4.4 Article

Is Burnout a Depressive Condition? A 14-Sample Meta-Analytic and Bifactor Analytic Study

期刊

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 579-597

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2167702620979597

关键词

burnout; depression; meta-analysis; bifactor analysis; occupational health

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P1_179937/1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P1_179937] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is ongoing debate regarding whether burnout overlaps with depression, but research shows a closer association between exhaustion and depressive symptoms, raising concerns about discriminant validity. The consistency of findings across countries, languages, and occupations suggests a problematic overlap between burnout and depression, urging a shift towards research beyond the burnout construct.
There is no consensus on whether burnout constitutes a depressive condition or an original entity requiring specific medical and legal recognition. In this study, we examined burnout-depression overlap using 14 samples of individuals from various countries and occupational domains (N = 12,417). Meta-analytically pooled disattenuated correlations indicated (a) that exhaustion-burnout's core-is more closely associated with depressive symptoms than with the other putative dimensions of burnout (detachment and efficacy) and (b) that the exhaustion-depression association is problematically strong from a discriminant validity standpoint (r = .80). The overlap of burnout's core dimension with depression was further illuminated in 14 exploratory structural equation modeling bifactor analyses. Given their consistency across countries, languages, occupations, measures, and methods, our results offer a solid base of evidence in support of the view that burnout problematically overlaps with depression. We conclude by outlining avenues of research that depart from the use of the burnout construct.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据