The first and second generation tests for hepatitis B surface antigen(HBsAg) and antibody(anti-HBs), gel diffusion method, counterimmunoelectrophoresis and complement fixation test etc., are considered relatively insensitive tests. It is not clear which of the more sensitive third generation tests would be most suitable for routine use even though radioimmunoassay(RIA) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) are generally accepted as being the most sensitive methods currently available. We have studied the concurrence rates, sensitivities, specificities and predictabilities of reversed passive hemagglutination (RPHA) and passive hemagglutination (PHA) compared to EIA for evaluation their clinical availability. Study subjects consisted of 288 cases of acute and chronic liver disease in Chonnam National University Hospital. The results are as follows; 1) In 288 cases of liver diseases, the positivities of HBsAg by EIA and RPHA method were 51.0% (147 cases), 47.9% (138 cases) respectively, and the positivities of anti-HBs by EIA and PHA rnethod were 34.7% (100 cases) and 29.5% (85 case) respectively. 2) In detecting of HBsAg, concurrence rate, sensitivity, specificity and predictability of RPHA to EIA were 96.9%, 93.9%, 100% and 100% respectively. 3) In detecting of anti-HBs, concurrence rate, sensitivity, specificity and predictabiltiy of PHA to EIA were 89.2%, 77.0%, 95.9% and 90.6% respectively. In terms of sensitivity, specificity and the costs of RPHA with problems of procedures of EIA for detecting HBsAg, RPHA is more available in clinical laboratories than the EIA for mass screening test in HBsAg detection. But EIA is more available than the PHA in detecting anti-HBs as 77.0% of sensitivity and 95.9% of specificity of PHA.