Burnout Assessment Tool for Students (BAT-S): evidence of validity in a Chilean sample of undergraduate university students.

Marcos Carmona-Halty, Karina Alarc��n-Castillo, Carla Semir-Gonz��lez, Geraldy Sep��lveda-P��ez, Wilmar B Schaufeli
Author Information
  1. Marcos Carmona-Halty: Escuela de Psicolog��a y Filosof��a, Universidad de Tarapac��, Arica, Chile.
  2. Karina Alarc��n-Castillo: Escuela de Psicolog��a y Filosof��a, Universidad de Tarapac��, Arica, Chile.
  3. Carla Semir-Gonz��lez: Escuela de Psicolog��a y Filosof��a, Universidad de Tarapac��, Arica, Chile.
  4. Geraldy Sep��lveda-P��ez: Escuela de Psicolog��a y Filosof��a, Universidad de Tarapac��, Arica, Chile.
  5. Wilmar B Schaufeli: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Abstract

This brief report examines both within-network and between-network construct validity of the Burnout Assessment Tool for Students (BAT-S) in a sample of 461 Chilean undergraduate university students (70.9% female) ranging between 18 and 58���years old (���=���21.6, SD���=���4.34). The reliability analysis results showed adequate internal consistency for the overall burnout score and for each dimension. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a second-order factor (academic burnout) and four first-order factors (exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive impairment, and emotional impairment) solution. Moreover, the results of multiple-group CFA supported gender invariance. Finally, structural equation model (SEM) analysis showed that academic resources and academic demands are associated with academic burnout. Overall, the BAT-S was found to be a reliable and valid tool to assess academic burnout in chilean sample of undergraduate university students.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychiatr Pol. 2023 Feb 28;57(1):223-235 [PMID: 37350726]
  2. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017 Jul;22(3):273-285 [PMID: 27732008]
  3. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2010 Jan;23(1):53-70 [PMID: 19326271]
  4. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422 [PMID: 11148311]
  5. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 29;15(10):e0239816 [PMID: 33119598]
  6. BMC Public Health. 2022 Mar 22;22(1):560 [PMID: 35313849]
  7. Br J Educ Psychol. 2014 Mar;84(Pt 1):137-51 [PMID: 24547758]
  8. Korean J Med Educ. 2020 Mar;32(1):13-21 [PMID: 32130847]
  9. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 17;17(14): [PMID: 32709128]
  10. Span J Psychol. 2024 Mar 08;27:e10 [PMID: 38454632]
  11. Front Psychol. 2020 Aug 11;11:1819 [PMID: 32849072]
  12. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 08;18(18): [PMID: 34574392]
  13. Annu Rev Psychol. 2023 Jan 18;74:577-596 [PMID: 35973734]
  14. BMC Public Health. 2022 Aug 16;22(1):1555 [PMID: 35971108]
  15. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 25;19(3): [PMID: 35162366]
  16. Scand J Psychol. 2024 Jun;65(3):479-489 [PMID: 38146078]
  17. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jun 13;19(1):211 [PMID: 31196065]
  18. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 03;17(15): [PMID: 32756483]
  19. Front Psychol. 2022 Jan 04;12:774703 [PMID: 35058846]
  20. J Prof Nurs. 2021 Jul-Aug;37(4):690-695 [PMID: 34187665]
  21. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2023 May 1;49(4):293-302 [PMID: 37042446]
  22. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 09;19(18): [PMID: 36141612]
  23. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Jul;102:104938 [PMID: 33934039]
  24. Eval Health Prof. 2021 Dec;44(4):406-415 [PMID: 34579583]
  25. BMC Public Health. 2023 May 4;23(1):824 [PMID: 37143022]
  26. PLoS One. 2024 Feb 23;19(2):e0297843 [PMID: 38394265]
  27. Curr Psychol. 2023 Mar 4;:1-15 [PMID: 37359626]
  28. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24): [PMID: 33352940]
  29. Psicothema. 2013;25(2):151-7 [PMID: 23628527]
  30. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 02;18(13): [PMID: 34281059]
  31. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jul 27;20(15): [PMID: 37569004]
  32. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 May 15;20(10): [PMID: 37239554]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0burnoutacademicundergraduatestudentsanalysisBAT-SsampleuniversityvalidityBurnoutAssessmentToolStudentsChileanresultsshowedfactorCFAsupportedimpairmenttoolbriefreportexamineswithin-networkbetween-networkconstruct461709%femaleranging1858���yearsold���=���216SD���=���434reliabilityadequateinternalconsistencyoverallscoredimensionadditionconfirmatorysecond-orderfourfirst-orderfactorsexhaustionmentaldistancecognitiveemotionalsolutionMoreovermultiple-groupgenderinvarianceFinallystructuralequationmodelSEMresourcesdemandsassociatedOverallfoundreliablevalidassesschilean:evidenceassessmentpsychometric

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.