Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review
, and 
Orcid profile
Irina Guseva Canu
University of Lausanne Centre of Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté)Lausanne, Switzerland
Orcid profileSearch for this author on
Dec 29, 2023
About this article
Article Category: Original article
Published Online: Dec 29, 2023
Page range: 238 - 245
Received: Aug 01, 2023
Accepted: Nov 01, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aiht-2023-74-3769
Keywords
© 2023 Yara Shoman et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
PROM description, initial validation, and validity of statistical analysis
| Authors | Shirom and Melamed | Schaufeli, Desart, and De Witte |
| Aim | Screening for employees at risk of burnout | Screening for employees at risk of burnout |
| Year of publication | 2003 | 2020 |
| Country | Israel | Belgium |
| Language of original version | Hebrew and English | Flemish Dutch and English |
| Population | Working population | Working population |
| Dimensions (Number of items) | Physical fatigue (6) | Exhaustion (8) |
| Cognitive weariness (5) | Mental distance (5) | |
| Emotional exhaustion (3) | Cognitive impairment (5) | |
| Emotional impairment (5) | ||
| Number of analysed articles | 7 | 3 |
| Number of psychometric prosperities assessed by these articles | 6/11 | 9/11 |
| Face validity | - | 1 |
| Content validity | - | 1 |
| Predictive validity | 5 | - |
| Concurrent validity | - | - |
| Convergent validity | 1 | 1 |
| Discriminant validity | 2 | 1 |
| Exploratory factorial validity | - | 2 |
| Confirmatory factorial validity | 1 | 2 |
| Stability | 4 | 1 |
| Homogeneity | 7 | 3 |
| Sensitivity | - | 1 |
| Complete agreement | 6/7 | 1/3 |
| Partial agreement | 1/7 | 2/3 |
| Disagreement | 0/7 | 0/3 |
Comparison of the two burnout PROMs against the COSMIN guidelines
| Content validity | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
| Relevance | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
| Comprehensiveness | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
| Comprehensibility | − | Very low | + | Moderate/Low |
| Structural validity | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
| Internal consistency | + | Moderate | + | High |
| Reliability | + | Low | + | Low |
| Measurement error | ? | Very low | − | Low |
| Criterion validity | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
| Construct validity | + | High | + | Moderate |
| Responsiveness | ? | Very low | ? | Very low |