Abstract
This brief report assessed the psychometric validity and gender invariance of the School Burnout Inventory (SBI) –a measure of students’ exhaustion, cynicism, and inadequacy– in a convenience sample of 972 high school Chilean students ranging between 12 and 18 years old. The results showed that: (1) the SBI produces adequate scores in terms of reliability; (2) two models (one solution of three related factors and one of second-order and three first-order factors) fitted adequately fit to our sample and was invariant across gender; and (3) the SBI scores were significantly related to other related constructs (i.e., study-related emotions, academic psychological capital, and academic engagement). Overall, the SBI was found to be a reliable and valid inventory to assess school burnout in Chilean high school students.
Introduction
The term burnout was first used in the late 70s to describe a state of exhaustion associated with human services professionals (Maslach and Jackson, 1981; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Sakakibara et al., 2020). However, in the following years, this construct has become a social and scientific topic of great attention due to its extension to other domains, including students, and its impact on mental and physical health, achievement, and subsequent academic career (Fiorilli et al., 2014; Walburg, 2014; Walburg et al., 2016; Gabola et al., 2021). In this line, school burnout describes those students’ who experience emotional exhaustion –characterized by feelings of strain and chronic fatigue resulting from overtaxing schoolwork, cynicism –characterized by an indifferent or a distal attitude toward schoolwork in general, a loss of interest in one’s academic work, and not seeing it as meaningful, and sense of inadequacy –diminished feelings of competence and less achievement, and lack of accomplishment both in one’s schoolwork and in school as a whole (Kiuru et al., 2008; Salmela-Aro et al., 2008, 2009b; Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2014; Salmela-Aro, 2016; Salmela-Aro and Read, 2017).
Currently, we know that school burnout is directly related to school dropout (Bask and Salmela-Aro, 2013), boredom and neuroticism (Sulea et al., 2015), academic anxiety (Fiorilli et al., 2020), depressive symptoms (Moyano and Riaño-Hernández, 2013; Ponkosonsirilert et al., 2020), and suicidal ideas (Walburg et al., 2016). Conversely, it is inversely related to schoolwork engagement (Bresó et al., 2011; Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012), basic psychological needs (Sulea et al., 2015), well-being (Raiziene et al., 2013), and achievement (May et al., 2015; Gungor, 2019). Also, it has been found, based on the demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), that study demands (e.g., schoolwork overload), and study resources (e.g., hope, efficacy, resilience, optimism) promote and prevent their appearance, respectively (Salanova et al., 2010; Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2014; Gungor, 2019; Romano et al., 2021).
Research on the field has mostly been carried out using the School Burnout Inventory (SBI) developed by Salmela-Aro et al. (2009a). The SBI was initially validated in a Finnish context, demonstrating that school burnout can be explained both as a solution of three correlated factors (i.e., exhaustion, cynicism, and inadequacy) and by a second-order structure (i.e., school burnout) and three first-order factors (i.e., exhaustion, cynicism, and inadequacy). In the following years, the SBI has been validated in a few European and North American contexts (Spain–Moyano and Riaño-Hernández, 2013; Turkey–Secer et al., 2013; Italy–Fiorilli et al., 2014; France–Meylan et al., 2015; Switzerland–Gabola et al., 2021; Mexico–Osorio et al., 2019; and United States–May et al., 2020). Although the research mentioned above has led to significant advances in the study of school burnout, more research is warranted to assess the cross-cultural applicability of the SBI, especially in South American countries in which, to the best of our knowledge, no psychometric analyses have been conducted.
