Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T11:48:18.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric Properties of the “Spanish Burnout Inventory” in Chilean Professionals Working to Physical Disabled People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Pedro R. Gil-Monte  and
Víctor E. Olivares Faúndez
Pedro R. Gil-Monte*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Víctor E. Olivares Faúndez
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Chile)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pedro R. Gil-Monte. Facultad de Psicología (Dep. Psicología Social). Universidad de Valencia. Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 21. 46010 Valencia. (Spain). Phone: +34-963864564. FAX: +34-963864668. E-mail: Pedro.Gil-Monte@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the most commonly employed burnout measure has been the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), researchers have been troubled by some of the psychometric limitations of this instrument. The aim of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the “Spanish Burnout Inventory” (SBI). The psychometric properties were analysed with data from a sample of 277 Chilean professionals working to physical disabled people. The psychometric properties of the SBI were examined through the following analyses: confirmatory factor analysis, reliability Cronbach's alpha, and concurrent validity with the MBI. The hypothesized four factor model obtained an adequate data fit for the sample (X2(164) = 285.32, p < .001, GFI = .96, RMSEA = .052, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94). Results confirmed the hypothesis formulated. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was higher than .70 for the four scales of the instruments. Results supported the concurrent validity with the MBI. As a whole, the results of these study provided evidence on the adequate psychometric properties of the SBI for the study of burnout in the Chilean cultural context.

El instrumento utilizado con más frecuencia para la evaluación del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo es el Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Sin embargo, presenta algunas insuficiencias psicométricas. El objetivo del estudio fue analizar las propiedades psicométricas del “Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo” (CESQT). La muestra estuvo formada por 277 profesionales chilenos que trabajaban hacia personas con discapacidad física. Los análisis realizados fueron: análisis factorial confirmatorio, fiabilidad alfa de Cronbach, y análisis de la validez concurrente con el MBI. El modelo de cuatro factores hipotetizado obtuvo un ajuste adecuado (X2(164) = 285.32, p < .001, GFI = .96, RMSEA = .052, NNFI = .93, CFI = .94). Los resultados confirmaron la hipótesis formulada. El coeficiente alfa de Cronbach obtuvo valores superiores a .70 para las cuatro escalas del cuestionario. Los resultados apoyaron la validez concurrente con el MBI. Se concluye que el CESQT presenta propiedades psicométricas adecuadas para estimar el síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo en el contexto cultural chileno.

Keywords

burnoutSpanish Burnout Inventoryjob stressconfirmatory factor analysissíndrome de quemarse por el trabajoCESQTestrés laboralanálisis factorial confirmatorio

