Intersectionality burnout inventory

Abstract

Introduction:

Burnout research has emphasized generic job stressors while giving limited attention to how intersectional identities and environmental context jointly shape burnout risk. This study develops and validates the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory (IBI): A positively worded instrument assessing burnout risk across factors of environment and purpose, intersectionality and identity, and emotional capacity.

Methods:

An IRB-approved, four-phase design combined qualitative and quantitative methods: Expert content validation (Phase I), focus groups emphasizing intersectionality and environment (Phase II), dimensionality testing via parallel analysis and EFA (Phase III; N = 340 MTurk employees), and CFA with construct validation (Phase IV; N = 227 employees at a U.S. health and wellbeing organization).

Results:

EFA supported a three factor, 40 item structure explaining 52.26% of variance. CFA indicated acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.07; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.87). After removing underperforming items, the final 31 item IBI showed strong internal consistency (α = 0.89 overall; subscales α = 0.83–0.90). Convergent and predictive validity were supported: Negative correlations with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (r = −0.64) and the Burnout Assessment Tool (r = −0.60), positive correlation with psychological wellbeing (r = 0.43), and negative correlation with turnover intentions (r = −0.47), all p < 0.001. Participants also reported that fully positive wording enhanced clarity and psychological safety.

Discussion:

By integrating intersectionality and environmental context with established burnout dimensions consistent with Job Demands–Resources, Conservation of Resources, and stress-appraisal perspectives the IBI offers a psychometrically sound, practically useful diagnostic for multilevel burnout risk and targeted intervention.

1 Introduction

Since Freudenberger (1974) initially described burnout as the consequence of “excessive demand on energy, strength, and resources” (p. 159), scholarship on burnout has expanded substantially. Over the past five decades, researchers have developed a range of validated conceptual models and measurement tools that converge on burnout as multidimensional, work related syndrome. Contemporary definitions typically emphasize three interrelated components: (1) emotional exhaustion or loss of interest in work, (2) depersonalization, or the frustration with feeling ineffective, and (3) cynicism, or the tendency to see people as objects rather than humans (Lawrence et al., 2021; Maslach and Leiter, 2016; Maslach et al., 1997; Maslach and Jackson, 1981). These elements are most commonly assessed using instruments such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory and its subsequent adaptations.

A significant conceptual shift occurred in 2019 when the World Health Organization reclassified burnout as an occupational phenomenon rather than a medical condition (World Health Organization, 2019; Moss, 2019). Consequently, contemporary research increasingly situates burnout not only as an individual experience but also as an outcome shaped by organizational design and leadership practices.

Foundational organizational theories provide complementary perspectives on mechanisms that give rise to burnout as (a) a chronic imbalance in which job demands exceed job resources (the Job-Demand-Resource (JD-R) model; Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), (b) as a loss spiral of valued resources (Conservation of Resources (COR) theory; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018), and (c) a product of threat appraisals that outstrip coping resources (Stress-Appraisal Theory; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Taken together, these frameworks highlight that burnout emerges through dynamic interactions among job conditions, resource availability, and individual appraisals of challenge and threat.

Traditional definitions and operationalization of burnout focus on symptoms and consequences of burnout such as the exhaustion, depersonalization, and the low levels of personal accomplishment one may experience (Lawrence et al., 2021; Maslach and Leiter, 2016; Maslach et al., 1997). Despite theoretical and measurement advances, the widely used instruments such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, and Burnout Assessment Tool that reliably capture symptoms (Maslach et al., 1996, 1997; Demerouti and Bakker, 2008; Kristensen et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2020) rarely assess intersectionality or environmental risk directly.

To address these gaps, we created and tested the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory (IBI). The IBI assesses environment and purpose, intersectionality and identity, and emotional capacity using positively worded items. The IBI is designed as a psychologically and organizationally attuned measure that supports targeted interventions at the individual, team, and system levels based on a burnout framework grounded in a multidisciplinary perspective exploring and measuring burnout risk from a intersectionality–environmental–neurocognitive conceptual framework.

