medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3325 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz

2009, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Salud Mental 2009; 32 (3)

Validez factorial del «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo» (CESQT) en una muestra de maestros mexicanos

Gil-Monte PR, Unda RS, Sandoval OJI

Language: Spanish
References: 118
Page: 205-214
PDF size: 161.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Since the term burnout began to be used in the mid 1970’s to refer to the process of deterioration in the care and professional attention given to users of human service organizations (public service, volunteer, medical, human social service, educational organizations, etc.), a variety of instruments have been developed to measure this phenomenon. A review of the literature makes it possible to conclude that among these measurement instruments the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) has been used with the greatest frequency to measure the burnout syndrome, regardless of the occupational characteristics of the sample or the source of the burnout. While the most commonly employed burnout measure has been the MBI, researchers have been troubled by some of the psychometric limitations of this scale: a number of authors have suggested that a three-factor structure might not be appropriate; some items are not associated with their factors; Cronbach’s alpha values are low for the Depersonalization subscale; different versions of the instrument evaluate the same phenomenon, etc. Other instruments used to evaluate burnout (for example Burnout Measure) do not satisfactorily operationalize the definition of the syndrome. The deficiencies in the instruments used for evaluating burnout have led to the development of the «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo» (CESQT) (Spanish Burnout Inventory). The theoretical model underlying the CESQT is based on the concept that burnout is a response to chronic job stress that stems from problematic interpersonal work relationships, and it develops in those individuals who work with people, quite frequently in service sector professionals who are in direct contact with the end-users. It is characterized by cognitive deterioration (loss of enthusiasm toward the job), emotional deterioration, and attitudes and behaviours of indifference, indolence, withdrawal and sometimes, abusive attitudes toward the client. In some cases, feelings of guilt appear. The psychometric model of the CESQT contains twenty items distributed in four dimensions such as: 1. enthusiasm toward the job (five items), defined as the individual’s desire to achieve goals at work because it is a source of personal pleasure; 2. psychological exhaustion (four items), defined as the appearance of emotional and physical exhaustion due to the fact that at work s/he must deal daily with people who present or cause problems; 3. indolence (six items), defined as the appearance of negative attitudes of indifference and cynicism toward the organization’s clients; 4. guilt (five items), defined as the appearance of feelings of guilt for negative attitudes developed on the job, especially toward the people with whom s/he establishes work relationships. The purpose of this study is the validation of the CESQT in Mexican primary education teachers. A four factor model, like that of the original model presented, was hypothesized. Materials and method The sample consisted of 698 primary education public school teachers in the area of Iztapalapa of the Federal District (Iztapalapa, Mexico). With regard to gender, 133 (19.10%) were men and 541 (77.50%) women. In the remaining 24 questionnaires (3.40%) gender was not identified. The mean age was 42.49 years. The «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por Trabajo» was applied, using the version for professionals working in education (CESQT-PE). This instrument contains 20 items distributed into four dimensions called: enthusiasm toward the job (5 items) ( α=.76), psychological exhaustion (4 items) ( α=.82), indolence (6 items) ( α=.73), and guilt (5 items) ( α=.79). Low scores on Enthusiasm toward the job, together with high scores on psychological exhaustion and indolence, as well as on guilt, indicate high levels of burnout. The questionnaire was applied in 51 schools. Results The «corrected item-total correlation» was high for all the items, with values superior to .40. All of the items contributed to increasing the internal consistency of the subscales they were part of. All of the subscales presented Cronbach’s alpha values superior to .70. The factorial model obtained an adequate data fit for the sample: Chi2 (164)=481.01 (p‹.001), AGFI=.91, RMSEA=.055, NNFI=.91, CFI=.92, and ECVI(.60-6.16)=.86. The results confirmed the hypothesis formulated. All of the factorial loadings were significant with high values, superior to .50. All of the relationships between the dimensions of the CESQT were significant for p‹.001. The subscales of the CESQT presented values of skewness and kurtosis within the range of normality, with the exception of Enthusiasm toward the job, which presented asymmetry values outside the range ±1, although the values were not extreme (S=-1.71, K=3.96). The purpose of the study was to analyze the psychometric quality of the CESQT and its subscales in Mexican teachers, in order to evaluate the transnational validity of the instrument. The «corrected item-total correlatio n» values obtained for the items are relatively high, which indicates that each of the dimensions of the CESQT-PE can be considered as a lineal function of the items that make it up. Therefore, all of the items make it possible to adequately predict the score of the scale and distinguish between individuals with high vs. low scores in the respective subscales. The results confirmed the hypothesized factorial structure. The four-factor structure fit the model according to all the fit indices considered, except the Chi-square test, which is an index that depends on sample size and finds a poor model fit with large samples. Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the factorial model adequately reproduces the theoretical model of the CESQT. The final scale is made up of four dimensions that evaluate the cognitive impairment (lack of enthusiasm about the job), emotional and physical deterioration (Psychological exhaustion), and attitudinal deterioration (Indolence), of the individual, together with the appearance of guilt feelings. These results confirm the results obtained in Spain, Chile and Portugal, and in Mexico with a sample of doctors. The Cronbach’s alpha values obtained indicate that the internal consistency is good for the four subscales, and for the entire CESQTPE scale. The skewness and kurtosis values were also good for the subscales, as values inferior to ±1 were obtained, except for the Enthusiasm toward the job subscale. The values obtained for the percentiles recommend using the 90th percentile instead of the 66th to draw conclusions about the individuals with high levels of burnout. The results of the study contribute to the psychometric validation of the theoretical model with four dimensions originating from the questionnaire, and to the transnational validation of the instrument. These results also make it possible to conclude that the CESQT, in its version for education professionals (CESQT-PE), is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating burnout in Mexico. A slight deficiency of the instrument in this study has to do with the skweness value obtained for the Enthusiasm toward the job subscale, although further studies are necessary before conclusions can be drawn about possible modifications. For future work on the validation of the theoretical model of the CESQT and its factorial structure, the recommendations would be: a. to carry out studies that replicate the results obtained with workers from different occupational sectors, paying close attention to the descriptive values of the subscales; b. to carry out studies that contribute to identify the classification criteria of the subjects in the dimensions of the questionnaire, in order to draw conclusions about the prevalence and incidence of burnout, and in this way be able to design intervention plans; c. to carry out longitudinal studies that empirically analyze the antecedents-consequents relationships among the dimensions of the questionnaire, as the theoretical model that underlies the CESQT can provide information and increase understanding about how burnout progresses.


