Schaufeli W B, Van Dierendonck D
Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Psychol Rep. 1995 Jun;76(3 Pt 2):1083-90. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3c.1083.
In the present study, burnout scores of three samples, as measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory, were compared: (1) the normative American sample from the test-manual (N = 10,067), (2) the normative Dutch sample (N = 3,892), and (3) a Dutch outpatient sample (N = 142). Generally, the highest burnout scores were found for the outpatient sample, followed by the American and Dutch normative samples, respectively. Slightly different patterns were noted for each of the three components. Probably sampling bias, i.e., the healthy worker effect, or cultural value patterns, i.e., femininity versus masculinity, might be responsible for the results. It is concluded that extreme caution is required when cut-off points are used to classify individuals by burnout scores; only nation-specific and clinically derived cut-off points should be employed.
在本研究中，对使用马氏职业倦怠量表测得的三个样本的倦怠得分进行了比较：（1）测试手册中的美国标准样本（N = 10,067），（2）荷兰标准样本（N = 3,892），以及（3）荷兰门诊样本（N = 142）。总体而言，门诊样本的倦怠得分最高，其次分别是美国和荷兰的标准样本。三个分量表各呈现出略有不同的模式。结果可能是由抽样偏差，即健康工人效应，或文化价值模式，即女性气质与男性气质导致的。得出的结论是，在使用临界值通过倦怠得分对个体进行分类时需要极其谨慎；仅应采用特定国家和临床得出的临界值。
