Examining the Constructs of Burnout, Compassion Fatigue, Secondary Traumatic Stress in Physicians Using Factor Analyses

Abstract

BackgroundAdverse affective experiences have been well-documented in healthcare providers. Research describes them under a variety of terms, including burnout, secondary traumatic stress (STS), and compassion fatigue (CF). The present study evaluates conflicting models of STS, CF, and burnout constructs in physicians.MethodsSurveys were mailed to all allopathic physicians with active Rhode Island medical licenses. Three hundred and seventy-five complete responses were received. The survey included common measures of STS, CF, and burnout. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate discriminant validity of the three constructs and test 5 a priori (1-, 2-, and 3-factor) theoretical models, and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was planned assess underlying factor structure in the case that CFA did not provide evidence supporting any existing model.ResultsBy CFA, all five a priori models of burnout, CF, and STS fail to demonstrate adequate model fit (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual >0.10, Tucker-Lewis Index <0.90). EFA with parallel analysis extracts four factors underlying the three burnout, STS, and CF measures. The four factors describe 54.3% of variance and can be described as (1) depressive mood; (2) primary traumatic stress-like symptoms; (3) responses to patients' trauma; and (4) sleep disturbances.ConclusionIn spite of abundant discussion surrounding burnout, CF, and STS in physicians, measures of these constructs did not uphold their theoretical factor structures in the present study. Future research might explore other constructs and measures that may describe adverse affective physician experiences.

The influence of environmental factors on the job burnout of physical education teachers in tertiary education

“…In the chain model below, X represents the predictive variable (environmental factors), M1 represents the intermediary variable 1 (occupational stress), M2 represents the intermediary variable 2 (teaching efficacy), and Y represents the dependent variable (job burnout). Based on the results of the national education survey, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted to examine potential factor structures 22 . CFA utilized the Satora Bentler (SB) robust scaling method.…”