Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Yara Shoman, Roy Hostettler, Irina Guseva Canu
{"title":"Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review.","authors":"Yara Shoman, Roy Hostettler, Irina Guseva Canu","doi":"10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the absence of internationally recognised standardised criteria, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure occupational burnout. The aim of this study was to extend our 2021 review of the psychometric validity of five PROMs to the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM) and the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT). To do that we ran a systematic literature search in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases following our previous methodological framework and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We assessed the level of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline. We identified 694 publications on SMBM and 421 on BAT, but the final review includes eight papers on SMBM and three on BAT. Of the seven psychometric properties assessed for SMBM, content, structural, and criterion validity were rated as insufficient, whereas the quality of evidence for construct and internal consistency was high and moderate, respectively. Of the nine psychometric properties assessed for BAT, content, structural, criterion, and construct validity was moderate and internal consistency was high. One limitation of this study is that we did not assess cross-cultural validity, because the number of studies reviewed is too small and content validity can only be assessed based on the original PROM version rather than translation. To conclude, BAT is superior to SMBM in terms of psychometric validity, but the quality of evidence for some properties is low or very low, suggesting a need for additional validation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55462,"journal":{"name":"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology","volume":"74 4","pages":"238-245"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10750325/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the absence of internationally recognised standardised criteria, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure occupational burnout. The aim of this study was to extend our 2021 review of the psychometric validity of five PROMs to the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM) and the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT). To do that we ran a systematic literature search in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases following our previous methodological framework and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We assessed the level of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline. We identified 694 publications on SMBM and 421 on BAT, but the final review includes eight papers on SMBM and three on BAT. Of the seven psychometric properties assessed for SMBM, content, structural, and criterion validity were rated as insufficient, whereas the quality of evidence for construct and internal consistency was high and moderate, respectively. Of the nine psychometric properties assessed for BAT, content, structural, criterion, and construct validity was moderate and internal consistency was high. One limitation of this study is that we did not assess cross-cultural validity, because the number of studies reviewed is too small and content validity can only be assessed based on the original PROM version rather than translation. To conclude, BAT is superior to SMBM in terms of psychometric validity, but the quality of evidence for some properties is low or very low, suggesting a need for additional validation studies.

Shirom-Melamed 职业倦怠测量法和职业倦怠评估工具的心理测量效度:系统综述。
在缺乏国际公认的标准化标准的情况下,人们开发了几种患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)来测量职业倦怠。本研究的目的是将我们在 2021 年对五种 PROM 的心理测量有效性进行的回顾扩展到 Shirom-Melamed 职业倦怠测量法 (SMBM) 和职业倦怠评估工具 (BAT)。为此,我们在 MEDLINE、PsycINFO 和 Embase 数据库中进行了系统的文献检索,并遵循了我们之前的方法框架和基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准 (COSMIN)。我们采用 "建议、评估、发展和评价分级"(GRADE)指南对证据水平进行了评估。我们找到了 694 篇关于 SMBM 和 421 篇关于 BAT 的论文,但最终的综述包括 8 篇关于 SMBM 和 3 篇关于 BAT 的论文。在为 SMBM 评估的七项心理测量属性中,内容效度、结构效度和标准效度被评为不充分,而结构一致性和内部一致性的证据质量分别为高和中等。在对 BAT 进行评估的九项心理测量属性中,内容效度、结构效度、标准效度和建构效度为中等,内部一致性为高。本研究的一个局限性是我们没有评估跨文化效度,因为回顾的研究数量太少,而且内容效度只能根据原始 PROM 版本而非翻译版本进行评估。总之,就心理测量效度而言,BAT 优于 SMBM,但某些属性的证据质量较低或很低,这表明需要进行更多的验证研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology
Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju-Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology (abbr. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol) is a peer-reviewed biomedical scientific quarterly that publishes contributions relevant to all aspects of environmental and occupational health and toxicology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信