Specifically, this study aims to expand the burnout conversation to include intersectionality and environmental influences as meaningful drivers of burnout. The aim of our research is to develop and validate an instrument that positively and holistically assesses burnout risk to enable understanding of pervasive burnout risk factors that look beyond the workplace-specific factors and account for environmental and intersectionality-related contributors.

1.1 Theoretical foundations for understanding burnout risk

1.1.1 Intersectionality and chronic social threat

The job demands-resource (JD-R) model positions burnout as the chronic imbalance between high job demands and insufficient resources (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Conservation of Resources (COR) theory builds on this by explaining that resource loss, including energy, status, and relational support, produces disproportionately harmful effects and sets into motion self-reinforcing loss spirals (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Stress-appraisal theory further clarifies that individuals respond differently to similar environmental conditions depending on how they evaluate threat, control, and coping resources (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Together, these frameworks show that burnout risk can vary significantly depending on who faces which demands, under what conditions, and with what support.

Intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) deepens this understanding by illustrating how social identities, including race, gender, sexuality, disability, and nationality, shape exposure to inequitable systems and everyday interpersonal stressors (Crenshaw, 1989; Sue et al., 2007). Research in organizational science shows that individuals with marginalized or underrepresented identities experience higher rates of microaggressions, everyday discrimination, tokenism and representation burden (Kanter, 1977; Roberts et al., 2019), stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson, 1995), and racial battle fatigue (Smith et al., 2008). These stressors predict elevated psychological distress, diminished belonging, and burnout symptoms across multiple meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Schilpzand et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2021a,b; Triana et al., 2015).

Work on code-switching and masking also demonstrates that identity management demands increase vigilance and emotional exhaustion among Black, Indigenous, and other radicalized or marginalized professionals (Dickens et al., 2020; McCluney et al., 2019). Reports from the National Academies emphasize that a lack of psychological safety and the need for continuous self-monitoring are chronic stressors that disproportionately affect individuals with multiple marginalized identities.

These lines of research highlight a shared mechanism. Identity-related threats, including microaggressions, representation burden, stereotype threat, and impression management, require continuous self-monitoring and vigilance. Over time these patterns elevate allostatic load and tax executive and emotion regulation systems, which is consistent with neurobiological models of burnout and chronic stress (McEwen, 1998; Boyatzis et al., 2015).

1.1.2 Organizational climate and social stressors

A large body of research demonstrates that social stressors at work, including incivility, bullying, role ambiguity, and interpersonal conflict, are strongly related to burnout, poorer health, and withdrawal behaviors (Hershcovis, 2011; Schaufeli and Taris, 2014; Ford and Tetrick, 2011). Meta-analyses and multi-wave longitudinal studies show that workplace incivility and high workload consistently predict increases in emotional exhaustion, which subsequently predicts declines in job satisfaction and commitment (Huang et al., 2024; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013).

Conversely, inclusive leadership, ethical leadership, and psychologically safe climates are associated with lower burnout. These climates support psychological safety, strengthen social resources, and reduce the emotional and cognitive demands associated with identity threat and social stressors (Newman et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2012). Meaningful work also plays a protective role. A substantial literature shows that work meaningfulness is positively associated with engagement, motivation, and commitment, and negatively associated with burnout, strain, and withdrawal intentions (Allan et al., 2018; Schnell et al., 2019). Meaningfulness also buffers the impact of workload and work–family conflict on burnout in multiple cross-cultural studies (Arnold et al., 2007; Steger et al., 2012).

Research on emotional labor similarly reinforces these patterns. Surface acting and suppression are robust predictors of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Hülsheger and Schewe, 2011; Grandey and Melloy, 2017). A recent meta-analytic structural equation modeling study integrating more than 60 independent samples confirms that emotional labor significantly predicts burnout, although emotional intelligence partially mitigates this relationship (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012).

