This study examines the applicability of two American instruments, designed to assess students' evaluations of effective teaching, in Taiwan. The results, based on a sample of 371 undergraduates, indicated that the scales generally had high internal consistency reliability coefficients, all items were considered appropriate by most students, and every item was deemed important by at least some students. Moreover, all but workload/difficulty items clearly differentiated between good and poor lecturers. Factor analysis detected a strong main factor reflecting most aspects of teaching effectiveness and two minor factors revealing course workload/difficulty and group interaction. Further analysis showed that there was some overlap among some of the scales and thus provided limited support for the convergent and discriminant validities of those scales hypothesized to measure similar or dissimilar components of effective teaching. Hence, this study indicates that evaluation instruments such as the SEEQ and the Endeavor can be used reliably in Taiwan to discriminate between good and poor lecturers, but that no conclusions can be made in respect of the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of teaching effectiveness.