Examining the construct validity of burnout scale using confirmatory factor analysis
List of Authors
  • Ulfiani Rahman , Wan Shahrazad Wan Sulaiman

Keyword
  • burnout, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, reduced personal accomplishment

Abstract
  • Many teachers find the demand of their job stressful to the extent that they show symptoms such as reduced performance, lack of attention towards the task, low commitment and low job satisfaction. The results of teacher stress can lead to burnout. This study was conducted to test the construct validity of the Burnout Scale. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to assess the goodness of fit of the measurement model of the Burnout Scale using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Burnout Scale consists of three dimensions, namely emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. The study was conducted on 11 religious schools located in the North, East, South, Middle West of South Sulawesi, Indonesia comprising a total of 339 teachers who participated in the study. However, examination with the normality data showed that only 208 respondents were used as samples. The results of the study showed that the hypothesized measurement model of burnout did not show satisfactory goodness-of-fit of the model with the data, with the values obtained: χ2 = 656.986, CFI = 0.843, GFI = 0.828, TLI = 0.823, RMSEA = 0.080. The measurement model thus has to be revised. Results of the revised model showed a better fit, with χ2 = 115.400, CFI = 0.949, GFI = .931, TLI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.060.

Reference
  • 1. Betoret, F.D. (2009). Self efficacy, school resources, job stressors, and burnout among Spanish primary and secondary school teachers: A structural equation approach. Educational Psychology, 23, 45-68.
    2. Burke, R., Greenglass, E. & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effect of work stress, social support, and self doubts on burnout and its consequences: Anxiety, stress, and coping. An International Journal, 9, 261-275.
    3. Byrne, B.M,. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling With Amos: Basic Concepts,Applications, and Programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    4. Casserley, T. & Megginson, D. (2009). Learning from burnout: Developing sustainable leaders and avoiding career derailment..Elsevier.
    5. Cooper, C. l., Dewe, P .J. & O‟Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research & applications. Sage Publication.
    6. Freudenberger, H. J. & Richelson, E. (1981). Burnout: How to beat the high cost of success. New York: Bantam Book.
    7. Greenberg, J. & Baron .A. (2000). Behavior in organization: Understanding and managing the human side of wor. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    8. Kline, R, B,. 2005. Principle and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Second Edition. New York: The Guilford Press
    9. Leatz, C.A. & Stolar, M. W. (1993). When work gets to be too much. World Executives Digest, 14, 11-11.
    10. Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
    11. Maslach, C. 1982. Burnout the Cost of Caring, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
    12. Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Record, 80(1), 69-94.
    13. Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd Ed). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    14. Pines, A. & Aronso, E. (1989). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: The Free Press. Sugiono. (2009). Statistika untuk penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.