Propiedades psicométricas de la escala CBI (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) para la medición del Burnout en personal de salud del Hospital Universitario Hernando Moncaleano Perdomo de Neiva

Ninis Beatriz  Yance restrepo; Oscar Javier  Caquimbo Cubillos

doi:10.61182/rnavmed.v11n2a2

Authors

Ninis Beatriz Yance restrepo Maestría en Epidemiología, Facultad de Salud - Universidad Surcolombiana. Neiva (Colombia)
Oscar Javier Caquimbo Cubillos Maestría en Epidemiología, Facultad de Salud - Universidad Surcolombiana. Neiva (Colombia)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61182/rnavmed.v11n2a2

Keywords:

Burnout, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), Validity, Reliability

Abstract

Introduction: Burnout syndrome represents a major concern in the healthcare sector due to its significant impact on workers’ mental health and the quality of care provided. Traditionally, it has been assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS); however, its Spanish versions have shown limitations in reliability and validity, highlighting the need for more accurate instruments. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was developed to address these shortcomings and has demonstrated robust psychometric properties in various international contexts. This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of the CBI for assessing burnout among healthcare personnel in Colombia.

Methodology: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 510 healthcare workers from the Hernando Moncaleano Perdomo University Hospital in Neiva, Colombia, who voluntarily participated. Data were obtained from a previously collected institutional database. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and construct validity was tested through confirmatory factor analysis. Item discrimination and response option difficulty thresholds were also examined to verify the instrument’s suitability for the target population.

Results: The CBI demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.89–0.92). The original factorial structure was not fully confirmed due to the inadequate performance of item 13, which showed a low factor loading and a high measurement error. After excluding this item, model fit indices improved notably (CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95; RMSEA ≤ 0.05), supporting the adequacy of the modified model.

Conclusion: The CBI proved to be a valid, reliable, and practical tool for assessing burnout in the southern Colombian healthcare professionals. Revision or exclusion of item 13 is recommended to enhance the instrument’s performance and applicability in the local context.

References

1. World Health Organization. Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International classification of diseases [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019 May 28. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases

2. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):397–422. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

3. Dilig-Ruiz A, MacDonald I, Demery Varin M, Vandyk A, Graham ID, Squires JE. Job satisfaction among critical care nurses: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;88:123–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.014

4. Dorigan GH, Guirardello EB. Effect of the practice environment of nurses on job outcomes and safety climate. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2018;26:e3056. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2633.3056

5. Stewart MT, Reed S, Reese J, Galligan MM, Mahan JD. Conceptual models for understanding physician burnout, professional fulfillment, and well-being. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2019;49(11):100658. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2019.100658

6. Giess CS, Ip IK, Cochon LR, Lacson R, Khorasani R. Predictors of self-reported burnout among radiology faculty at a large academic medical center. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(12):1684–1691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.05.030

7. Kratzke IM, Woods LC, Adapa K, Walker AJ, O’Neill TR. The sociotechnical factors associated with burnout in residents in surgical specialties: A qualitative systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2022;79(3):614–623. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.008

8. White KM, Dulko D, DiPietro B. The effect of burnout on quality of care using Donabedian’s framework. Nurs Clin North Am. 2022;57(1):115–130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2021.11.008

9. Teoh KRH, Hassard J, Cox T. Doctors’ working conditions, wellbeing and hospital quality of care: A multilevel analysis. Saf Sci. 2021;135:105114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105114

10. Myers JA, Powell DMC, Aldington S, Sim D, Psirides A, Hathaway K. The impact of fatigue on the non-technical skills performance of critical care air ambulance clinicians. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61(10):1305–1313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12968

11. Montgomery A, Lainidi O. Understanding the link between burnout and sub-optimal care: Why should healthcare education be interested in employee silence? Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:818393. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.818393

12. Montgomery A, Spânu F, Băban A, Panagopoulou E. Job demands, burnout, and engagement among nurses: A multi-level analysis of ORCAB data investigating the moderating effect of teamwork. Burn Res. 2015;2(2):71–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.06.001

13. Maslach C, Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Organ Behav. 1981;2(2):99–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

14. Gil-Monte PR. Factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS) among Spanish professionals. Rev Saude Publica. 2005;39(1):1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102005000100001

15. Gil-Monte PR, Zúñiga-Caballero LC. Validez factorial del “Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo” (CESQT) en una muestra de médicos mexicanos. Rev Psicol Trab Organ. 2010;9(1):169–178.

16. Portoghese I, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Galletta M, Porru F, Campagna M. Measuring burnout among university students: Factorial validity, invariance, and latent profiles of the Italian version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory Student Survey (MBI-SS). Front Psychol. 2018;9:2105. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02105

17. Matejić B, Milenović M, Kisić Tepavčević D, Simić D, Pekmezović T, Worley JA. Psychometric properties of the Serbian version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey: A validation study among anesthesiologists from Belgrade Teaching Hospitals. Sci World J. 2015;2015:903597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/903597

18. Khani MH, Mohammadi M, Anvari F, Mohamadirizi S, Mohamadirizi S. Students School Burnout Inventory: Development, validation, and reliability of scale. Int J Sch Health. 2018;5(1):e67697. doi: https://doi.org/10.5812/intjsh.67697

19. Gill MA, Giménez SB, Moran VE, Olaz FO, Medrano LA. Adaptación y validación del Inventario de Burnout de Maslach en profesionales argentinos de la salud mental. Liberabit. 2019;25(2):179–193. doi: https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n2.02

20. Lara RMM, Jiménez BM, Muñoz AR, Fernández EG. Análisis factorial confirmatorio del MBI-HSS en una muestra de psicólogos mexicanos. Psicol Salud. 2008;18(1):107–116.

