How to assess severe burnout? Cutoff points for the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) based on three European samples.

Wilmar B Schaufeli, Hans De Witte, Jari J Hakanen, Janne Kaltiainen, Robin Kok
Author Information
  1. Wilmar B Schaufeli: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. W.Schaufeli@fss.uu.nl.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite decades of burnout research, clinical validated cut-off scores that discriminate between those who suffer from burnout and those who don't are still lacking. To establish such cut-off scores, the current study uses a newly developed questionnaire, the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) that consists of four subscales (exhaustion, mental distancing, and emotional and cognitive impairment). Separate cut-offs were computed for those at risk for burnout and those suffering from severe burnout for the original BAT-23 as well as for the shortened BAT-12.
METHODS: Relative operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were carried out using representative samples of healthy employees from The Netherlands (N=1370), Belgium (Flanders; N=1403) and Finland (N=1350). In addition, samples of employees who received a burnout diagnosis were used (N=335, 158 and 50, respectively).
RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of the BAT (area under the curve) ranges from good to excellent with the exception of mental distancing, which is fair. The country-specific cut-off values as well as their specificity and sensitivity are comparable to those of the pooled sample.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to country-specific cut-offs, general cut-offs can be used tentatively in other similar countries, pending future replication studies. Caution is warranted for using cut-offs for mental distance as the sensitivity and specificity of this subscale is relatively poor. It is concluded that the BAT can be used in organizational surveys for identifying employees at risk for burnout and, in clinical treatment settings, for identifying those with severe burnout, keeping in mind the tentativeness of the present cut-offs.

References

  1. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 08;18(18): [PMID: 34574392]
  2. PLoS One. 2020 Nov 24;15(11):e0242241 [PMID: 33232352]
  3. BMC Public Health. 2022 Mar 22;22(1):560 [PMID: 35313849]
  4. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 03;17(15): [PMID: 32756483]
  5. Eval Health Prof. 2021 Dec;44(4):406-415 [PMID: 34579583]
  6. Psychol Assess. 2013 Jun;25(2):435-41 [PMID: 23356679]
  7. West J Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 21;21(3):610-617 [PMID: 32421508]
  8. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 02;18(13): [PMID: 34281059]
  9. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2016 Oct 15;26(3):297-307 [PMID: 27812299]
  10. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2021 Mar 1;47(2):95-107 [PMID: 33258478]
  11. J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Sep;5(9):1315-6 [PMID: 20736804]
  12. BMC Public Health. 2022 Aug 16;22(1):1555 [PMID: 35971108]
  13. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 25;19(3): [PMID: 35162366]
  14. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Sep 16;22(1):1167 [PMID: 36114499]
  15. JAMA. 2018 Sep 18;320(11):1131-1150 [PMID: 30326495]
  16. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015 May;88(4):467-75 [PMID: 25212752]
  17. Ind Health. 2018 Apr 7;56(2):160-165 [PMID: 29109358]
  18. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24): [PMID: 33352940]
  19. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2003 Dec;29(6):478-87 [PMID: 14712856]
  20. Can J Psychiatry. 2007 Feb;52(2):121-8 [PMID: 17375868]
  21. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Jan;95(1):259-273 [PMID: 34628517]
  22. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Mar 17;12(3): [PMID: 35323401]
  23. BJU Int. 2019 Aug;124(2):349-356 [PMID: 30993851]
  24. BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799 [PMID: 28137831]
  25. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Nov 20;16(1):220 [PMID: 30458785]
  26. J Dent Educ. 2016 Nov;80(11):1368-1375 [PMID: 27803209]
  27. Psychol Health. 2001 Sep;16(5):527-45 [PMID: 22804497]

MeSH Term

Humans
Burnout, Psychological
Burnout, Professional
Sensitivity and Specificity
Netherlands
Finland
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0burnoutcut-offsBATcut-offmentalseveresamplesemployeesusedclinicalscoresBurnoutAssessmentTooldistancingriskwellusingadditioncountry-specificspecificitysensitivitycanidentifyingOBJECTIVE:DespitedecadesresearchvalidateddiscriminatesufferstilllackingestablishcurrentstudyusesnewlydevelopedquestionnaireconsistsfoursubscalesexhaustionemotionalcognitiveimpairmentSeparatecomputedsufferingoriginalBAT-23shortenedBAT-12METHODS:RelativeoperatingcharacteristicROCanalysescarriedrepresentativehealthyNetherlandsN=1370BelgiumFlandersN=1403FinlandN=1350receiveddiagnosisN=33515850respectivelyRESULTS:diagnosticaccuracyareacurverangesgoodexcellentexceptionfairvaluescomparablepooledsampleCONCLUSIONS:generaltentativelysimilarcountriespendingfuturereplicationstudiesCautionwarranteddistancesubscalerelativelypoorconcludedorganizationalsurveystreatmentsettingskeepingmindtentativenesspresentassessburnout?CutoffpointsbasedthreeEuropean

Similar Articles

Cited By