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 2011 , pp. 441 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Benetti-McQuoid, J., & Bursik, K. (2005). Individual differences in experiences of and responses to guilt and shame: Examining the lenses of gender and gender role. Sex Roles, 53, 133–142. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4287-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psycholical Bulletin, 112, 400–404. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A., & Long, L. S. (Eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models (pp.136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 12–23. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etxebarria, I., Isasi, X., & Pérez, J. (2002). The interpersonal nature of guilt-producing events. Age and gender differences. Psicothema, 14, 783–787.Google Scholar
Etxebarria, I., Ortiz, M. J., Conejero, S., & Pascual, A. (2009). Intensity of habitual guilt in men and women: Differences in interpersonal sensitivity and the tendency towards anxious-aggressive guilt. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 540–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil-Monte, P. R. (2005a). El síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (“burnout”). Una enfermedad laboral en la sociedad del bienestar [Burnout: An occupational illness in the well-being society]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R. (2005b). Factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS) among Spanish professionals. Revista de Saúde Pública, 39, 1–8. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102005000100001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gil-Monte, P. R. (2008). Evaluación psicométrica del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout): el cuestionario “CESQT” [The assessment of burnout: The SBI questionnaire]. In Garrido, J. (Comp.), ¡Maldito trabajo! [Damned job!] (pp. 269–291). Barcelona: Granica.Google Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R., Carlotto, M. S., & Gonçalves, S. (2010). Validation of the Brazilian version of the “Spanish Burnout Inventory” in teachers. Revista de Saúde Pública, 44, 140–147. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102010000100015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R., Carretero, N., Roldán, M. D., & Núñez-Román, E. (2005). Prevalencia del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout) en monitores de taller para personas con discapacidad [Prevalence of burnout in educators working with intellectually disabled persons]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 21, 107–123.Google Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R., & Figueiredo-Ferraz, H. (2010). Psychometric properties of the “Spanish Burnout Inventory” (SBI) among Portuguese teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R., García-Juesas, J. A., Núñez, E. M., Carretero, N., Roldán, M. D., & Caro, M. (2006). Validez factorial del Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo (CESQT) [The factorial validity of the Spanish Burnuot Inventory (SBI)]. Psiquiatria.com, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.psiquiatria.com/revistas/index.php/psiquiatriacom/article/view/511/491/Google Scholar
Gil-Monte, P. R., Unda, S., & Sandoval, J. I. (2009). Validez factorial del “Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo” (CESQT) en una muestra de maestros mexicanos [Factorial validity of “Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo” (CESQT) in a sample of Mexican teachers]. Salud Mental, 32, 205–214.Google Scholar
Gil Monte, P. R., & Zúñiga-Caballero, L. C. (2010). Validez factorial del “Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo” (CESQT) en una muestra de médicos mexicanos [Factorial validity of the “Spanish Burnout Inventory” (SBI) in a sample of Mexican doctors]. Universitas Psychologica, 9, 169–178. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102010000100015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, E., & Vicente, F. (2002). Abordaje del burnout en profesionales del campo de la discapacidad [The treatment of burnout among professionals working with disabled persons]. In García-Sánchez, J. N. (Ed.), Aplicaciones de intervenciones psicopedagógicas [Psychoeducational interventions] (pp. 327–337). Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Halbesleben, J. R., & Demerouti, E. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Work & Stress, 19, 208–220. doi:10.1080/02678370500340728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. H., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (4ª ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The Structural Equation Modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M., & Ashley, D. (2005). Physical and psychological violence in Jamaica's health sector. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 18, 114–121. doi:10.1590/S1020-49892005000700006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jawahar, I. M., Stone, T. H., & Kisamore, J. L. (2007). Role conflict and burnout: The direct and moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 142–159. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19, 192–207. doi:10.1080/02678370500297720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Press.Google Scholar
Maslach, C. (1998). Chronic outcomes: Burnout. In Stellman, J. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, (Vol. 2, pp. 34–64) (4ª ed.). Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (2nd ed. 1986). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3ª ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Applying regression & correlation. A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Molina, J., Iáñez, M., & Iáñez, B. (2005). El apoyo social como modulador de la carga del cuidador de enfermos de Alzheimer [Social support to regulate the burden supported by caretakers of patients with Alzheimer' disease]. Psicología y Salud, 15, 33–43.Google Scholar
Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2007). Evaluación, medidas y diagnóstico del síndrome de burnout [Assessment, instruments, and diagnosis of burnout syndrome]. In Gil-Monte, P. R., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (Comp.), El síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout): grupos profesionales de riesgo [The burnout syndrome: Risk occupational groups] (pp. 43–70). Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Moreno, B., Garrosa, E., Benevides-Pereira, A. M., & Gálvez, M. (2003). Estudios transculturales del burnout: los estudios transculturales Brasil-España [Cross-cultural studies of burnout: Cross-cultural Brazil-Spain studies]. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 12, 9–18.Google Scholar
Nunnally, N. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Olivares, V., & Gil-Monte, P. R. (2007). Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo (CESQT) en profesionales chilenos [An exploratory factor analysis of the Spanish Burnout Inventory (SBI) in a Chilean sample]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 13, 133–289.Google Scholar
Olivares, V. E., & Gil-Monte, P. R. (2007/2008). Prevalencia del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout) en trabajadores de servicios en Chile [Prevalence of burnout in Chilean service professional workers]. Informació Psicológica, 91/92, 43–52.Google Scholar
Pines, A. M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium to the personal growth. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sarason, S. B. (1985). Caring and compassion in clinical practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Burnout in health care. In Carayon, P. (Ed.). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety (pp. 217–232). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. D., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Introduction to special issue on burnout and health. Psychology and Health, 16, 501–510. doi:10.1080/08870440108405523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirom, A., & Ezrachi, J. (2003). On the discriminant validity of burnout, depression and anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 83–99. doi:10.1080/1061580021000057059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2006). Overload, autonomy, and burnout as predictors of physicians' quality of care. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 328–342. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonnentag, S. (2005). Commentary. Burnout research: Adding an off-work and day-level perspective. Work & Stress, 19, 271–275. doi:10.1080/02678370500386473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Horn, J. E., Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1999). Teacher burnout and lack of reciprocity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01376.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M.(1997). Occupational stress and burnout among special educators: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346. doi:10.1177/002246699703100303CrossRefGoogle Scholar