Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Teresa Chirkowska-Smolak*
Pawel Kleka
Introduction
The most popular instrument in the world for measuring
the phenomenon of burnout is the Maslach Burnout
Inventory, developed in 1981 by Christina Maslach and
Susan Jackson. On account of the very great interest in
this issue, this instrument has been translated into many
languages. By the middle nineties, when researchers from
Jagiellonian University, Krakw (Schaufeli, Janczur, 1994),
and subsequently Tomasz Pasikowski of Adam Mickiewicz
University, Pozna produced Polish versions of the
questionnaire (Pasikowski, 1996), a lively discussion had
already arisen in the research community on the question of
broadening the classical model of Maslach and of treating
professional burnout as a phenomenon not restricted to
only representatives of human service professions involved
in helping people. Accordingly, in 1996 the Maslach
Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey (MBIGS)intended
for measuring the burnout of workers generally, regardless
of their professionwas developed by Wilmar Schaufeli,
Institute of Psychology, Adam Mickiewicz University, ul. Szamarzewskiego 89B, 60-568 Poznan, Poland,
email: teresa.chirkowska-smolak@amu.edu.pl
87
The Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey: validation across different occupational groups in Poland
Method
Sample
The research, which was carried out during 2009 and the
rst half of 2010, involved 1,016 employees of Polish rms.
Listwise deletion of missing values on burnout subscales
and outliers yielded a nal sample of 998 participants. The
respondents ranged in age from 19 to 66 years old, with an
average age of 35 (SD = 10.96). Women comprised 55% of
the sample, and men 45%. They were all working people,
with various career lengths (ranging from half a year
to 45 years, although 35 years was the largest interval,
88
89
Kind of job
Female
Count
Male
% female
Count
% male
Data
161
66.0%
83
34.0%
People
195
66.3%
99
33.7%
Things
81
30.9%
181
69.1%
Ideas
21
53.8%
18
46.2%
Total
458
54.6%
381
45.4%
Translation
The preparation of the Polish version began with the
translation of the English version of the MBIGS into two
separate Polish versions by two translators. Then backtranslation into English was performed, and we compared
the original English with the back-translated versions. After
discussion with a native speaker of English, a nal Polish
version was chosen.
Measurement
The MBIGS questionnaire consists of 16 items
comprising three scales: exhaustion (EX, 5 items, including
I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to face
another day on the job), cynicism (CY, 5 items, including
I have become less enthusiastic about my work), and
professional efcacy (EF, 6 items, including In my opinion
I am good at my job). In the MBIGS questionnaire, like
in earlier versions, the items constituting the exhaustion
and cynicism scales are formulated negatively, while those
constituting the efcacyscale are formulated positively.
Respondents answer the question of how often they feel a
particular way with reference to a seven-point (06) Likert
scale, where 0 indicates never, and 6 means daily. The
results, in accordance with the advice of the creators of the
scale, are calculated separately for each of the subscales,
according to the key (none of the items are reverse coded).
High results on the exhaustion and cynicism subscales, and
a low result on the professional efcacysubscale, point to a
high level of burnout.
Apart from answering the individual items of the
questionnaire, the respondents were also requested to
give some information concerning background variables,
such as sex, age, length of career, and profession. Because
the research was carried out mostly on-site at various
organizations, some individuals, out of fear losing their
anonymity, did not give information that might be used to
identify them (although we emphasized the condentiality
and anonymity of the data). This most frequently took place
with the respondents age and time in current job, and the
systemic lack of data was found most commonly among
people working with things, mainly production workers.