From a neurocognitive perspective, sustained suppression and impression management increase prefrontal load, heighten sympathetic arousal, and contribute to regulation fatigue (Ochsner and Gross, 2005; Arnsten, 2009). Flexible reappraisal, recovery experiences, and supportive climates reduce regulatory burden and protect against allostatic load.

1.1.3 Cognitive load and identity based demands

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) offers an additional mechanism through which intersectional stressors exacerbate burnout. CLT holds that performance and wellbeing depend on how limited working memory resources are allocated among intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load (Sweller, 1988; Sweller et al., 1998). Identity-related stressors such as microaggressions, stereotype threat, representation burden, and impression management primarily function as extraneous load. They draw attention and self-regulatory resources away from core task demands and therefore reduce the capacity available for intrinsic and germane processing.

This chronic consumption of working memory narrows attentional capacity, impedes learning and problem solving, and increases cognitive fatigue. Organizational environments that are unpredictable or non-inclusive amplify this effect. Over time, the resulting regulatory and attentional overload aligns with neurocognitive models of burnout and explains why individuals at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities report higher levels of vigilance, depletion, and exhaustion (Inzlicht et al., 2014; Schmader and Johns, 2003).

Identity-safe and predictable environments reduce extraneous load, while autonomy, coaching, and purpose alignment increase the resources available for germane processing. These conditions enhance efficacy, support learning, and facilitate recovery, which together reduce burnout risk.

1.2 Existing burnout measures

To further explore models and measures capturing dimensions of burnout, several of the most used burnout inventory scales were evaluated through the lens of a more holistic, person-centric microcosm that examines personal and professional environment and intersectionality. The comparison conducted was of six widely used and reliable burnout inventory scales (see Table 1): (1) the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997), (2) The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti and Bakker, 2008), (3) The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Kristensen et al., 2005), (4) The Burnout Measure, short version (Malach-Pines, 2005), (5) Staff Burnout Scale for Health Professionals (Jones, 1980), and (6) the Manual Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT; Schaufeli et al., 2020; HadŽibajramović et al., 2022). Additionally, three discrimination subscales were evaluated from the Measuring Discrimination Resources instrument (Williams, 2020).

The comparison examined the inclusion dimensions of the traditional burnout measures, such as emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and cynicism, as stated by Maslach's definition (Maslach et al., 1997), and whether the instruments accounted for additional factors such as intersectionality and environmental stressors. Legacy burnout instruments (MBI, OLBI, CBI, BAT) are robust but symptom-centric (Maslach et al., 1996, 1997; Demerouti and Bakker, 2008; Kristensen et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2020). They rarely include intersectionality or environmental risk constructs, limiting diagnostic value specifically for targeted interventions in situ.

Mixed positive/negative wording can also reduce clarity and psychometric quality; consistent positive wording often improves comprehensibility but should be monitored for acquiescence (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010; Zeng et al., 2020). Therefore, in our analysis we also considered the use of positively vs. negatively worded items in each scale. Most scales tended to use a combination of positively and negatively worded items, which may influence participant responses and affect scale reliability as individuals may have a higher liklihood to respond to positively over negatively framed items (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010). This can be attributed to the tendency of negatively worded items triggering stronger feelings as it relates to work or previous lived experiences (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010). While a combination of both positively and negatively worded items is often used to reduce acquiescence bias, this approach may reduce overall scale validity (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010; Awang, 2014).

