No abstract

Abstract. Background: Higher education is a challenging context in which students – particularly those endowed with a small array of resources – are susceptible to suffer from burnout. To screen, identify, and support students that are at risk of burnout, psychometrically robust instruments are essential. To this end, we extended the validation of the German short version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Student Survey (MBI-SS-KV) that allows measuring burnout among German-speaking university students. Method: We conducted a longitudinal study and analyzed the factorial validity, reliability, measurement invariance, and convergent as well as discriminant validity of the MBI-SS-KV in a sample of German university students ( N = 1,435). Results: Our results replicated the original three-factor structure of the MBI-SS-KV. Yet, a bi-factor structure of the MBI-SS-KV – composed of a general factor (i.e., student burnout) and three domain-specific factors (i.e., emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy) – revealed a comparable fit and was used for further analyses due to theoretical and methodological advantages. Based on the bi-factor structure of the MBI-SS-KV, nested models with increasing invariance constraints provided support for measurement invariance of this instrument across female and male university students and across time. Besides, the average variance extracted estimates and the comparisons of these estimates with shared variances demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity of the factors emotional exhaustion and cynicism, but not for the factor reduced professional efficacy. Conclusion: To sum up, we found that the MBI-SS-KV is a reliable and for the most part valid instrument for the assessment of student burnout in German higher education.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenges the well-being and academic success of many students. Yet, little is known about students’ study satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, a multilayered construct which accounts for students’ subjective cognitive well-being and academic success. Besides, previous studies on study satisfaction are mostly cross-sectional and hardly consider the distinct subdimensions of this construct. Therefore, our main goal in this study was to shed light on the understudied development of the subdimensions of study satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with study content, conditions of studying, and coping with study-related stress) in two semesters amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we examined how particular personal (i.e., gender, age, GPA, intrinsic motivation, motivational cost, and academic procrastination) and contextual (i.e., loneliness) factors are related to these subdimensions. We conducted two panel studies with convenience and purposeful samples of university students in Germany (Nstudy1 = 837; Nstudy2 = 719). Participants responded online to questions on each of the subdimensions of study satisfaction at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester but responded to measures of personal and contextual factors only at the beginning of each semester. In both studies, manifest growth curve models indicated a decrease in all subdimensions of study satisfaction as the semester progressed. Generally, gender (male) and intrinsic motivation were positive predictors but age (younger students), motivational cost, and loneliness were negative predictors of different subdimensions of study satisfaction – particularly satisfaction with study content. Overall, motivational costs and loneliness were the most consistent predictors of all subdimensions of study satisfaction across both studies. Our findings provide support for the understanding that study satisfaction could diminish in the face of challenging situations such as in this pandemic. The present study also highlights certain personal and contextual factors that relate to study satisfaction and calls for intensive research into the multidimensional construct of study satisfaction.

No abstract