Department of Psychology.
Department of Educational Psychology.
J Occup Health Psychol. 2019 Dec;24(6):603-616. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000151. Epub 2019 Apr 4.
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in on Sep 9 2019 (see record 2019-54511-001). In the article, there were wording errors in the Results section. Specifically, we referred to imposing "constraints" when we meant the opposite, namely, relaxing constraints, such as allowing residuals to correlate. We corrected the wording errors, added chi-square statistics, and corrected four small typographic errors bearing on fit statistics (three changes of .001 and one change of .003). The results remain fundamentally the same. All versions of this article have been corrected.] The extent to which burnout refers to anything other than a depressive condition remains an object of controversy among occupational health specialists. In three studies conducted in two different countries and two different languages, we investigated the discriminant validity of burnout scales by evaluating the magnitude of the correlation between (latent) burnout and (latent) depression. In Study 1 ( = 911), burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey's Exhaustion subscale and depression with the depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). In Study 2 ( = 1,386), the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure was used to assess burnout and the PHQ, depression. In Study 3 ( = 734), burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey and depression, with the PHQ and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale; additionally, anxiety was measured with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. In each study, we examined the burnout-depression association based on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), controlling for item-level content overlap. In the three studies, latent exhaustion, the core of burnout, and latent depression were highly correlated (correlations ranging from .83 to .88). In Studies 2 and 3, second-order CFAs indicated that depressive (and anxiety) symptoms and the exhaustion and depersonalization components of burnout are reflective of the same second-order distress/dysphoria factor. Our findings, with their replication across samples, languages, and measures, together with meta-analytic findings, cast serious doubt on the discriminant validity of the burnout construct. The implications of burnout's problematic discriminant validity are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
[勘误通知：本文的勘误报告已于 2019 年 9 月 9 日在线发布（见记录 2019-54511-001）。在文章中，结果部分的措辞有误。具体来说，我们在提到“施加约束”时是指相反的意思，即放松约束，例如允许残差相关。我们纠正了措辞错误，添加了卡方统计数据，并纠正了与拟合统计相关的四个小印刷错误（三个.001 的变化和一个.003 的变化）。结果基本保持不变。本文的所有版本都已更正。]职业健康专家仍在争论倦怠是否不仅仅指抑郁状态。在两个不同国家和两种不同语言进行的三项研究中，我们通过评估（潜在）倦怠与（潜在）抑郁之间的相关性的大小，来研究倦怠量表的判别有效性。在研究 1（=911）中，使用 Maslach 倦怠量表的衰竭子量表评估倦怠，使用 PHQ 的抑郁模块评估抑郁。在研究 2（=1386）中，使用 Shirom-Melamed 倦怠量表评估倦怠，使用 PHQ 评估抑郁。在研究 3（=734）中，使用 Maslach 倦怠量表-教育者量表评估倦怠，使用 PHQ 和流行病学研究中心抑郁量表评估抑郁；此外，使用广泛性焦虑症量表评估焦虑。在每一项研究中，我们在控制项目水平内容重叠的基础上，通过验证性因素分析（CFA）来检验倦怠与抑郁的关联。在这三项研究中，潜在的精疲力竭、倦怠的核心和潜在的抑郁高度相关（相关系数在.83 到.88 之间）。在研究 2 和 3 中，二阶 CFA 表明，抑郁（和焦虑）症状以及倦怠的耗竭和去人性化成分反映了相同的二阶痛苦/抑郁因素。我们的研究结果在样本、语言和测量上得到了复制，再加上荟萃分析的结果，对倦怠结构的判别有效性提出了严重质疑。讨论了倦怠的判别有效性存在问题的影响。（美国心理协会，2019 年版权所有）。