The MBI, OLBI, CBI, and BAT provide reliable assessment of burnout symptoms (Maslach et al., 1996, 1997; Demerouti and Bakker, 2008; Kristensen et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2020). However, they seldom include intersectionality or environmental risk constructs, limiting implications for practice such as diagnostic value for targeted intervention. Most also mix positive and negative item wording, which can depress reliability and add cognitive load in sensitive domains; consistent positive wording improves clarity but should be monitored for acquiescence and other method effects (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010; Zeng et al., 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

1.3 Present study

The present study addresses these gaps by developing and validating the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory (IBI) as a positively worded instrument integrating intersectionality and environmental context with established burnout dimensions. We hypothesized a correlated three-factor structure with strong reliability and acceptable CFA fit, as well as convergent validity with legacy burnout measures and predictive validity for wellbeing and turnover intentions. Across four IRB-approved phases, we: (a) derived and refined content via expert review and participant input; (b) tested a three-factor structure: Environment and Purpose, Intersectionality and Identity, and Emotional Capacity using EFA and CFA; and (c) demonstrated internal consistency and construct validity relative to legacy measures, wellbeing, and turnover intentions. The mixed-method, four-phase validation culminated in a 31-item instrument with acceptable fit indices and meaningful relationships to key outcomes, positioning the IBI as a practical, theory-consistent assessment of burnout risk at individual, team, and system levels.

2 Method

The research and data collection was conducted through a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods over four phases: (1) Phase I: Item Generation and Content Validation, (2) Phase II: Content Relevance and Item Refinement, (3) Phase III: Dimensionality, and (4) Phase IV: Testing Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity. All phases received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.

2.1 Phase I. Item generation and content validation

Items were created through a combination of rational and logical judgements based on identified opportunities in the research and reliability (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006) and validity of existing instruments. The Intersectionality Burnout Inventory was further developed using the following best practices: (1) determine what was missing in the existing instruments and examine what it was intended to measure (e.g., burnout, environmental factors and intersectionality), (2) generate an items pool adapted from existing statistically validated instruments, while being informed by gaps in the research, and (3) identify the measurement to look closer at frequency across the six subscales (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006).

The Intersectionality Buurnout Inventory was adapted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, the Burnout Measure Inventory, the Staff Burnout Scale for Healthcare Professionals Instrument, and the creation of new items to construct six subscales named: (1) emotional exhaustion, (2) personal accomplishment, (3) depersonalization, (4) involvement, (5) environmental factors, and (6) intersectionality. A Likert Scale measuring frequency of the behavior was created ranging from (0) “never” to (5) “everyday” and was applied across the emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, depersonalization, involvement, environmental, and intersectionality subscales. The initial pool contained 53 items.

Eight of the 12 emotional exhaustion items were adapted and positively worded from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997), two from the Oldenberg Inventory (Demerouti and Bakker, 2008), one from the Staff Burnout Scale for Health Professionals scale (Jones, 1980), and two new items related to relaxation and work-life balance were added.

All eight of the personal accomplishment items were derived from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997), and only five were changed to positively worded items. Five of the six depersonalization subscale items were based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997) and the sixth was a new item. Four of the five Maslach items were changed to be positively worded. All three of the involvement subscale items were based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1997) and changed to positively worded items.

The 12 environmental subscale items were comprised of a combination of two reworded items from the Staff Burnout Scale for Health Professionals (Jones, 1980) and 10 new items. One of the two Staff Burnout Scale for Health Professional items was changed to be positively worded.

Three of the 13 intersectionality items were adapted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997), two from the Heightened Vigilance Scale (Williams, 2020; Clark et al., 2006) and one from the Chronic Work Discrimination and Harassment Scale (Sternthal et al., 2011). The remaining two items were created. Lastly, seven demographic items were also created and focused on gender and race-ethnicity identification, role, tenure, marital status, and age.

As part of the initial scale validation, a content validation index (CVI; Polit and Beck, 2004) was conducted using Qualtrics for expert review on item relevance to the construct and clarity. The instrument was administered across industry experts with strong understanding of burnout and intersectionality to assess content validity, while optimizing the scale for length (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). The six industry subject matter experts were given 2 weeks to complete the survey. Each subject matter expert was asked to review the original 60 items for clarity and dimension relevance (Davis, 1992) based on a four-point scale (1 = not relevant, 4 = highly relevant). Space was provided for any specific item-level feedback on clarity.

