Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effort–reward imbalance and burnout among nurses

Bakker, Arnold B., Killmer, Christel H., Siegrist, Johannes, Schaufeli, Wilmar B.·2000·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01361.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Effort–reward imbalance and burnout among nurses This study among a sample of 204 German nurses tested the hypothesis that an imbalance of high extrinsic efforts spent (i.e. job demands) and low extrinsic rewards obtained (e.g. poor promotion prospects) are associated with the burnout syndrome: the depletion of nurses’ emotional resources. The results of a series of analyses of variances confirmed this hypothesis, by showing that those nurses who experienced an effort–reward imbalance (ERI) reported higher levels on two of the three core dimensions of burnout (i.e. emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) than those who did not experience such an imbalance. Moreover — as additionally hypothesized — significant interaction effects indicated that burnout (i.e. emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment) was particularly prevalent among those nurses who experienced ERI and put relatively high intrinsic effort into their jobs, as reflected by their strong tendency to be personally in control over job conditions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01361.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bakker, A. B., Killmer, C. H., Siegrist, J., & Schaufeli, W. B.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
884-891
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01361.x
OpenAlex
W2050120860
Cited by
458
References
3
FWCI
13.03
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

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.