This is a preview and has not been published.

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

Authors

  • Edoardo Nicolò Aiello a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:64:"PhD Program in Neuroscience, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza";}
  • Elena Fiabane Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine of Genova Nervi Institute, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Genova
  • Simona Margheritti Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano
  • Stefano Magnone Regional Secretary, ANAAO ASSOMED Lombardia Associazione Medici Dirigenti, Milano, Italy
  • Nadia Bolognini Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano
  • Massimo Miglioretti Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano
  • Ines Giorgi Dipartimento di Sanità pubblica, Medicina Sperimentale e Forense, University of Pavia, Pavia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v113i4.13219

Keywords:

Copenhagen burnout inventory, Burnout, Physician, Psychometric

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C. Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Dev Int. 2009;14:204-220. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406

Maslach C, Jackson SE. (1981) MBI: Maslach burnout inventory. manual. University of California, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720

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: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278720934165

Fadare OO, Andreski M, Witry MJ. Validation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Pharmacists. Inov Pharm 2021;12:4. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v12i2.3699

Avanzi L, Balducci C, Fraccaroli F. Contributo alla validazione italiana del Copenaghen Burnout In-ventory (CBI). Psicol della Salut. 2013:120–135. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3280/PDS2013-002008

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: https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01726

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: https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2019.19

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: https://doi.org/10.22037/AAEM.V9I1.1004

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: https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v112i4.11316

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: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organ Res Methods. 2001;4:62–83. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004

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: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

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

Downloads

Issue

Section

Original articles