The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the SBI in a convenience sample of high school Chilean students. For this, we will follow a within-network and between-network construct validity. The first refers to assessing reliability, factor structure, and gender invariance, while the second refers to assessing the extent to which school burnout is associated with theoretically related constructs. In this line, we have selected three constructs that have been shown to play an important role in predicting school burnout. First, study-related emotions (e.g., Burr and Dallaghan, 2019; De la Fuente et al., 2020) are defined as those emotions that emerge in the educational environment and which relate to learning, achievement, and instructional processes that take place in the school (Pekrun et al., 2002). Second, academic psychological capital (e.g., Lupşa and Vîrgã, 2020; Vîrgã et al., 2020), defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development, characterized by hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2015). Third, academic engagement (e.g., Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012; Sulea et al., 2015), defined as a positive, fulfilling, study-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Based on the arguments presented, we hypothesize the following: The SBI will demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties in a Chilean sample of high school students. Also, we expect SBI scores to be direct and significantly related to study-related negative emotions, and inversely and significantly related to study-related positive emotions, academic psychological capital, and academic engagement. Together, the three constructs predict a significant percentage of the variance of school burnout.
Materials and Methods
Participants
Nine hundred and seventy-two Chilean high school students (51% girls) in grades 5–12 (i.e., 12–18 years old, M = 14.41, SD = 1.635) participated in the study. They came from three different schools (each of them hosted approximately 550 students) located in two northern regions of the country (Arica y Parinacota and Tarapacá). Of 972 students, 16% were 12 years old, 17% were 13 years old, 17% were 14 years old, 20% were 15 years old, 19% were 16 years old, 8% were 17 years old, and 3% were 18 years old. In addition, 12% correspond to low, 81% to medium, and 7% to high socioeconomic levels.
Instrument
The SBI is a nine-item self-report scale grouped into three subscales: exhaustion at school (four items), cynicism toward the meaning of school (three items), and sense of inadequacy at school (two items). All items are scored on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree).
Study–related emotions were measured using 12 items corresponding to two scales of positive (i.e., excited, energetic, inspired, at ease, relaxed, and satisfied) and negative (i.e., angry, anxious, disgusted, fatigued, discouraged, gloomy) emotions from the Job–related Affective Well–being Scale (Van Katwyk et al., 2000) adapted to the academic context (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019a). Students answered using a Likert–type with scores from 1 (never) to 5 (always), reflecting how they feel about their studies (for example, “my studies make me feel at ease” and “my studies make me feel anxious”). Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for core study–related positive emotions were 0.736 and 0.734, respectively, and 0.713 and 0.718 for core study–related negative emotions.
Academic psychological capital was measured using the Academic Psychological Capital Questionnaire 12 (APCQ–12; Martínez et al., 2021). The APCQ–12 measure the four dimensions of the psychological capital construct –hope (four items; for example, “Right now I see myself as being pretty successful in my studies”), efficacy (three items; for example, “I feel sure when sharing information about my studies with other people”), resilience (three items; for example, “I usually take the stressful aspects of my studies in stride”), and optimism (two items; for example, “concerning my studies, I’m optimistic about what the future offers me”)– using a Likert–type scale with scores from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for core academic psychological capital were 0.834 and 0.837, respectively.
Academic engagement was measured using the student version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES–9, Schaufeli et al., 2006) adapted to the Chilean context (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019b). The UWES measure the three dimensions of the academic engagement construct – vigor (three items; for example, “When I’m doing my work as a student, I feel bursting with energy”), dedication (three items; for example, “My studies inspire me”), and absorption (three items; for example, “I feel happy when I am studying intensely”)– using a Likert–type scale with scores from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for core academic engagement were 0.852 and 0.855, respectively.
Procedure
The ethics committee of Universidad de Tarapacá approved the research project. The participants voluntarily filled out an online questionnaire during their usual class schedule. For the purposes of this study, a Spanish SBI version was developed following the International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation (Muñiz et al., 2013). Prior to general data collection, the SBI items were piloted on a small sample (n = 12) of high school students to find difficulties in understanding the translated and adapted version of the inventory. At this stage, no students reported difficulties in understanding the items. Sampling was non-probabilistic by convenience (Ato et al., 2013) and no participant was removed from dataset.