REFERENCES

  1. Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn out. J Soc Issues 1974;30:159–165.

  2. Maslach C, Jackson SE. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual. Palo Alto,

  3. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.

  4. Maslach C, Pines A. The burn-out syndrome in the day care setting.

  5. Child Care Quart 1977;6:100–113.

  6. Edelwich J, Brodsky A. Burn—out: stages of disillusionment in the helping

  7. professions. Nueva York: Human Science Press; 1980.

  8. Pines A, Kafry D. Coping with burnout. En: Jones JW (ed). The Burnout

  9. Syndrome: Current research, theory, interventions. Park Ridge: London

  10. House Press; 1982; p.139–150.

  11. Sandoval J. El estudio de la alteración mental y el trabajo: el síndrome

  12. del trabajador quemado o burnout. Salud Problema 2000;5:51–64.

  13. Gil-Monte PR, Carretero N, Roldán MD, Núñez-Román E. Prevalencia

  14. del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout) en monitores de taller

  15. para personas con discapacidad. Rev Psicol Trab Organ 2005;21:107–123.

  16. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen

  17. Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work

  18. Stress 2005;19:192–207.

  19. Densten IL. Re–thinking burnout. J Organ Behav 2001;22:833–847.

  20. Kalliath TJ, O´Driscoll MP, Gillespie DF, Bluedorn AC. A test of the

  21. Maslach Burnout Inventory in three samples of healthcare professionals.

  22. Work Stress 2000;14:35–50.

  23. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual.

  24. 3rd Ed. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996.

  25. Bouman AM, Brake HT, Hoogstraten J. Significant effects due to rephrasing

  26. the Maslach Burnout Inventory’s personal accomplishment items.

