Tue, Mar 11, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 56 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(56): 117-128 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: EC-23/164-F-FDS
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Krishnappa P, Joshi M, J Abraham A, Prabhu A, Tasneem A. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Copenhagen burnout inventory–student survey (CBI-SS) among health profession educational students at a university in south India. JMED 2024; 17 (56) :117-128
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2117-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2117-en.html
1- Department of Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore 560054, India
2- Former Director Medical Education Unit, International Medical School, Bangalore 560054, India ,medhajoshi11@yahoo.com
3- Department of Allied Health Sciences, Faculty of Life & Allied Health Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore 560054, India
4- Department of Public health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Science, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
2- Former Director Medical Education Unit, International Medical School, Bangalore 560054, India ,
3- Department of Allied Health Sciences, Faculty of Life & Allied Health Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore 560054, India
4- Department of Public health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Science, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences
Abstract: (288 Views)
Background & Objective: Burnout is characterized by emotional exhaustion and affects diverse professionals, with healthcare students at high risk due to academic and clinical stressors. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory–Student Survey (CBI-SS) has not been studied in healthcare students in the Indian context. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the English version of the CBI-SS.
Material & Methods: This cross-sectional study, conducted in 2022, included 416 undergraduate and 107 postgraduate students from health profession institutions at a private university. The response rate was 65.45%. Descriptive and inferential statistics were evaluated for the CBI-SS with 25 items via JMP software. The tool was subjected to content and face validity. The interitem correlation was tested before the scale was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The EFA indices considered were Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) and the Bartlett test of specificity. The CFA fit indices included the degree of freedom, Tucker Lewis index (TLI), freedom ratio (χ²/df), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation (RMSEA), and Normed Fit Index (NFI).
Results: The content validity index averaged 0.9, and face validity was favorable. The Cronbach's alpha scores were between 0.7 and 0.8. The EFA yielded KMO values above 0.9, and Bartlett's test yielded chi-square = 8880.727, df = 300, p < 0.0001. The fit indices for CFA were the Tucker and Lewis indices, with a score of 0.919 and an RMSEA score of 0.068, demonstrating a relationship between the items and the constructs.
Conclusion: This study highlights the usefulness of the CBI-SS in assessing burnout in allied health science and dental student populations. The results indicate that the CBI-SS is a reliable and valid instrument for identifying student burnout and developing strategies to prevent burnout among potentially vulnerable student populations in the Indian context.
Material & Methods: This cross-sectional study, conducted in 2022, included 416 undergraduate and 107 postgraduate students from health profession institutions at a private university. The response rate was 65.45%. Descriptive and inferential statistics were evaluated for the CBI-SS with 25 items via JMP software. The tool was subjected to content and face validity. The interitem correlation was tested before the scale was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The EFA indices considered were Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) and the Bartlett test of specificity. The CFA fit indices included the degree of freedom, Tucker Lewis index (TLI), freedom ratio (χ²/df), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation (RMSEA), and Normed Fit Index (NFI).
Results: The content validity index averaged 0.9, and face validity was favorable. The Cronbach's alpha scores were between 0.7 and 0.8. The EFA yielded KMO values above 0.9, and Bartlett's test yielded chi-square = 8880.727, df = 300, p < 0.0001. The fit indices for CFA were the Tucker and Lewis indices, with a score of 0.919 and an RMSEA score of 0.068, demonstrating a relationship between the items and the constructs.
Conclusion: This study highlights the usefulness of the CBI-SS in assessing burnout in allied health science and dental student populations. The results indicate that the CBI-SS is a reliable and valid instrument for identifying student burnout and developing strategies to prevent burnout among potentially vulnerable student populations in the Indian context.