21. Olivares-Faúndez V, Mena-Miranda L, Jélvez-Wilker C, Macía-Sepúlveda F. Validez factorial del Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services (MBI-HSS) en profesionales chilenos. Univ Psychol. 2014;13(1):145–159. doi: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-1.vfmi

22. Calderón-De la Cruz GA, Merino-Soto C. Análisis de la estructura interna del Maslach Burnout Inventory (Human Service Survey) en médicos peruanos. Rev Cienc Salud. 2020;18(2):1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9604

23. 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: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720

24. Milfont TL, Denny S, Ameratunga S, Robinson E, Merry S. Burnout and wellbeing: Testing the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in New Zealand teachers. Soc Indic Res. 2008;89(1):169–177. doi; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9229-9

25. Fong TCT, Ho RTH, Ng SM. Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory–Chinese Version. J Psychol. 2014;148(3):255–266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.800439

26. Montgomery AP, Azuero A, Patrician PA. Psychometric properties of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory among nurses. Res Nurs Health. 2021;44(2):308–318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22106

27. Guevara Bedoya LM, Ocampo Agudelo N. Propiedades psicométricas de confiabilidad y validez del Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey. Rev Interam Psicol Ocup. 2016;33(2):128–142. doi: https://doi.org/10.21772/ripo.v33n2a06

28. Córdoba L, Tamayo JA, González MA, Martino M. Adaptation and validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey in Cali, Colombia. Colomb Med. 2011;42(3):286–293. doi: https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v42i3.782

29. Bria M, Spânu F, Băban A, Dumitraşcu DL. Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey: Factorial validity and invariance among Romanian healthcare professionals. Burn Res. 2014;1(3):103–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.09.001

30. Gil-Monte PR. Validez factorial de la adaptación al español del Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. Salud Publica Mex. 2002;44(1):33–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-36342002000100005

31. Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, San Luis C, Lozano LM, Vargas C, García I, De la Fuente EI. Evidencia de validez factorial del Maslach Burnout Inventory y estudio de los niveles de burnout en profesionales sanitarios. Rev Lat Psicol. 2014;46(1):44–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0120-0534(14)70006-X

32. Pando Moreno M, Aranda Beltrán C, López Palomar MR. Validez factorial del Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey en ocho países latinoamericanos. Cienc Trab. 2015;17(52):28–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-24492015000100006

33. Molinero Ruiz E, Basart Gómez-Quintero H, Moncada Lluis S. Fiabilidad y validez del Copenhagen Burnout Inventory para su uso en España. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2013;87(2):165–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.4321/S1135-57272013000200006

34. Fiorilli C, De Stasio S, Benevene P, Buonomo I, Ragni B, Briegas JJM, Barni D. Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI): A validation study in an Italian teacher group. TPM Test Psychom Methodol Appl Psychol. 2015;22(4):537–551. doi: https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM22.4.7

35. Breña WH, Burneo A, Cassaretto M. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory for the Peruvian version. Rev Psicol (Peru). 2022;40(2):711–738. doi: https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202202.003

36. Rocha FLR, Jesus LC, Marziale MHP, Haddad MCFL, Bernardes A. Burnout syndrome in university professors and academic staff members: Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory-Brazilian version. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2020;33:11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00150-z

37. Clinton M, Shehadeh M, Roula R, Khoury C. Rasch analysis of Lebanese nurses’ responses to the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory alternative to the Maslach Burnout Inventory. SAGE Open Nurs. 2021;7:23779608211020919. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608211020919

38. Moser CM, Tietbohl-Santos B, Arenas DL, Padoin CV, Braga PE. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in healthcare professionals. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2023;45:e20210362. doi: https://doi.org/10.47626/2237-6089-2021-0362

39. Jeon GS, You SJ, Kim MG, Kim YM, Cho SI. Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Korean homecare workers for older adults. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0221323. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221323

40. Papaefstathiou E, Tsounis A, Malliarou M, Sarafis P. Translation and validation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory amongst Greek doctors. Health Psychol Res. 2019;7(1):8050. doi: https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2019.8050

41. Chin RWA, Chua YY, Chu MN, Mahadi NF, Wong MS, Yusoff MSB, Lee YY. Investigating validity evidence of the Malay translation of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2018;13(1):1–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.12.001

42. Aiello EN, Fiabane E, Margheritti S, Magnaghi C, Pessina C. Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in Italian physicians. Med Lav. 2022;113(4):e2022034. doi: https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v113i4.13269

43. Cordero-Franco HF, Salinas-Martínez AM, Chávez-Barrón KA, Martínez-Rodríguez HC, Rojas-Roque C. Validation of the Spanish Version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Mexican Medical Residents. Arch Med Res. 2022;53(6):617–624. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2022.08.005

44. Phuekphan P, Aungsuroch Y, Yunibhand J, Chan MF. Psychometric properties of the Thai version of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (T-CBI) in Thai nurses. J Health Res. 2016;30(2):135–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.14456/jhr.2016.19

45. Mahmoudi S, Atashzadeh-Shoorideh F, Rassouli M, Moslemi A. Translation and psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Iranian nurses. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2017;22(2):117–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-9066.205956

46. Javanshir E, Dianat I, Asghari-Jafarabadi M. Psychometric properties of the Iranian version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Health Promot Perspect. 2019;9(2):137–143. doi: https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2019.19