A newer and broader definition of burnout: Validation of the "Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire (BCSQ-36)"

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Burnout syndrome has been clinically characterised by a series of three subtypes: frenetic, underchallenged and worn-out, with reference to coping strategies for stress and frustration at work with different degrees of dedication. The aims of the study are to present an operating definition of these subtypes in order to assess their reliability and convergent validity with respect to a standard burnout criterion and to examine differences with regard to sex and the temporary nature of work contracts.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>An exploratory factor analysis was performed by the main component method on a range of items devised by experts. The sample was composed of 409 employees of the University of Zaragoza, Spain. The reliability of the scales was assessed with Cronbach's α, convergent validity in relation to the Maslach Burnout Inventory with Pearson's <it>r</it>, and differences with Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The factorial validity and reliability of the scales were good. The subtypes presented relations of differing degrees with the criterion dimensions, which were greater when dedication to work was lower. The frenetic profile presented fewer relations with the criterion dimensions while the worn-out profile presented relations of the greatest magnitude. Sex was not influential in establishing differences. However, the temporary nature of work contracts was found to have an effect: temporary employees exhibited higher scores in the frenetic profile (<it>p </it>< 0.001), while permanent employees did so in the underchallenged (<it>p </it>= 0.018) and worn-out (<it>p </it>< 0.001) profiles.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The classical Maslach description of burnout does not include the frenetic profile; therefore, these patients are not recognised. The developed questionnaire may be a useful tool for the design and appraisal of specific preventive and treatment approaches based on the type of burnout experienced.</p

Understanding Workaholism: Data Synthesis, Theoretical Critique, and Future Design Strategies

Workaholism involves a personal reluctance to disengage from work, which is evidenced by the tendency to work irrespective of external demands. While the term workaholism has been widely used by the public for over 30 years, scientists are only beginning to explore the behavior in depth. To date, most research has occurred on an ad hoc basis, emerging from a wide variety of paradigms without being explicitly linked to theory. The current article presents three methods for defining workaholism and a précis of relevant measures, then provides an integrated overview of research relating workaholism to individual well-being. Three models implicit in existing workaholism research (addiction, learning, and trait theory) are expounded and critiqued, and four new procedures for researching workaholism are suggested. Finally, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach is proposed as an essential element in encouraging rigorous debate and continued development of workaholism theor

A multifaceted validation study of Spence and Robbins' (1992) Workaholism Battery

Workaholism, an excessive focus on work without apparent economic reason, has been conceptualized by Spence and Robbins (1992) as comprising three dimensions; Work Involvement (WI), Enjoyment (E), and Drive (D). The corresponding measure, the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT; Spence &amp; Robbins, 1992) is widely used in workaholism research. Cluster and factor analyses in the present study of 320 employed participants failed to confirm Spence and Robbins' three-scale model of workaholism: only E and D were apparent (α=.85 and .75, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated by significant correlations between E and job satisfaction (.48), between D and intrinsic job motivation (.39) and with the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-Workaholism scale (E=.27, D=.61). Criterion validity against hours worked was weak (E=.16, D=.22, respectively). Overall, the data endorse Kanai, Wakabayashi, and Fling's (1996) elimination of the Work Involvement factor in favour of a two-factor structure of workaholism