The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The construct validity of two burnout measures
Abstract
The present study was carried out among a sample of 667 Dutch nurses and assesses three aspects of the construct validity of the two most widely used self‐report burnout questionnaires: The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Burnout Measure (BM). Although the factorial validity of the three‐dimensional structure of the MBI was convincingly demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis with LISREL, four weak and ambiguous items were identified. Regarding the BM, some doubts have arisen about its one‐dimensionality. The congruent validity of the questionnaires was well established: They both refer to the core element of the burnout syndrome (i.e. exhaustion). Moreover, linear structural analyses suggested that burnout is a two multi‐dimensional construct consisting of an affective component (i.e. exhaustion) and an attitudinal component (i.e. a negative attitude towards recipients and towards one's job performance). However, the discriminant validity of the first component is rather poor since it considerably overlaps with self‐reported somatic complaints and psychological strain. It is concluded that the MBI can be employed as a reliable and valid multi‐dimensional indicator of burnout in professionals who work with people. The BM assesses the non‐specific affective component of burnout (i.e. exhaustion) and should therefore be supplemented by a scale that measures the attitudinal component of the syndrome.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
The measurement of experienced burnout
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030020205 · Cited by 14,496
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,115
Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.2.234 · Cited by 3,030
Burnout and risk factors for cardiovascular diseases
Melamed, S., Kushnir, T., & Shirom, A. (1992) · Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1080/08964289.1992.9935172 · Cited by 490
Self‐reported job burnout among female human service professionals
Brookings, J. B., Bolton, B., Brown, C. E., & McEvoy, A. (1985) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030060205 · Cited by 160
Cited by
Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-National Study
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022102033005003 · Cited by 3,418
Self-citationGender differences in burnout: A meta-analysis
Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. (2010) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006 · Cited by 1,050
A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals.
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006) · International Journal of Stress Management · doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176 · Cited by 763
Burnout: An Overview of 25 Years of Research and Theorizing
Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2002) · The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology · doi:10.1002/0470013400.ch19 · Cited by 665
Self-citationThe Burnout Measure, Short Version.
Malach-Pines, A. (2005) · International Journal of Stress Management · doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78 · Cited by 610
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 631-647
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2035518836
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 14.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The construct validity of two burnout measures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/job.4030140703
- The paper
- Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (1993). The construct validity of two burnout measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140703
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.