Results were interpreted using a content validity index calculated at the item (I-CVI) level to yield an average assessment of an item's content adequacy (Lawshe, 1975). Items receiving a 3 (quite relevant) or a 4 (highly relevant) on the scale were considered to be in the acceptable or relevant range. Any item rated a 1 (not relevant) or 2 (somewhat relevant), did not meet the criteria for relevance or clarity and were reworded or removed from the item pool. As a result, two of the 60 items received two unacceptable ratings (I-CVI = 0.67) and were removed. The remaining 58 items received a rating of acceptable (I-CVI = 0.83) from five out of six reviewers or highly acceptable (I-CVI = 1.00) by all six reviewers. The overall scale-level CVI measured at a highly acceptable range (CVI = 0.91). Based on the expert feedback, 19 items were slightly reworded for clarity and three items were added in the environmental subscale to avoid double barrel questioning. This resulted in 54 total items leading into Phases II and III.

2.2 Phase II. Content relevence and item refinement

The second phase of the study concentrated on content relevance and item refinement through qualitative focus groups specifically for the intersectionality and environmental subscales of the instrument. Feedback collected was used to inform the refined version of the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory.

Twelve particpants attended one of two, virtual, one-hour focus groups. Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and employed full-time. Individuals were identified through the Colleague Resource Groups (CRG) within a pre-identified large US-based health and wellbeing company. Six participants identified as Black, two identified as White, and four did not identify their race/ethnicity. Participants were asked for their feedback on item relevance and clarity, as well as their overall reactions.

Of the 25 items reviewed with focus group participants (13–intersectionality and 12-environmental), two items related to intersectionality and appearance were recommended to be removed by participants and were flagged to futher examine their performance in the EFA (phase III). Seven items were clarified for wording or additional examples. Overall, participants were in agreement that the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory was relevant to the workplace and they identified with the environment and intersectionality dimensions as part of a burnout scale.

2.3 Phase III. Dimensionality

Phase three of the study aimed to assess dimensionality of the scale via a parallel analysis and EFA. Using an electronic survey, the 54 retained Intersectionality Burnout Inventory items were collected on a 6-point Likert Scale measuring frequency of the behavior ranging from (0) “never” to (5) “everyday.” A sample of 340 participants were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). All participants were at least 18 years of age or older and employed full-time. Participants were mostly male (55%), White (88%), married (88%), managers (68%), between 18 and 39 years old (70%), and had a tenure of 1–10 years (80%).

Of note, although the Phase III MTurk sample was adequate in size, it was disproportionately White and male. Because intersectionality is central to the construct, these imbalances limit the representativeness of the EFA and should be interpreted as establishing preliminary factor structure rather than population-level generalizability.

Analyses for Phase III and Phase IV were conducted using SPSS 28 version 28.0.1.0 (142) (IBM Corp., 2021) and R version 4.2.3 (2023-03-15). An EFA using parallel analysis was conducted on the 54 items to determine the appropriate number of factors to extract. Evidence has supported parallel analysis as one of the most accurate factor retention methods (Hayton et al., 2004). In comparing the raw data eigenvalues to 500 randomly generated datasets, results supported extracting a three-factor model (see Table 1). However, because parallel analysis only identifies the number of factors to be extracted, and does not place individual items into factors, a traditional EFA was used. EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with direct oblimin rotation, as the dimensions of burnout are theoretically correlated (Maslach et al., 1997). Consistent with prior research and theorizing as well as with parallel analysis results, the EFA was restricted to three factors. Factors were retained when they had at least three items with primary loadings ≥0.45, demonstrated coherent conceptual themes, and aligned with the three-factor solution identified in the parallel analysis. In keeping with best practice, item retention decisions were made on both statistical and theoretical grounds. Specifically, items were flagged for removal if they demonstrated (a) primary loadings below 0.45, (b) cross-loadings greater than 0.30 on two or more factors, or (c) cross-loadings in the 0.42–0.51 range even when the primary loading exceeded 0.45. As a result, 14 items were removed, resulting in 40 items. In total, the three factors explained 52.26% of the variance (see Table 2). The full rotated pattern matrix is presented in Table 3. Three new subscale dimensions resulted (Environment and Purpose, Intersectionality and Identity, and Emotional Capacity).

