Psychometric properties of burnout measures: a systematic review

Abstract

Aims Occupational Burnout (OB) is currently measured through several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and some of them have become widely used in occupational health research and practice. We, therefore, aimed to review and grade the psychometric validity of the five OB PROMs considered as valid for OB measure in mental health professionals (the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Pines' Burnout Measure (BM), the Psychologist Burnout Inventory (PBI), the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)). Methods We conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. We reviewed studies published between January 1980 and September 2018 following a methodological framework, in which each step of PROM validation, the reference method, analytical technics and result interpretation criteria were assessed. Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments we evaluated the risk of bias in studies assessing content and criterion validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing and responsiveness of each PROM. Finally, we assessed the level of evidence for the validity of each PROM using the GRADE approach. Results We identified 6541 studies, 19 of which were included for review. Fifteen studies dealt with MBI whereas BM, PBI, OLBI and CBI were each examined in only one study. OLBI had the most complete validation, followed by CBI, MBI, BM and PBI, respectively. When examining the result interpretation correctness, the strongest disagreement was observed for MBI (27% of results), BM (25%) and CBI (17%). There was no disagreement regarding PBI and OLBI. For OLBI and CBI, the quality of evidence for sufficient content validity, the crucial psychometric property, was moderate; for MBI, BM and PBI, it was very low. Conclusion To be validly and reliably used in medical research and practice, PROM should exhibit robust psychometric properties. Among the five PROMs reviewed, CBI and, to a lesser extent, OLBI meet this prerequisite. The cross-cultural validity of these PROMs was beyond the scope of our work and should be addressed in the future. Moreover, the development of a diagnostic standard for OB would be helpful to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PROMs and further reexamine their validity. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019124621).

The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT): A Contribution to Italian Validation with Teachers’

“…To sum up, Shoman and colleagues have found that both the MBI and CBI tools have shown the best psychometric validation indexes compared with other existing occupational burnout measures [45], confirming that these remain two valid instruments to assess occupational burnout.…”

Factors Related to Nurses’ Burnout during the First Wave of Coronavirus Disease-19 in a University Hospital in Italy

“…To this, we adapted scales from previous investigations which measured burnout in other pandemics [ 7 , 8 ]. Psychometric properties of both MBI-HSS and OBI were previously reviewed, showing satisfactory content validity, structural validity, and internal consistency [ 29 ]. Pandemics exert a significant psychological and emotional impact on nurses, who are indispensable to the healthcare support [ 30 ].…”

Predictors of Occupational Burnout: A Systematic Review

“…Due to a lack of consensus on how occupational burnout should be defined and assessed, identifying the determinants of the syndrome has been challenging [8,9]. The European Network on the Coordination and Harmonization of European Occupational Cohorts (OMEGA-NET) recently proposed a harmonized definition of occupational burnout accepted by a majority of 50 experts from 29 countries [10], together with a systematic assessment of the psychometric quality of five occupational burnout measures [11]. Such work has helped to resolve semantic and methodological issues in assessing occupational burnout, particularly by focusing on exhaustion measurement.…”