Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in Italian Physicians

Main Article Content

Edoardo Nicolò Aiello
Elena Fiabane
Simona Margheritti
Stefano Magnone
Nadia Bolognini
Massimo Miglioretti
Ines Giorgi


Copenhagen burnout inventory, Burnout, Physician, Psychometric


This study aimed to standardize the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), a psychometrically sound, worldwide-spread tool among Italian physicians. Methods: Nine hundred and fifteen Italian physicians were web-administered the CBI, Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The present CBI included 18 items (range=19-90) assessing Personal, Work-related and Client-related Burnout. Client-related adaptation was performed. Construct validity, factorial structure (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) and internal consistency were tested. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed simultaneously against the PHQ-8, GAD-7 and GSE. All CBI measures yielded optimal internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.90-0.96). Results: The CBI met its original three-factor model (CFI=0.94; TLI=0.93; RMSEA=0.09; SRMR=0.04), was positively related to the PHQ-8 (r=0.76) and GAD-7 (r=0.73), whereas negatively with the GSE (r=0.39) and yielded optimal diagnostics (AUC=0.93; sensitivity=0.91 and specificity=0.85 at the optimal cutoff of 69/90). Conclusion: The CBI is thus a valid, reliable, and normed tool to assess burnout levels in physicians.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 160 | PDF Downloads 151


1. Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C. Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Dev Int. 2009;14:204-220. Doi:
2. Maslach C, Jackson SE. (1981) MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. manual. University of California, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
3. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress. 2005;19:192-207. Doi:
4. Thrush CR, Gathright MM, Atkinson T, et al. Psychometric Properties of the Copenhagen Burnout In-ventory in an Academic Healthcare Institution Sample in the U.S. Eval Health Prof. 2021;44:400-405. Doi:
5. Fadare OO, Andreski M, Witry MJ. Validation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Pharmacists. Inov Pharm 2021;12:4. Doi:
6. Avanzi L, Balducci C, Fraccaroli F. Contributo alla validazione italiana del Copenaghen Burnout In-ventory (CBI). Psicol della Salut. 2013:120–135. Doi:
7. Todorovic J, Terzic-Supic Z, Divjak J, et al. Validation of the Study Burnout Inventory and the Copen-hagen Burnout Inventory for the use among medical students. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2021;34:737–745. Doi:
8. Javanshir E, Dianat I, Asghari-Jafarabadi M. Psychometric properties of the Iranian version of the Co-penhagen Burnout Inventory. Heal Promot Perspect. 2019;9:137–142. Doi:
9. Sharifi M, Asadi-Pooya AA, Mousavi-Roknabadi RS. Burnout among Healthcare Providers of COVID-19; a Systematic Review of Epidemiology and Recommendations. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2021;9:e7. Doi:
10. Brera AS, Arrigoni C, Dellafiore F, et al. Burnout syndrome and its determinants among healthcare workers during the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak in Italy: a cross-sectional study to identify sex-related differences. Med Lav. 2021;112:306–319. Doi:
11. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, et al. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114:163–173. Doi:
12. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092. Doi:
13. Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organ Res Methods. 2001;4:62–83. Doi:
14. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6:1–55. Doi:
15. Marcionetti J, Castelli L, Crescentini A, Avanzi L, Fraccaroli F, Balducci C. Validation of a short scale in italian to measure teacher burnout. Swiss J Psychol 2018; 77: 49-58. Doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000208