Objective To evaluate the reliability, validity and acceptability of the Community Comprehensive Health Assessment (CGA) scale for the elderly people in Beijing. Methods From August 2020 to January 2021,1 983 elderly people living in 3 districts of Beijing were selected by convenient sampling and surveyed with CGA scale. And finally, 1 980 questionnaires were validly recovered. Kronbach α (Cronbach′s α) coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale. Intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC) was employed to analyze the test-retest reliability and evaluator reliability of the scale. Pearson correlation coefficient was used for item analysis of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to evaluate the structural validity of the scale. Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to evaluate the calibration validity of the scale. Critical ratio was used to evaluate the sensitivity of the scale. The acceptability of the scale was evaluated by the effective recovery rate and filling time of the scale. SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Results The Cronbach′s α coefficient of the total scale, and ICC coefficients of retest reliability and evaluator reliability were 0.849,0.837 and 0.899, respectively, and the Cronbach′s α coefficient of all dimensions, and ICC coefficients of retest reliability and evaluator reliability ranged from 0.467 to 0.833, from 0.579 to 0.910, and from 0.280 to 0.860, respectively. The results of item analysis showed that the Pearson correlation coefficient r between the score of each item and that of its corresponding dimension was 0.241-0.934 (all P<0.01), and the correlation coefficient r with the total score of the scale was 0.018-0.631. Except for items 5-5, the differences were statistically significant (all P<0.01). The sampling suitability of Kaiser Meyer Olki, which reflects the structural validity, was 0.737, and the Chi-square value of Bartlett′s test was 14 420.98 (P<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis showed that there were 13 common factors extracted from the scale, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 55.65%. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the goodness of fit index, incremental fit index, comparative fit index, normed fit index and parsimony goodness of fit index were 0.961,0.927, 0.926,0.903 and 0.753, respectively, and the root mean square error of approximation was 0.039, which were in line with the standard of fitting values, and the model structure was well fitted. Except for the prevalence of chronic diseases and social support, the other dimensions were significantly positively correlated with the calibration scale (all P<0.05). The critical ratio of each dimension was 8.09-28.10 (all P<0.01), indicating that each dimension of the scale had good sensitivity. The filling time of the scale was (12.8±4.8) min, and the effective recovery rate was 99.1%(1980/2000). Conclusion This CGA scale is internal consistent, retest and inter-rater reliable, with good content validity, structural validity, calibration validity, discriminant validity and excellent acceptability, and thus can be used to evaluate the comprehensive health status of the elderly in the community.