  27. Psychol Rep 2002;91:825–826.

  28. Truchot D, Keirsebilck L, Meyer S. Communal orientation may not buffer

  29. burnout. Psychol Rep 2000;86:872–878.

  30. Peeters MA, Rutte CG. Time management behavior as a moderator for the

  31. job demand–control interaction. J Occup Health Psychol 2005;10:64–75.

  32. Piko BF. Burnout, role conflict, job satisfaction and psychosocial health

  33. among Hungarian health care staff: A questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs

  34. Stud 2006;43:311–318.

  35. Gil-Monte PR. El síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout). Una

  36. enfermedad laboral en la sociedad del bienestar. Madrid: Pirámide; 2005.

  37. Pines A, Aronson E, Kafry D. Burnout: from tedium to personal growth.

  38. Nueva York: Free Press; 1981.

  39. Schaufeli WB, Dierendonck D. The construct validity of two burnout

  40. measures. J Organ Behav 1993;14:631–647.

  41. Gil-Monte PR, Peiró JM. Desgaste psíquico en el trabajo: el síndrome de

  42. quemarse. Madrid: Síntesis; 1997.

  43. Jones JW. The Staff Burnout Scale for health professionals (SBS HP).

  44. Park Ridge: London House; 1980.

  45. Halbesleben JR, Demerouti E. The construct validity of an alternative

  46. measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg

  47. Burnout Inventory. Work Stress 2005;19:208–220.

  48. Gil—Monte PR, García-Juesas JA, Núñez EM, Carretero N, Roldán MD

  49. et al. Validez factorial del «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome

  50. de Quemarse por el Trabajo» (CESQT). Psiquiatria.com 2006;10(3).

  51. Disponible el 15 de septiembre de 2008 en: http://

  52. www.psiquiatria.com/articulos/estres/24872/

  53. Sackmann SA. Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational

  54. knowledge. Admin Sci Quart 1992;37:140–161.

  55. Meliá JL. Teoría de la fiabilidad y de la validez. Valencia: Cristóbal Serrano;

  56. 2000.

  57. Gil-Monte PR. Evaluación psicométrica del síndrome de quemarse por

  58. el trabajo (burnout): el cuestionario «CESQT». En: Garrido J (ed). Power’s

  59. Management. Barcelona: Granica; 2009; en prensa.

  60. Bentler PM. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the

  61. Bulletin. Psychol Bull 1992;112:400–404.

  62. Hoyle RH. The Structural Equation Modeling approach: basic concepts

  63. and fundamental issues. En: Hoyle RH (ed). Structural equation modeling:

  64. Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995;

  65. p.1–15.

  66. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. En:

  67. Bollen KA, Long LS (eds). Testing structural equation models. Newbury

  68. Park,CA: Sage; 1993; p.136–162.

  69. Hair JH, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis.

  70. Cuarta edición. Englewood Cliffs(NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1995.

  71. Byrne BM. Structural aquation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:

  72. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Lawrence

  73. Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

  74. Olivares VE, Gil-Monte PR. Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas

  75. del «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el

  76. Trabajo» (CESQT) en profesionales chilenos. Ansiedad Estrés

  77. 2007;13:229–240.

  78. Henson RK. Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: a

  79. conceptual primer on Coefficient Alpha. Meas Eval Couns Dev

  80. 2001;34:177–189.

  81. Nunnaly NC. Psychometric theory. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

  82. Taris TW, Le Blanc PM, Schaufeli WB, Schreurs PJ. Are there causal relationships

  83. between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory?

  84. A review and two longitudinal tests. Work Stress 2005;19:238–255.

  85. Freudenberger HJ. Staff burn out. J Soc Issues 1974;30:159–165.

  86. Maslach C, Jackson SE. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.

  87. Maslach C, Pines A. The burn-out syndrome in the day care setting. Child Care Quart 1977;6:100–113.

  88. Edelwich J, Brodsky A. Burn—out: stages of disillusionment in the helping professions. Nueva York: Human Science Press; 1980.

