Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 696

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart The views expressed in Work & Stress Commentaries are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of any other person or organization, or of the journal.

Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Taris, Toon W.·2005·Work & Stress
DOI 10.1080/02678370500385913
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this edition of Work & Stress, Kristensen and his colleagues critically discuss the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and present an alternative, more general instrument to measure burnout that exclusively focuses on exhaustion. Here we critically examine their reasons for developing a new burnout measure, as well as the theoretical foundations of this measure. Whereas we agree with Kristensen et al.'s remarks concerning the availability and item wording of the MBI, we do not share their concerns regarding its theoretical underpinnings. In our view, burnout should be conceptualized as a primarily work-related syndrome of (at least) exhaustion and depersonalization/cynicism. The MBI would seem to fit that conceptualization very well.

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 · 10.1080/02678370500385913

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1080/02678370500286095 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1136/oem.57.5.353 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i16 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1080/02678370500340728 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Hoogduin C., 2001, Behandelingsstrategieën bij burnout, 13
  6. Maslach C., 1996, MBI: The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual
  7. Meijman T. F., 1996, De Psycholoog, 31, 236
  8. 10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00392-6 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Pines A., 1981, Burnout: From tedium to personal growth
  10. 10.1002/smi.1032 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/0022022194251006 · DOI
  12. Schaufeli W. B, 1996, The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Test Manual (3rd ed.)
  13. Schaufeli W. B, Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationship with efficacy beliefs
  14. Schaufeli W. B., 2003, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 1
  15. 10.1080/08870440108405527 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1037/10474-012 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Taris T. W., 2005, Work & Stress, 19, 241, 10.1080/02678370500270453 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Thorndike E. L., 1914, Educational psychology, volume III: Mental work and fatigue, individual differences and their causes
  19. 10.1080/02678370500065275 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1348/0963179041752718 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Winwood P. C., 2004, International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 282, 10.1037/1072-5245.11.3.282 · DOI

Cited by

See all 696

Metadata

Authors
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W.
Venue
Work & Stress
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
256-262
ISSN
  • 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5335
DOI
10.1080/02678370500385913
OpenAlex
W2082647777
Cited by
696
References
5
FWCI
12.47
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 conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart The views expressed in Work & Stress Commentaries are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of any other person or organization, or of the journal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02678370500385913
The paper
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart The views expressed in Work & Stress Commentaries are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of any other person or organization, or of the journal. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500385913

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.