Statistical Analyses
All data analyses were conducted using Jamovi 1.2 (The Jamovi Project, 2020) and Mplus 8.2 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998). For preliminary analysis, descriptive statistics, normality tests, and gender differences were tested. For reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients, corrected homogeneity index, and test-retest (with a time lag of four-month) index were calculated. For evidence of validity based on the internal structure, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was realized, using the Robust Maximum Likelihood (RML) estimation method. In addition, gender invariance through multi-group CFA and three levels of equivalence were assessed (i.e., configural invariance, metric invariance, and scalar invariance) using changes in CFI and Standard Root Mean Residual (SRMR; Δ < 0.010) as criteria for determining whether measurement invariance was established (Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Chen, 2007; Dimitrov, 2010). Schreiber (2017) recommendations were used to help evaluate the cut-off and determine model fit for the following indicators: chi-squared (χ2) and normed χ2, root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) with a confidence interval (90% CI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and SRMR. Finally, to examine criterion validity of SBI, we conducted both correlation and regression analysis between school burnout, study–related (positive and negative) emotions, academic psychological capital (i.e., hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism), and academic engagement (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption).
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the SBI at item levels. Independent sample t-test revealed that there are not statistical significance differences between boys’ (M = 3.309, SD = 0.949) and girls’ (M = 3.354, SD = 0.960) SBI scores [t (970) = 0.728, p > 0.05, d = 0.047, 95% IC (-0.165,0.076)].
TABLE 1
| Descriptive statistics | |||||
| Mean (SD) | S | K | Shapiro-Wilk (p) | Corrected homogeneity index | |
| 1. I feel overwhelmed by my schoolwork. | 3.84 (1.37) | –0.16 | −0.77 | 0.93 (> 0.001) | 0.39 |
| 2. I feel a lack of motivation in my schoolwork and often think of giving up. | 3.24 (1.67) | 0.12 | −1.21 | 0.90 (> 0.001) | 0.56 |
| 3. I often have feelings of inadequacy in my schoolwork. | 3.11 (1.35) | 0.16 | −0.58 | 0.93 (> 0.001) | 0.56 |
| 4. I often sleep badly because of matters related to my schoolwork. | 3.38 (1.74) | 0.04 | −1.31 | 0.89 (> 0.001) | 0.51 |
| 5. I feel that I am losing interest in my schoolwork. | 2.89 (1.58) | 0.46 | −0.92 | 0.89 (> 0.001) | 0.58 |
| 6. I’m continually wondering whether my schoolwork has any meaning. | 3.57 (1.73) | –0.08 | −1.30 | 0.90 (> 0.001) | 0.43 |
| 7. I brood over matters related to my schoolwork a lot during my free time. | 3.29 (1.42) | 0.25 | −0.67 | 0.92 (> 0.001) | 0.10 |
| 8. I used to have higher expectations of my schoolwork than I do now. | 3.66 (1.65) | –0.12 | −1.14 | 0.91(> 0.001) | 0.48 |
| 9. The pressure of my schoolwork causes me problems in my close relationships with others. | 3.02 (1.71) | 0.31 | −1.20 | 0.88 (> 0.001) | 0.54 |
Descriptive information of the school burnout inventory.
SD = Standard Deviation; S = Skewness; K = Kurtosis.
Within-Network Construct Validation
Considering the corrected homogeneity index, it seems convenient to eliminate item seven (see Table 1). Thus, this item was excluded from further analyses. The SBI showed good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega indexes of 0.776 and 0.787, respectively. In addition, internal consistency for each dimension were at least sufficient in both exhaustion (ω = 0.65; α = 0.64) and cynicism (ω = 0.70; α = 0.67) dimensions, although slightly lower in the case of inadequacy dimension (ω = 0.52; α = 0.51).
