The purpose of this study was to synthesize internal consistency reliability for the subscale scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). The authors addressed three research questions: (a) What is the mean subscale score reliability for the MBI across studies? (b) What factors are associated with observed variance in MBI subscale score reliability? (c) What are the implications for appropriate use based on MBI subscale mean internal consistency estimates? Of the 221 studies reviewed, 84 provided alpha coefficients and were used in the current analysis. Results suggest that mean alpha estimates across subscales generally fell within the .70 to .80 range. Scale variance and language most often accounted for the variance in coefficient alpha, although some variations were apparent between subscales. Of the three MBI subscales, Personal Accomplishment and Depersonalization mean alpha estimates were well below recommended levels for high-stakes decisions, such as the diagnosis of burnout syndrome. Recommendations for the use of the current version of the instrument's scale scores as well as suggestions for scale refinement are provided.
Keywords
MBI, burnout, reliability generalization, meta-analysisBurnout emerged approximately 25 years ago as a term to describe a physical and emotional reaction to occupational stress characterized by exhaustion and Validity Study
IMPORTANCEIt is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines.OBJECTIVE To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively.
This study provides a summary of 45 exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic studies that examined the internal structure of scores obtained from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). It highlights characteristics of the studies that account for differences in reporting of the MBI factor structure. This approach includes an examination of the various sample characteristics, forms of the instrument, factor-analytic methods, and the reported factor structure across studies that have attempted to examine the dimensionality of the MBI. This study also investigates the dimensionality of MBI scale scores using meta-analysis. Both descriptive and empirical analysis supported a three-factor model. The pattern of reported dimensions across validation studies should enhance understanding of the structural dimensions that the MBI measures as well as provide a more meaningful interpretation of its test scores.
Some CPG authors failed to fully disclose all financial conflicts of interest, and most guideline development panels and chairpersons had conflicts. In addition, adherence to IOM standards for guideline development was lacking. This study is relevant to CPG panels authoring recommendations, physicians implementing CPGs to guide patient care, and the organizations establishing policies for guideline development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.