2021
DOI: 10.1080/10615806.2021.1959917
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complementary variable- and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of burnout among fire station workers

Abstract: HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des labor… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

10
14
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
10
14
1
Order By: Relevance
“…LPA generated five burnout profiles among young researchers: (1) High Burnout Risk (i.e., high on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1a ), (2) Cynical (i.e., high on cynicism in particular; Hypothesis 1b ), (3) Overextended (i.e., high on emotional exhaustion in particular; Hypothesis 1c ), (4) Low Burnout Risk (i.e., relatively low on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1d ), (5) No Burnout Risk (i.e., very low on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1e ). These results support previous research that conceptualizes burnout as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon using LPA, in which the three burnout dimensions manifest themselves differently in each individual ( Leiter and Maslach, 2016 ; Mäkikangas and Kinnunen, 2016 ; Lee et al, 2017 ; Salmela-Aro and Read, 2017 ; Portoghese et al, 2018 ; Sandrin et al, 2021 ; Van der Vaart and de Beer, 2021 ; Kalamara and Richardson, 2022 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…LPA generated five burnout profiles among young researchers: (1) High Burnout Risk (i.e., high on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1a ), (2) Cynical (i.e., high on cynicism in particular; Hypothesis 1b ), (3) Overextended (i.e., high on emotional exhaustion in particular; Hypothesis 1c ), (4) Low Burnout Risk (i.e., relatively low on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1d ), (5) No Burnout Risk (i.e., very low on all three dimensions; Hypothesis 1e ). These results support previous research that conceptualizes burnout as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon using LPA, in which the three burnout dimensions manifest themselves differently in each individual ( Leiter and Maslach, 2016 ; Mäkikangas and Kinnunen, 2016 ; Lee et al, 2017 ; Salmela-Aro and Read, 2017 ; Portoghese et al, 2018 ; Sandrin et al, 2021 ; Van der Vaart and de Beer, 2021 ; Kalamara and Richardson, 2022 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Based on former burnout studies among young researchers, we expect that the LPA including young researchers’ specific challenges (e.g., publication pressure, job insecurity; Tijdink et al, 2013 ; Guidetti et al, 2021 ) will provide us with new information that is vital to design, develop and implement tailored burnout interventions. Due to this groups’ specific challenges, the results of our LPA are expected to be different from recent studies that have conducted LPA among other occupational groups (i.e., teachers, fire workers; Sandrin et al, 2021 ; Kalamara and Richardson, 2022 ).…”
Section: Introductioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In line with past studies (e.g., Sandrin et al, 2021), a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and bifactor-CFA models were tested at Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2): (a) a sixfactor CFA model (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, reduced professional efficacy, vigor, dedication, and absorption); and (b) a bifactor-CFA model with six specific (S)-factors (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, reduced professional efficacy, vigor, dedication, and absorption) and two global (G)-factor (burnout and work engagement). In the CFA solution, items were only allowed to define their a priori factors, factors were allowed to correlate, and no cross-loadings were estimated.…”
Section: Burnout and Work Engagementsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, the burnout G-factor was weakly defined by the six reduced professional efficacy items at T1 (λ = .259 to .455, M = .352, ω = .550) and T2 (λ = .246 to .430, M = .353, ω = .558), suggesting that these items might tap into a different construct. This observation is consistent with emerging empirical evidence showing that ratings of reduced professional efficacy shared relatively weak associations with the other components of burnout (Hawrot & Koniewski, 2018;Szigeti et al, 2017), and might be best modeled as a distinct factor unrelated to burnout itself (Kalliath et al, 2000;Sandrin et al, 2021). Thus, following from previous evidence supporting a similar alternative bifactor representation of burnout (Sandrin et al, 2021), we estimated an alternative B-CFA including one burnout G-factor defined by the cynicism and emotional exhaustion items, themselves associated with their own orthogonal S-factors, and a separate correlated factor reflecting reduced professional efficacy.…”
Section: Burnout and Work Engagementsupporting
confidence: 88%