According to previous research on the evidence of the validity of the SBI (e.g., Salmela-Aro et al., 2009a), three models were examined, namely, one that assumes that there is one latent factor underlying all the SBI items (M1), one that proposes three related factors (M2), and one that explains three first-order factors by a second-order factor (M3). The results of the CFA show that M2 and M3 showed an adequate fit (see Table 2 and Figure 1). The multiple-group CFA shows that the differences in the CFI and SRMR across the three invariance models (i.e., configural, metric, and scalar) were lower than .01, which indicates gender invariance (see Table 2). Finally, in terms of test-retest reliability (n = 775), the total SBI score shows a correlation of 0.597, while its dimensions reach similar values: exhaustion (r = 0.541; p < 0.001), cynicism (r = 0.548; p < 0.001), inadequacy (r = 0.501; p < 0.001).
TABLE 2
| χ2 | df | χ2/df | RMSEA | 90% CI | CFI | TLI | SRMR | CMs | Δ CFI | Δ SRMR | |
| Single–group CFA | |||||||||||
| M1 One factor | 181.42 | 20 | 9.071 | 0.091 | [0.079,0.104] | 0.898 | 0.857 | 0.049 | – | – | – |
| M2 Three–factors | 75.456 | 17 | 4.438 | 0.059 | [0.046,0.073] | 0.963 | 0.939 | 0.030 | – | – | – |
| M3 Second order factor | 75.457 | 17 | 4.438 | 0.059 | [0.046,0.073] | 0.963 | 0.939 | 0.030 | – | – | – |
| Multiple–group CFA | |||||||||||
| M4 Configural invariance | 141.64 | 34 | 4.165 | 0.081 | [0.067,0.095] | 0.975 | 0.958 | 0.027 | – | – | – |
| M5 Metric invariance | 141.55 | 39 | 3.629 | 0.074 | [0.061,0.087] | 0.976 | 0.965 | 0.028 | M4–M5 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| M6 Scalar invariance | 159.50 | 68 | 2.345 | 0.053 | [0.042,0.063] | 0.978 | 0.982 | 0.030 | M5–M6 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Fit indexes for single–group and multiple–group CFA of the school burnout inventory.
χ2 = Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = 90% Confidence Interval; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; CMs = Comparisons between models.
FIGURE 1
Between-Network Construct Validation
As shown in Table 3, our results showed that school burnout was significant –and in the expected direction– related with all assessed constructs. In addition, they predict a substantial percentage (29.10%) of the school burnout variance measured with the SBI.
TABLE 3
| Pearson’s correlation indices | Linear regression indices | ||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | R2 | F | β | βstd | t | |
| 1. School burnout | – | 0.291 | 99.206 | ||||||
| 2. Study–related positive emotions | −0.284* | – | 0.037 | 0.026ns | 0.624 | ||||
| 3. Study–related negative emotions | 0.485* | −0.275* | – | 0.633 | 0.396* | 13.661 | |||
| 4. Academic psychological capital | −0.349* | 0.619* | −0.296* | – | –0.157 | −0.146* | –3.852 | ||
| 5. Academic engagement | −0.368* | 0.742* | −0.352* | 0.677* | –0.123 | −0.149* | –3.304 | ||
Correlations and regression analysis.
*p < 0.001; ns = non-significant.
Discussion
The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the SBI in a convenience sample of high school Chilean students to offer a potential contribution to the school burnout literature.
First, our results suggest that both the three–factors solution and second–order factor of SBI was applicable for high school Chilean students and comparable across gender, which is coherent with previous research (Salmela-Aro et al., 2009a; Moyano and Riaño-Hernández, 2013; Secer et al., 2013; Fiorilli et al., 2014; Meylan et al., 2015; Osorio et al., 2019; May et al., 2020). In addition, reliability analysis, based on Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega indexes, indicated good internal consistency, whereas the test–retest index shows a moderated relation over a time of four months.
