Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 784

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory

Halbesleben, Jonathon R. B., Demerouti, Evangelia·2005·Work & Stress

Abstract

While the most commonly employed burnout measure has been the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), researchers have been troubled by some of the psychometric limitations of that scale (e.g. wording of the scale items) as well as the limited conceptualization of burnout upon which it is based. As a result, Demerouti et al. have developed an alternative measure of burnout, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). The purpose of this paper is to develop evidence for the validity and reliability of an English-language translation of the OLBI. As such, this study is among the first validation studies of the OLBI, and the first to assess the characteristics of the OLBI an English-speaking sample. Using data from 2599 employees across two samples from the United States (a generalized sample of working adults and a sample of fire department employees), our preliminary multi-trait, multi-method (MTMM) and confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the OLBI may be a viable alternative to the Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey (MBI-GS). It demonstrates acceptable reliability (test–retest reliability and internal consistency) as well as factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity. We discuss the implications of this study for the measurement and conceptualization of burnout and suggest a variety of research directions that stem from our findings. Our findings suggest that the OLBI offers researchers an alternative measure of burnout that offers balanced wording, that can also be used to measure the opposite phenomenon (engagement), and provides an expanded conceptualization of the exhaustion component of burnout.

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 · 10.1080/02678370500340728

Cites

41 of 41 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 41 references

Cited by

See all 784

Metadata

Authors
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Demerouti, E.
Venue
Work & Stress
Published
2005-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
208-220
ISSN
  • 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5335
OpenAlex
W1964839548
Cited by
784
References
41
FWCI
8.60
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 an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02678370500340728
The paper
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500340728

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.