Keywords: CBI-SS, burnout syndrome, reliability, validity, healthcare professional students, Indian context
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2024/02/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/1 | Published: 2024/12/14
Received: 2024/02/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/1 | Published: 2024/12/14
References
1. Bridgeman PJ, Bridgeman MB, Barone J. Burnout syndrome among healthcare professionals. The Bulletin of the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. 2018;75(3):147-52. [DOI]
2. Reith TP. Burnout in United States healthcare professionals: a narrative review. Cureus. 2018;10(12). [DOI]
3. Salgado S, Au-Yong-Oliveira M. Student burnout: a case study about a Portuguese public university. Education Sciences. 2021;11(1):31. [DOI]
4. Marôco J, Assunção H, Harju-Luukkainen H, et al. Predictors of academic efficacy and dropout intention in university students: can engagement suppress burnout?. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239816. [DOI]
5. Frajerman A, Morvan Y, Krebs MO, Gorwood P, Chaumette B. Burnout in medical students before residency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Psychiatry. 2019;55:36-42. [DOI]
6. Singh P, Aulak DS, Mangat SS, Aulak MS. Systematic review: factors contributing to burnout in dentistry. Occupational Medicine. 2016;66(1):27-31. [DOI]
7. Panchu P, Bahuleyan B, Vijayan V. An analysis of the factors leading to stress in Indian medical students. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Physiology. 2017;4(11):48-50. [DOI]
8. Boni RA, Paiva CE, De Oliveira MA, Lucchetti G, Fregnani JH, Paiva BS. Burnout among medical students during the first years of undergraduate school: prevalence and associated factors. PloS One. 2018;13(3):e0191746. [DOI]
9. Romani M, Ashkar K. Burnout among physicians. Libyan Journal of Medicine. 2014;9(1). [DOI]
10. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annual review of psychology. 2001;52(1):397-422. [DOI]
11. Dubale BW, Friedman LE, Chemali Z, et al. Systematic review of burnout among healthcare providers in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1-20. [DOI]
12. Alahmari MA, Al Moaleem MM, Hamdi BA, et al. Prevalence of burnout in healthcare specialties: a systematic review using Copenhagen and Maslach burnout inventories. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental And Clinical Research. 2022;28:e938798-1. [DOI]
13. Arip MM, Kamaruzaman DN, Roslan A, Ahmad A, Rahman MA, Malim T. Development, validity and reliability of student stress inventory (SSI). The Social Sciences. 2015;10(7):1631-8. [DOI]
14. Thrush CR, Gathright MM, Atkinson T, Messias EL, Guise JB. Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen burnout inventory in an academic healthcare institution sample in the US. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2021;44(4):400-5. [DOI]
15. Wongtrakul W, Dangprapai Y, Saisavoey N, Sa-Nguanpanich N. Reliability and validity study of the Thai adaptation of the Copenhagen burnout inventory-student survey (CBI-SS) among preclinical medical students at the faculty of medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand. PloS One. 2021;16(12):e0261887. [DOI]
16. Todorovic J, Divjak J, Stamenković Z, et al. Validation of the study burnout inventory and the Copenhagen burnout inventory for the use among medical students. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2021; 34(6):737-45. [DOI]
17. Campos JA, Carlotto MS, Marôco J. Copenhagen burnout inventory-student version: adaptation and transcultural validation for Portugal and Brazil. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2013;26:87-97. [DOI]
18. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen burnout inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress. 2005;19(3):192-207. [DOI]
19. Xia Y, Yang Y. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: the story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods. 2019;51:409-28. [DOI]
20. Borritz M, Rugulies R, Bjorner JB, Villadsen E, Mikkelsen OA, Kristensen TS. Burnout among employees in human service work: design and baseline findings of the PUMA study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2006;34(1):49-58. [DOI]
21. Oluwadiya KS, Owoeye OK, Adeoti AO. Evaluating the factor structure, reliability and validity of the Copenhagen burnout inventory-student survey (CBI-SS) among faculty of arts students of Ekiti state university, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):10476. [DOI]
22. Javanshir E, Dianat I, Asghari-Jafarabadi M. Psychometric properties of the Iranian version of the Copenhagen burnout inventory. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2019;9(2):137. [DOI]
23. Piperac P, Todorovic J, Terzic-Supic Z, et al. The validity and reliability of the Copenhagen burnout inventory for examination of burnout among preschool teachers in Serbia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(13):6805. [DOI]
24. Zh AA, Bakhyt I, Hengameh H. Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen burnout inventory in a sample of medical students in Kazakhstan. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2021;14(2):15-24. [DOI]
25. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, Boone S, Tan L, Sloan J, Shanafelt TD. Burnout among US medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general US population. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(3):443-51. [DOI]
26. Aljadani AH, Alsolami A, Almehmadi S, Alhuwaydi A, Fathuldeen A. Epidemiology of burnout and its association with academic performance among medical students at hail university, Saudi Arabia. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2021;21(2):e231. [DOI]
27. Cho E, Jeon S. The role of empathy and psychological need satisfaction in pharmacy students’ burnout and well-being. BMC Medical Education. 2019;19:1-2. [DOI]
28. Andrade C. The limitations of online surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2020;42(6):575-6. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