Second, our results suggest that the SBI score relates to other theoretically linked variables to the school burnout construct. In this line, students with high levels of exhaustion, cynicism, and inadequacy, on the one hand, are more likely to experience a high frequency of student–related negative emotions (i.e., angry, anxious, disgusted, fatigued, discouraged, and gloomy), and, on the other hand, a low frequency of study–related positive emotions (i.e., excited, energetic, inspired, at ease, relaxed, and satisfied). In addition, they will also report lower levels of academic, personal resources –measured in terms of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism (i.e., psychological capital)– and academic well–being –measured in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption (i.e., academic engagement)– which is coherent with previous studies (Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012; Raiziene et al., 2013; Burr and Dallaghan, 2019; Gungor, 2019; Fiorilli et al., 2020; Romano et al., 2021).
Third, our study has some important strengths, such as the large sample used, considering both within-network and between-network approaches, and analyzing the temporal stability of the SBI. However, as a limitation, we can mention that we did not obtain representative data from high school Chilean students; thus, the generalization of the results should be made with caution. Additionally, we use only self–report measures without considering other sources of information (e.g., teachers’reports or grade point average).
Finally, future research can expand our results to other student segments (e.g., undergraduate university students), use samples from different South American countries, and propose cut-off criteria for low, medium, and high levels of school burnout.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Comité Ético Científico of the Universidad de Tarapacá. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
All authors contributed equally to the research design and wrote the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by Universidad de Tarapacá, Chile (UTA Mayor Award Number 3764–20).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AtoM.López-GarcíaJ.BenaventeA. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología.Anales de Psicología291038–1059. 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
2
BakkerA. B.DemeroutiE. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.J. Manag. Psychol.22309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115
3
BaskM.Salmela-AroK. (2013). Burned out to drop out: Exploring the relationship between school burnout and school dropout.Eur. J. Psychol. Edu.28511–528. 10.1007/s10212-012-0126-5
4
BresóE.SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM. (2011). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study.High. Edu.61339–355. 10.1007/s10734-010-9334-6
5
BurrJ.DallaghanG. L. B. (2019). The relationship of emotions and burnout to medical students’ academic performance.Teach. Learn. Med.2019:237. 10.1080/10401334.2019.1613237
6
Carmona-HaltyM.SalanovaM.LlorensS.SchaufeliW. B. (2019a). How psychological capital mediates between study-related positive emotions and academic performance.J. Hap. Stud.20605–617. 10.1007/s10902-018-9963-5
7
Carmona-HaltyM.SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM. (2019b). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES–9S): psychometric properties and measurement invariance in a Chilean sample of undergraduate university students.Front. Psychol.10:1017. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01017
8
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.Struct. Equ. Model. Multidis. J.14464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834
9
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.Struct. Equ. Model.9233–255. 10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
10
De la FuenteJ.PaoloniP. V.Vera-MartinezM. M.GarzonUmerenkovaA. (2020). Effects of levels of self-regulation and situational stress on achievement emotions in undergraduate students: class, study, and testing.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:4293. 10.3390/ijerph17124293
11
DemeroutiE.BakkerA. B.NachreinerF.SchaufeliW. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout.J. Appl. Psychol.86499–512. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
12
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation.Measur. Eval. Counsel. Dev.43121–149. 10.1177/0748175610373459
13
FiorilliC.FarinaE.BuonomoI.CostaS.RomanoL.LarcanR.et al (2020). Trait emotional intelligence and school burnout: The mediating role of resilience and academic anxiety in high school.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health17:3058. 10.3390/ijerph17093058
14
FiorilliC.GalimbertiV.De StasioS.Di ChiacchioC.AlbaneseO. (2014). L’utilizzazione dello School Burnout Inventory (SBI) con student italiani di scuola superior di primo e secondo grado.Psicologia Clinica Dello Sviluppo18403–423. 10.1449/78365
