本研究通过对学习动机策略量表(The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, MSLQ)进行修订，编制出适宜当代大学生的学习策略量表。方法：对499名全国大学生进行数据采集，在对量表进行修订后，考察该量表在大学生群体中的信效度。结果：1、通过项目分析确定了27题项的量表定稿；2、对数据进行探索性因素分析，与原构想的三因素模型(智力策略，资源管理策略和同伴学习)相符，共解释总变异的85.19%；3、学习策略量表的各维度的内部一致性均达到0.7以上，同时总量表的内部一致性达到0.94；4、对量表进行效度分析，各维度间相关系数为0.51-0.65，各维度与总量表之间的相关系数为0.72-0.92，以上相关均具有显著性(p<0.01)；5、对理论建构进行验证性因素分析，拟合良好，符合原构想的三因素模型；6、性别差异比较，发现男大学生在智力策略和同伴学习上显著高于女大学生，在资源管理策略和总量表得分上没有显著差异；7、专业差异比较结果表明，仅在同伴学习维度上存在显著差异，事后检验发现只有部分专业间存在显著差异，在其他维度和总量表上专业间不存在显著差距。结论：修订后的学习策略量表具有良好的心理学统计上的信度和效度。

In this study, we revised the Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), and developed a new Learning Strategies Scale for college students. Methods: date were collected from 499 national college students, and after revision, we tested the reliability and validity of the revised scale in college student. Results: 1, used item-analysis method to determine the final version, containing 27 item; 2, exploratory principal component analysis of the items, and the three factor model is verified that explaining 85.19% of total variance(intelligence strategies, resource management strategies, peer learning); 3, the consistency coefficient of three major dimensions in the scale were above 0.7, and the consistency coefficient of total scale was 0.94; 4, the validity of the scale was analyzed, and the correlation coefficient between the dimensions was 0.51-0.65, which was medium degree correlation, and three major dimensions’ correlation coefficient between the total scale was 0.72-0.92, while the above correlation was significant(p<0.01); 5, examed the theoretical construct by confirmatory factor analysis, this model has good fit; 6, gender differences were found that male college students in intelligence strategies and peer learning significantly higher than female college students, and there are no significant difference in the resource management strategies and total score; 7, the result of difference of major showed that there are significant differences only in the peer learning dimension, after post hoc multiple comparisons that only some major had significant difference, and had no significant difference in the other dimensions. Conclusion: the revised Learning Strategies Scale had good psychology statistics in reliability and validity.