為0.70~0.92，顯示各量表具良好內在一致性。以團體為分析單位，每個團隊內個人層級之資料聚合來代表該團隊分數，以單因子變異數分析(one-way analysis of variance)、內部相關係數(Intraclass correlation coefficients)及eta square檢定個人資料聚合為團體資料之適切性，再以迴歸模式分析團隊合作規範、任務凝聚力與團隊衝突處理行為之關係。結果：控制團隊規模與品管圈組圈次數後，團隊合作規範(b =0.49, p<0.01)、團隊任務凝聚力(b=0.10, p<0.05)兩者共解釋整合型衝突處理行為58%變異量；團隊合作規範(b=-0.17, p<0.05)能解釋支配型衝突處理行為15%變異量；逃避型與順應型團隊衝突處理行為模式皆未達顯著意義。結論：團隊合作規範與團隊任務凝聚力較能預測品管圈整合型與支配型衝突處理行為，研究結果將有助於未來醫療相關機構在教育訓練及實務上應用之參考並作為未來相關研究的依據。 Objectives: This study investigated the relationship between group structures (i.e., cooperation norms and task cohesion) and styles of handling conflict within the quality control circles (QCCs) of Taipei-area hospitals. Method: Utilizing a cross-sectional design with the distribution of questionnaires, a valid sample was collected which included 263 groups comprised of 1914 individuals from 16 hospitals. The instruments with acceptable Cronbach's alpha values, ranging from 0.70~0.92, were included in this study. Because of unit for group level analysis, the aggregated individual level data in a single group were used as representative values of the group. The results of intra-class correlation coefficients, eta-square, and one-way analysis of variance indicated that the aggregated individual level data satisfactorily represented group level data. Four hypotheses were tested by regression analysis. Results: The response rate was 86.8%. After controlling for the variables of group size and times of QCC formation, cooperation norms (b=0.49, p<0.01) and task cohesion (b=0.10, p<0.05) together accounted for 58% of the variance in the "integrating" style of handling conflict, while cooperation norms (b=-0.17, p<0 .05) alone accounted for 15% of the variance in the " dominating" style of handling conflict. "Avoiding" and " obliging" styles of handling conflict were not predicted by cooperation norms and task cohesion. Conclusions: The findings of the current study suggest that cooperation norms and task cohesion are good predictors of the "integrating" and "dominating" styles of handling conflict for the QCCs of hospitals. The results may thus be helpful for health care institutions seeking to improve the quality of in-service education, practice, and research
