Affiliations: [a]
Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| [b]
Department of Psychology, The City College of the City University of New York, New York City, NY, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Prof. Dr. Renzo Bianchi, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Psychology, Dragvoll, Building 12, Level 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Tel.: +47 73 59 19 60. E-mail: [email protected].
Note: [1] Exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy were initially called “emotional exhaustion,” “depersonalization,” and “diminished personal accomplishment.”
Abstract: For decades, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) has been regarded as the “gold standard” for the assessment of burnout. The present paper demonstrates that the MBI fails to measure the construct it is purported to measure. On a deeper level, the problems affecting the MBI question the very idea of burnout. These problems may be unsurprising in light of the genesis of the burnout construct. Burnout emerged in the mid-1970s as a largely predefined entity. Burnout’s definition was not predicated on robust empirical investigations or sound theorizing, nor was it anchored in a systematic review of the literature on stress and health. Interestingly, other measures deemed to assess burnout, such as the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, similarly fail to measure what they are claimed to measure. Despite far-reaching implications for our ability to study and promote occupational health, the flaws that undermine the conceptualization and measurement of burnout remain widely underappreciated. We hope this paper will help raise awareness of these flaws and correct current practices in research on job-related distress. Alternatives to burnout do exist and may enable us to support our workforce more effectively.
Keywords: Burnout, construct validity, diagnosis, job stress, measurement, occupational health
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-240095
Journal: Work, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1525-1527, 2024