15
GabolaP.MeylanN.HoscoëtM.De StasioS.FiorilliC. (2021). Adolescents’ school burnout: a comparative study between Italy and Switzerland.Eur. J. Invest. Health Psychol. Edu.11849–859. 10.3390/ejihpe11030062
16
GungorA. (2019). Investigating the relationship between social support and school burnout in Turkish middle school students: the mediating role of hope.Sch. Psychol. Int.40581–597. 10.1177/0143034319866492
17
KiuruN.AunolaK.NurmiJ. E.LeskinenE.Salmela-AroK. (2008). Peer group influence and selection in adolescents’ school burnout: A longitudinal study.Merril-Palmer Quart.5423–55. 10.1353/mpq.2008.0008
18
LupşaD.VîrgãD. (2020). Psychological capital, health, and performance: The mediating role of burnout.Psihologia Resurselor Umane187–22. 10.24837/pru.v18i1.458
19
LuthansF.Youssef-MorganC. M.AvolioB. (2015). Psychological Capital and Beyond.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20
MartínezI. M.MeneghelI.Carmona-HaltyM.Yousef-MorganC. (2021). Adaptation and validation to spanish of the psychological capital questionnaire – 12 (PCQ–12) in academic contexts.Curr. Psychol.403409–3416. 10.1007/s12144-019-00276-z
21
MaslachC.JacksonS. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.J. Org. Behav.299–133. 10.1002/job.4030020205
22
MaslachC.SchaufeliW. B.LeiterM. P. (2001). Job burnout.Ann. Rev. Psychol.52397–422. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
23
MayR. W.BauerK. N.FinchamF. D. (2015). School burnout: Diminished academic and cognitive performance.Learn. Ind. Diff.42126–131. 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.015
24
MayR. W.BauerK. N.SeibertG. S.JaurequiM. E.FinchamF. D. (2020). School burnout is related to sleep quality and perseverative cognition regulation at bedtime in young adults.Learn. Ind. Diff.78:101821. 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101821
25
MeylanN.DoudinP. A.AntoniettiJ. P.StephanP. (2015). School Burnout Inventory: a French validation.Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol.65285–293. 10.1016/j.erap.2015.10.002
26
MoyanoN.Riaño-HernándezD. (2013). Burnout in spanish adolescents: adaptation and validation of the school burnout inventory.Ansiedad Estrés1995–103. 10.1186/1472-6920-11-103
27
MuñizJ.ElosuaP.HambletonR. K. (2013). International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaption: Second edition.Psicothema25151–157. 10.7334/psicothema2013.24
28
MuthénL.MuthénB. (1998). Mplus User’s Guide (8th Edition).Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
29
OsorioM.PradoC.ParrelloS.BazánG. (2019). Psychometric characteristics and factor structure of the School Burnout Inventory in Mexican university Students.Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación2141–150. 10.21865/RIDEP55.2.10
30
PekrunR.GoetzT.TitzW. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.Edu. Psychol.3791–115. 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
31
PonkosonsirilertT.LaemsakO.PisitsungkagarnK.JarukasemthaweeS.AudboonS.LeangsuksantT. (2020). Stress, self-compassion, and school burnout in Thai high school students.Int. J. Adol. Med. Health2020:109. 10.1515/ijamh-2020-0109
32
RaizieneS.Pilkauskaite-ValickieneR.ZukauskieneR. (2013). School burnout and subjective well-being: Evidence from cross-lagged relations in a 1 year longitudinal sample.Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci.1163254–3258. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.743
33
RomanoL.ConsiglioP.AngeliniG.FiorilliC. (2021). Between academic resilience and burnout: The moderating role of satisfaction on school context relationships.Eur. J. Invest. Health Psychol. Edu.11770–780. 10.3390/ejihpe11030055
34
SakakibaraK.ShimazuA.ToyamaH.SchaufeliW. B. (2020). Validation of the japanese version of the burnout assessment tool.Front. Psychol.11:1819. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01819
35
SalanovaM.SchaufeliW. B.MartinezI.BresóE. (2010). How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: the mediating role of study burnout and engagement.Anx. Stress Cop.2353–70. 10.1080/10615800802609965
36
Salmela-AroK. (2016). Dark and bright sides of thriving – school burnout and engagement in the Finnish context.Eur. J. Dev. Psychol.2016:517. 10.1080/17405629.2016.1207517
37
Salmela-AroK.ReadS. (2017). Study engagement and burnout profiles among Finnish higher education students.Burnout Res.721–28. 10.1016/j.burn.2017.11.001
38
Salmela-AroK.UpadyayaK. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory.Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.2860–67. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000091
39
Salmela-AroK.UpadyayaK. (2014). School burnout and engagement in the context of demands-resources model.Br. J. Edu. Psychol.84137–151. 10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.12
40
Salmela-AroK.KiuruN.PietikäinenM.JokelaJ. (2008). Does school matter? The role of school context in adolescents’ school-related burnout.Eur. Psychol.1312–23.