Analysis
We examined the factor structure using exploratory
factor analysis techniques prior to working with the subscale
Results
Exploratory factor analysis
The results of the exploratory factor analysis (see
table 2) revealed that the identied structure of the factors
is similar to that presented by Maslach and Leiter (1996),
and that the particular items are most strongly connected
with the original factors. Most of the test items full the
criteria of measure purity and saturation that we set, with
the exception of item MG6 (I feel burned out from my
work), which has a high second loading on another factor
(EX and CY), and item MG13 (I just want to do my job
and not be bothered), which did not gain a factor loading
The Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey: validation across different occupational groups in Poland
Table 2
Loadings.
scale
Factor1
Factor2
Factor3
-0.009
MG1
exh1
0.786
0.165
MG2
exh2
0.839
0.099
0.035
MG3
exh3
0.756
0.272
-0.085
MG4
exh4
0.829
0.155
0.018
MG6
exh5
0.529
0.554
-0.138
MG5
efc1
-0.029
0.077
0.601
MG7
efc2
0.100
-0.335
0.586
MG10
efc3
-0.023
-0.029
0.763
MG11
efc4
0.008
-0.194
0.702
MG12
efc5
0.083
-0.239
0.636
MG16
efc6
-0.173
0.010
0.718
MG8
cyn1
0.135
0.708
-0.065
MG9
cyn2
0.189
0.759
-0.145
MG13
cyn3
0.192
0.362
0.104
MG14
cyn4
0.116
0.712
-0.208
MG15
cyn5
0.124
0.763
-0.175
90
91
Variable
Reliability
EX
.819
EF
.736
CY
.641
One factor
Two factors
Three factors
full
w/o MG6
w/o MG13
2 (df)
2830.9 (104)***
636.6 (44)***
998.9 (101)***
5076 (105)***
916.6 (87)***
637.4 (74)***
CFI
.52
.81
.84
.86
.85
.88
NNFI
.44
.76
.81
.85
.82
.86
AIC
56769
38216
54933
51570
50749
47383
RMSEA
.162
.116
.094
.085
.098
.087
90% CI
.157.167
.108.124
.089.099
.079.091
.092.104
.081.094
SRMR
.143
.128
.076
.061
.077
.060
92
The Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey: validation across different occupational groups in Poland
Table 7
The effect of EX on EF is mediated by the value of CY.
Table 5
Results of conrmatory analysis for four occupational groups.
CFI
NNFI
SRMR
Mediation path
Coefcients
Data
.886
.859
.098 (.084.111)
.073
EX ~ CY
.448***
People
.841
.804
.100 (.088.112)
.073
CY (EX) ~ EF
-.263***
-.078***
.040 n.s.
Things
.852
.818
.092 (.079.105)
.079
EX ~ EF
Ideas
.788
.740
.152 (.113.190)
.125
EX (CY) ~ EF
Table 6
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efcacy.
Variable
SD
CY
EF
EX
2.66
1.35
.90
0.377***
-0.057
CY
1.69
1.29
.92
EF
4.354
0.96
.88
-0.344***
93
References
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli, W. (2002). Validation of
the Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey: An Internet
study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15, 245260.
Brenninkmeijer, V. & Van Yperen, N. (2003). How to conduct
research on burnout: advantages and disadvantages of a
unidimensional approach to burnout. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 60, 1621.
Bres, E. (2008). Well-being and Performance in Academic
Settings: The predicting role of self-efcacy, unpublished
dissertation. Castelln de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos:
Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chirkowska-Smolak, T. (2009). Organizacyjne czynniki wypalenia
zawodowego. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Spoeczny, 4,
259274.
Cielak, R., Benight, C. (2008). Wsparcie spoeczne a wypalenie
zawodowe nowe perspektywy bada. In J. M., Brzeziski,
L. Cierpiakowska (Eds.), Zdrowie i choroba. Problemy
teorii, diagnozy i praktyki. Prace dedykowane Pani Profesor
Helenie Sk (pp.295308). Gdask: GWP.
Cudeck, R. & Browne, M.W. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model t. In K.A. Bollen & J. Scott Long (Eds.),
Testing structural equation models (pp.19). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.
B. (2001). The job demands /resources model of burnout.
The Maslach Burnout InventoryGeneral Survey: validation across different occupational groups in Poland
94