The Maslach Burnout Inventory is not a measure of burnout.

Work Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.3233/wor-240095
Renzo Bianchi, Gail Swingler, I. Schonfeld
{"title":"The Maslach Burnout Inventory is not a measure of burnout.","authors":"Renzo Bianchi, Gail Swingler, I. Schonfeld","doi":"10.3233/wor-240095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) has been regarded as the \"gold standard\" for the assessment of burnout. The present paper demonstrates that the MBI fails to measure the construct it is purported to measure. On a deeper level, the problems affecting the MBI question the very idea of burnout. These problems may be unsurprising in light of the genesis of the burnout construct. Burnout emerged in the mid-1970s as a largely predefined entity. Burnout's definition was not predicated on robust empirical investigations or sound theorizing, nor was it anchored in a systematic review of the literature on stress and health. Interestingly, other measures deemed to assess burnout, such as the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, similarly fail to measure what they are claimed to measure. Despite far-reaching implications for our ability to study and promote occupational health, the flaws that undermine the conceptualization and measurement of burnout remain widely underappreciated. We hope this paper will help raise awareness of these flaws and correct current practices in research on job-related distress. Alternatives to burnout do exist and may enable us to support our workforce more effectively.","PeriodicalId":506534,"journal":{"name":"Work","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-240095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For decades, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) has been regarded as the "gold standard" for the assessment of burnout. The present paper demonstrates that the MBI fails to measure the construct it is purported to measure. On a deeper level, the problems affecting the MBI question the very idea of burnout. These problems may be unsurprising in light of the genesis of the burnout construct. Burnout emerged in the mid-1970s as a largely predefined entity. Burnout's definition was not predicated on robust empirical investigations or sound theorizing, nor was it anchored in a systematic review of the literature on stress and health. Interestingly, other measures deemed to assess burnout, such as the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, similarly fail to measure what they are claimed to measure. Despite far-reaching implications for our ability to study and promote occupational health, the flaws that undermine the conceptualization and measurement of burnout remain widely underappreciated. We hope this paper will help raise awareness of these flaws and correct current practices in research on job-related distress. Alternatives to burnout do exist and may enable us to support our workforce more effectively.
马斯拉赫职业倦怠量表》并不是衡量职业倦怠的标准。
几十年来,马斯拉赫职业倦怠量表(Maslach Burnout Inventory,MBI)一直被视为评估职业倦怠的 "黄金标准"。本文证明,MBI 无法测量其声称要测量的结构。从更深层次来看,影响 MBI 的问题是对职业倦怠这一概念本身的质疑。从职业倦怠这一概念的起源来看,这些问题可能并不奇怪。20 世纪 70 年代中期出现的职业倦怠在很大程度上是一个预先定义的实体。职业倦怠的定义并非基于可靠的实证调查或合理的理论,也不是基于对压力与健康文献的系统回顾。有趣的是,其他被认为可以评估职业倦怠的测量方法,如奥尔登堡职业倦怠量表,也同样没有测量出它们所声称要测量的东西。尽管倦怠对我们研究和促进职业健康的能力有着深远的影响,但倦怠概念化和测量方法的缺陷仍未得到广泛重视。我们希望本文有助于提高人们对这些缺陷的认识,并纠正与工作相关的困扰研究中的现行做法。职业倦怠的替代方案确实存在,而且可以让我们更有效地支持我们的员工。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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