41
Salmela-AroK.SavolainenH.HolopainenL. (2009b). Depressive symptoms and school burnout during adolescence: evidence from two cross-lagged longitudinal studies.J. Youth Adol.381316–1327. 10.1007/s10964-008-9334-3
42
Salmela-AroK.KiuruN.LeskinenE.NurmiJ. E. (2009a). School burnout inventory (SBI): reliability and validity.Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.2548–57. 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48
43
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study.J. Org. Behav.25293–299. 10.1002/job.248
44
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measures of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.Edu. Psychol. Measur.66701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471
45
SchaufeliW. B.MartínezI.Marques PintoA.SalanovaM.BakkerA. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study.J. Cross-Cultural Psychol.33464–481. 10.1177/0022022102033005003
46
SchreiberJ. B. (2017). Update to core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm.13, 634–643. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.06.006
47
SecerI.HalmatovS.VeyisF.AtesB. (2013). Adapting school burnout inventory to turkish culture: study of validity and reliability.Turk. J. Edu.213–24.
48
SuleaC.van BeekI.SarbescuP.VirgaD.SchaufeliW. B. (2015). Engagement, boredom, and burnout among students: Basic need satisfaction matters more than personality traits.Learn. Ind. Diff.42132–138.
49
The Jamovi Project (2020). Jamovi (version 1.8.1) [Computer Software]. Available online at: https://www.jamovi.org. [accessed 5 April 2021]
50
Van KatwykP. T.FoxS.SpectorP. E.KellowayE. K. (2000). Using the Job– related Affective Well–being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors.J. Occup. Health Psychol.5219–230. 10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
51
VîrgãD.PattusamyM.KumarD. P. (2020). How psychological capital is related to academic performance, burnout, and boredom? The mediating role of study engagement.Curr. Psychol.2020:9. 10.1007/s12144-020-01162-9
52
WalburgV. (2014). Burnout among high school students: A literature review.Child. Youth Serv. Rev.4228–33. 10.1016/j.chilyouth.2014.03.020
53
WalburgV.MialhesA.MonclaD. (2016). Does school-related burnout influence problematic Facebook use?Child. Youth Serv. Rev.61327–331. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.01.009
Summary
Keywords
school burnout, psychometric analyses, high school students, Chilean students, gender invariance
Citation
Carmona-Halty M, Mena-Chamorro P, Sepúlveda-Páez G and Ferrer-Urbina R (2022) School Burnout Inventory: Factorial Validity, Reliability, and Measurement Invariance in a Chilean Sample of High School Students. Front. Psychol. 12:774703. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.774703
Received
12 September 2021
Accepted
22 November 2021
Published
04 January 2022
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Victor Zaia, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Brazil
Reviewed by
Katja Upadyaya, University of Helsinki, Finland; İsmail Seçer, Atatürk University, Turkey
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Carmona-Halty, Mena-Chamorro, Sepúlveda-Páez and Ferrer-Urbina.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marcos Carmona-Halty, mcarmonah@academicos.uta.cl
This article was submitted to Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.