4.3 Article

An Instrument to Operationalize the Balance between Risks and Resources and Predict Job Burnout

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179416

Keywords

job demands; job resources; job satisfaction; job turnover intention; counterproductive behaviors at work; health

Funding

  1. Moodwalk Company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to develop a tool to operationalize the balance between job demands and resources to predict job burnout. Results showed that changes in balance significantly impacted job burnout scores, and were closely related to factors such as job satisfaction, subjective health, and job turnover intention.
The goal of the present paper was to develop a valid and reliable instrument to operationalize the balance between job demands and resources in order to predict job burnout. After generating the items, we first conducted a cross-sectional study (Study 1) based on 656 participants, which provided preliminary evidence for the validity of the balance. We then conducted a longitudinal study (Study 2) based on 882 participants to improve and validate the final version of the balance. In study 1, the (im)balance between risks and resources explained a high percentage of variance in job burnout (44%) and a significant percentage in job turnover intention (27%) as well as subjective health (12%). In study 2, results indicated that a change in the balance produced significant change in job burnout scores over time. In addition, balance scores positively predicted positive outcomes (i.e., overall job satisfaction and subjective health) and negatively predicted negative outcomes (i.e., job turnover intention, counterproductive behaviors at work, depression, alcohol use, sleep disorders and somatic complaints). Findings support the usefulness of the Balance for clinicians, companies and researchers interested in assessing job demands and resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available