  89. Pines A, Kafry D. Coping with burnout. En: Jones JW (ed). The Burnout Syndrome: Current research, theory, interventions. Park Ridge: London House Press; 1982; p.139–150.

  90. Sandoval J. El estudio de la alteración mental y el trabajo: el síndrome del trabajador quemado o burnout. Salud Problema 2000;5:51–64.

  91. Gil-Monte PR, Carretero N, Roldán MD, Núñez-Román E. Prevalencia del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout) en monitores de taller para personas con discapacidad. Rev Psicol Trab Organ 2005;21:107–123.

  92. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress 2005;19:192–207.

  93. Densten IL. Re–thinking burnout. J Organ Behav 2001;22:833–847.

  94. Kalliath TJ, O´Driscoll MP, Gillespie DF, Bluedorn AC. A test of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in three samples of healthcare professionals. Work Stress 2000;14:35–50.

  95. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. 3rd Ed. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996.

  96. Bouman AM, Brake HT, Hoogstraten J. Significant effects due to rephrasing the Maslach Burnout Inventory’s personal accomplishment items. Psychol Rep 2002;91:825–826.

  97. Truchot D, Keirsebilck L, Meyer S. Communal orientation may not buffer burnout. Psychol Rep 2000;86:872–878.

  98. Peeters MA, Rutte CG. Time management behavior as a moderator for the job demand–control interaction. J Occup Health Psychol 2005;10:64–75.

  99. Piko BF. Burnout, role conflict, job satisfaction and psychosocial health among Hungarian health care staff: A questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2006;43:311–318.

  100. Gil-Monte PR. El síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout). Una enfermedad laboral en la sociedad del bienestar. Madrid: Pirámide; 2005.

  101. Pines A, Aronson E, Kafry D. Burnout: from tedium to personal growth. Nueva York: Free Press; 1981.

  102. Schaufeli WB, Dierendonck D. The construct validity of two burnout measures. J Organ Behav 1993;14:631–647.

  103. Gil-Monte PR, Peiró JM. Desgaste psíquico en el trabajo: el síndrome de quemarse. Madrid: Síntesis; 1997.

  104. Jones JW. The Staff Burnout Scale for health professionals (SBS HP). Park Ridge: London House; 1980.

  105. Halbesleben JR, Demerouti E. The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Work Stress 2005;19:208–220.

  106. Gil—Monte PR, García-Juesas JA, Núñez EM, Carretero N, Roldán MD et al. Validez factorial del «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo» (CESQT). Psiquiatria.com 2006;10(3). Disponible el 15 de septiembre de 2008 en: http://www.psiquiatria.com/articulos/estres/24872/

  107. Sackmann SA. Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge. Admin Sci Quart 1992;37:140–161.

  108. Meliá JL. Teoría de la fiabilidad y de la validez. Valencia: Cristóbal Serrano; 2000.

  109. Gil-Monte PR. Evaluación psicométrica del síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout): el cuestionario «CESQT». En: Garrido J (ed). Power’s Management. Barcelona: Granica; 2009; en prensa.

  110. Bentler PM. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychol Bull 1992;112:400–404.

  111. Hoyle RH. The Structural Equation Modeling approach: basic concepts and fundamental issues. En: Hoyle RH (ed). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995; p.1–15.

  112. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. En: Bollen KA, Long LS (eds). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,CA: Sage; 1993; p.136–162.

  113. Hair JH, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. Cuarta edición. Englewood Cliffs(NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1995.

  114. Byrne BM. Structural aquation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

  115. Olivares VE, Gil-Monte PR. Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del «Cuestionario para la Evaluación del Síndrome de Quemarse por el Trabajo» (CESQT) en profesionales chilenos. Ansiedad Estrés 2007;13:229–240.

  116. Henson RK. Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: a conceptual primer on Coefficient Alpha. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2001;34:177–189.

  117. Nunnaly NC. Psychometric theory. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

  118. Taris TW, Le Blanc PM, Schaufeli WB, Schreurs PJ. Are there causal relationships between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory? A review and two longitudinal tests. Work Stress 2005;19:238–255.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com