Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review.
Fiche du document
1 décembre 2023
- doi: 10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769
- issn: 0004-1254
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/38146759
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1848-6312
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_E648ECA6DB3C5
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , CC BY 4.0 , https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Sujets proches
chauve-sourisCiter ce document
Y. Shoman et al., « Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
In the absence of internationally recognised standardised criteria, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed to measure occupational burnout. The aim of this study was to extend our 2021 review of the psychometric validity of five PROMs to the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM) and the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT). To do that we ran a systematic literature search in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases following our previous methodological framework and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We assessed the level of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline. We identified 694 publications on SMBM and 421 on BAT, but the final review includes eight papers on SMBM and three on BAT. Of the seven psychometric properties assessed for SMBM, content, structural, and criterion validity were rated as insufficient, whereas the quality of evidence for construct and internal consistency was high and moderate, respectively. Of the nine psychometric properties assessed for BAT, content, structural, criterion, and construct validity was moderate and internal consistency was high. One limitation of this study is that we did not assess cross-cultural validity, because the number of studies reviewed is too small and content validity can only be assessed based on the original PROM version rather than translation. To conclude, BAT is superior to SMBM in terms of psychometric validity, but the quality of evidence for some properties is low or very low, suggesting a need for additional validation studies.
