1. Which is the Best Instrument for Assessing Burnout?
Maria Platsidou, University of Macedonia,
Athena Daniilidou, University of Macedonia,
Materials & Methods
Introduction
In this study, 320 Greek primary school teachers working in public schools were tested. Out of them, 62.5% were female and 37.5% male. Their age ranged from 23 to 57 years (M = 42.03, SD = 8.88).
They were all tested with the:
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI, Maslach et al., 1996, translated by Kokkinos, 2006; 22 items)
Burnout Measure (BM, Pines & Aronson, 1988; 21 items)
Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI, Kristensen et al., 2005; 19 items)
Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979; 15 items).
The last three scales were translated into Greek, following the standard procedure, before they were administered to the teachers.
2. Correlations Among The Burnout Measures
In the international literature, over 90% of the studies conducted ​​to measure burnout use the burnout model and scale of Maslach and Jackson (1986). The MBI assesses three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and lack of personal accomplishment. Ample evidence support that the MBI is a reliable and valid measure of teacher burnout. On the other hand, it is criticized for being developed inductively and not stemming from a sound theoretical model. Another popular measure of burnout was developed by Pines et al. (1981). The Burnout Measure (BM) assesses physical, mental and emotional exhaustion of people at work. More recently, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was proposed by Kristensen et al. (2005) for measuring personal, work-related and client-related burnout. Evidence regarding the adequacy of the last two scales to measure teachers burnout are limited, especially in the Greek settings.
The MBI-Emotional Exhaustion, the BM and the CBI subscales were moderately to highly intercorrelated. This finding supports convergent validity of the above measures as it confirms that they all address a feeling of emotional, physical, or mental overtiredness related to the person, work, or client domain.
As predicted, reduced personal accomplishment and depersonalization had moderately low correlations with the MB and the CBI subscales.
Job satisfaction was found to negatively and moderately correlate to the burnout measures, with the CBI scales presenting the highest correlations.
Results
1. Factorial Validity and Reliability
Confirmatory factor analyses (run with the EQS) was used to test a correlated three-factor model for each instrument, following the latent structure proposed by the respective model or the original scale; the latent factors were allowed to correlate. Model fit was reasonably good for the MBI [χ2 /df = 1.82, CFI = .918, SRMR = .065 and RMSEA=.051] and barely acceptable for the BM [χ2 /df = 3.6, CFI = .902, SRMR = .075 and RMSEA=.079] and the CBI [χ2 /df = 2.92, CFI = .898, SRMR = .062 and RMSEA=.078]. The reliability of the three burnout scales was satisfactory.
3. Burnout Levels .
Table 1
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of MBI
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of CBI
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of BM
Consistent with prior studies, Greek primary school teachers reported moderate burnout in all measures. In the midst of the financial recession and the multiple educational reforms in recent years, Greek teachers report they are moderately high satisfied with their job. This should be attributed to their permanent jobs, reduced presence at school, less competition, and strong family and social networks which compensate for the professional difficulties they may encounter (Papastylianou et al., 2009).
Maslach Burnout Inventory
Items ME
(F1) MP
(F2) MD
(F3) E R2
ME1
.678
.735
.459
ME2
.734
.679
.539
ME3
.715
.699
.512
ME4
.849
.528
.721
ME5
.712
.703
.506
ME6
.357
.934
.127
ME7
.673
.739
.454
ME8
.762
.648
.580
ME9
.596
.803
.355
MP10
.529
.848
.280
MP11
.741
.672
.549
MP12
.717
.698
.513
MP13
.704
.710
.495
MP14
.783
.622
.614
MP15
.709
.705
.503
MP16
.689
.725
.474
MP17
.711
.505
MD18
.403
.915
.162
MD19
.845
.535
.714
MD20
.745
.667
.555
MD21
.426
.905
.181
MD22
.348
.938
.121
Factor Correlations
F1 – F2
-.206
F2 – F3
-.388
F1 – F3
.385
Cronbach’s Alpha α
.87 
 .88
.69
Burnout Measure
Items PE
(F1) PM
(F2) PP
(F3) E R2
PE1
.700
.714
.490
PE2
.816
.578
.666
PE3
.781
.625
.610
PE4
.569
.823
.323
PE5
.671
.741
.451
PE6
.752
.660
.565
PE7
.663
.748
.440
PM8
.708
.706
.502
PM9
.634
.773
.402
PM10
.499
PM11
.624
.389
PM12
.707
.501
PM13
.528
.849
.279
PM14
.825
.319
PP15
.796
.605
PP16
.868
.496
.754
PP17
.886
.463
.785
PP18
.737
.676
.543
PP19
.867
.751
PP20
.866
.500
.750
PP21
.369
.929
.136
Factor Correlations
F1 – F2
.865
F2 – F3
.512
F1 – F3
.617
Cronbach’s Alpha α
.88 
 .83
.92
Copenhagen Burnout Inventory
Items CP
(F1) CW
(F2) CS
(F3) E R2
CP1
.798
.603
.636
CP2
.807
.591
.651
CP3
.820
.572
.673
CP4
.757
.653
.573
CP5
.835
.550
.698
CP6
.759
.423
CW7
.686
.728
.470
CW8
.843
.538
.710
CW9
.590
.348
CW10
.753
.658
.566
CW11
.511
.860
.261
CW12
.618
.786
.382
CW13
.527
.850
.278
CS14
.661
.750
.437
CS15
.696
.718
.485
CS16
.609
.793
.371
CS17
.479
.878
.229
CS18
.660
.751
.436
CS19
.580
.815
.336
Factor Correlations
F1 – F2
.904
F2 – F3
.796
F1 – F3
.706
Cronbach’s Alpha α
.90 
.84 
.78
Aims of the study
Several studies (using the MBI) have shown that the levels of burnout of Greek teachers are low compared to other countries (Papastylianou et al., Platsidou & Agaliotis, 2008). This fact raised the question whether the low burnout of Greek teachers is attributed to the MBI measurement. Therefore, the present study was designed with the aim to compare results obtained by the MBI, the MB and the CBI (the last two scales have never used to test Greek teachers before).
Specifically, the study aimed at testing (a) the factorial validity and reliability and (b) the convergent validity of the three instruments. Finally, it aimed at testing (c) whether the burnout levels measured by the three scales match or differ.
Conclusions
Results suggest that the MBI subscales actually assess different aspects of burnout, as described by Maslach & Jackson (1986). On the other hand, the MB and the CBI subscales seem to assess quite similar manifestations or experiences of burnout (Enzmann et al., 1998; Shirom & Ezrachi, 2003); therefore the extraction of a single score for these inventories would be more justified rather than having a three-subscale solution. In conclusion, it appears that the MBI is more appropriate instrument for assessing teachers' burnout than the MB or the CBI.
Your text would go here.
Note:
PE=Emotional Exhaustion factor; PM=Mental Exhaustion factor;
PP=Physical Exhaustion factor .
Note:
CP=Personal Burnout factor;
CW=Work-Related Burnout factor;
CS=Student-Related Burnout factor
Note:
ME= Emotional Exhaustion factor;
MP=Personal Accomplishment factor; MD=Depersonalization factor