2.4 Phase IV. Testing factor structure, reliability, and validity

Using a new sample, phase IV was intended to finalize the scale's items using CFA, and provide evidence of the scale's reliaiblity and construct-related validity. A sample size of 227 participants (see Table 4) from a US-based health and wellbeing company completed the electronic survey. Participants were largely female (82%), White (74%), married (58%), individual contributors (72%), had an average age of 46 years, and had a tenure of 1–10 years (63%). Forty-one percent were also clinical (licensed). All participants were at least 18 years of age or older and employed full-time.

Notably, the Phase IV organizational sample differed demographically from the Phase III MTurk sample, being more racially diverse and predominantly female, which allowed us to examine whether the factor structure generalized across meaningfully different populations.

In addition to the 40-item revised Intersectionality Burnout Inventory, four other measures (see Table 5) were also included. The four-item Turnover Intent Scale (Kelloway et al., 1999), eight-item Psychological Wellbeing Scale (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2008), 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory (Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Accomplishment, and Depersonalization sub-scales; Maslach and Jackson, 1981), and 12-item Burnout Assessment Tool (Schaufeli et al., 2020) were used to demonstrate construct validity (i.e., convergent; see Table 5).

The three-factor model was tested on the 40-item Intersectionality Burnout Inventory using CFA. Reliability was also examined along with evidence of construct validity.

2.5 Factor analysis

A CFA was conducted (see Table 6) to assess the fit of the proposed three-factor model using established goodness-of-fit criteria (Jackson et al., 2009; Kline, 2005; Hooper et al., 2008). To evaluate the measurement properties of the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory, we estimated the CFA using the 40-item pool carried forward from the EFA. Consistent with recommendations for scale refinement (Brown, 2015; Kline, 2023), items were considered for removal when they demonstrated (a) standardized loadings below 0.30, (b) substantial cross-loadings suggested by modification indices, or (c) lack of conceptual alignment with their latent dimension. CFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation and a small number of theoretically justifiable residual covariances among items with similar content were added to improve model parsimony. This iterative process resulted in a final 31-item model. We report standardized factor loadings, factor correlations, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) to evaluate measurement quality.

The three-factor, 31-item CFA model χ² was 748.87 (df = 414), yielding a χ²/df ratio of 1.81, and demonstrated acceptable fit for a multidimensional organizational measure (CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 20338.14, BIC = 20618.98). All items loaded significantly onto their intended factors, with standardized loadings presented in Table 7. As expected for an instrument assessing broad workplace and identity-related constructs, some items demonstrated modest loadings; however, these items were retained due to their conceptual relevance and adequate performance in earlier phases of development. Composite reliability (CR) values indicated strong internal consistency across factors (Environment & Purpose CR = 0.87; Intersectionality & Identity CR = 0.83; Emotional Capacity CR = 0.90), and average variance extracted (AVE) supported adequate convergent validity (0.30, 0.40, and 0.63, respectively). Although the AVE for two factors fell below the conventional 0.50 threshold, this pattern is common in multidimensional organizational constructs with heterogeneous item content (Kline, 2023), and factor loadings remained uniformly significant. Factor correlations were consistent with the theorized structure, with Environment & Purpose positively related to Emotional Capacity (r = 0.67) and negatively related to Intersectionality & Identity (r = −0.26).

Composite reliability (CR) values indicated strong internal consistency for all three factors: Environment & Purpose (CR = 0.88), Intersectionality & Identity (CR = 0.84), and Emotional Capacity (CR = 0.90). Average variance extracted (AVE) values provided evidence of convergent validity, with values of 0.30 for Environment & Purpose, 0.40 for Intersectionality & Identity, and 0.63 for Emotional Capacity.

Following validation of the scale's structure, reliability analyses using Cronbach's alpha were conducted to establish evidence of internal consistency (Hinkin, 1998). Results supported acceptable internal consistency for the overall scale (α = 0.89) and its dimensions (Environment and Purpose, α = 0.87; Intersectionality and Identity, α = 0.83; Emotional Capacity, α = 0.90).

In regard to construct validity, Table 5 illustrates that the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory was strongly correlated with all expected variables, including the Maslach Burnout Inventory (r = −0.64, p < 0.001) and the Burnout Assessment Tool (r = −0.60, p < 0.001). Further, the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory was positively correlated with wellbeing (r = 0.43, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with turnover intentions (r = −0.47, p < 0.001).

2.6 Timeline of item reduction

Across Phases II–IV, the item pool was reduced from 72 initial items to 40 items after EFA, and ultimately to 31 items following CFA refinement. Each reduction stage involved evaluating both empirical performance (e.g., factor loadings, cross-loadings, modification indices) and conceptual coverage to ensure the instrument retained the breadth necessary to assess intersectional burnout.

3 Discussion

The Intersectionality Burnout Inventory demonstrated a very good level of reliability overall (α = 0.89) and a significant degree of correlation when assessed against the BAT and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. In addition, the IBI as a whole was determined to have strong relationships with turnover and wellbeing for organizations. Notably, the IBI had a stronger relationship with turnover and wellbeing than the BAT. Further, the Emotional Capacity subscale of the IBI demonstrated a stronger relationship with turnover than did the Maslach Burnout Inventory or the BAT. The IBI serves to complement prior work on burnout and advance the understanding of measuring burnout risk by specifically expanding the conversation to include intersectionality and environmental influences as meaningful drivers of burnout.

When considering and measuring individual burnout risks in the organization framed through the neurocognitive lens, the three IBI factors discovered, tested, and explored in this study indicate that burnout risk arises when intersectional identity load is high, environment and purpose are low (hostile or empty), and emotional capacity is depleted, leading to sustained activation of stress systems, high allostatic load, and the classic burnout profile: exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy.

The Intersectionality and Identity factor relates to who the person is in the system and how their intersecting identities shape exposure to identity-based social stressors (discrimination, microaggressions, code-switching, representation burden). Empirically, these stressors predict stress, poorer mental health, and burnout, especially for marginalized groups.

Environment and Purpose as a factor of burnout risk relates to what the environment is like: climate for inclusion vs. incivility; psychological safety vs. fear; and whether work feels meaningful and aligned with values. Meta-analytic evidence shows that social stressors and hostile climates drive burnout, while meaningful work and inclusive leadership buffer it.

The Emotional Capacity factor relates to how much regulatory bandwidth people perceive they have left, balancing emotional labor demands against emotional intelligence, coping, and recovery opportunities. Emotional labor–burnout meta-analyses and emotion-regulation research in leadership both support this dimension.

These final three factors also align with established organizational theories. Intersectionality and Identity indexes identity-contingent demands (e.g., microaggressions, representation burden, authenticity constraints) that are often unmeasured in legacy tools but central to how employees appraise threat. Consistent with the JD-R model, Environment and Purpose captures contextual resources (e.g., fairness, psychological safety, clarity, meaningful work) that buffer chronic demands. Lastly, Emotional Capacity reflects self-regulatory load (emotional labor, suppression, recovery opportunities), aligning with COR theory's emphasis on resource depletion and loss spirals. That higher IBI scores were negatively associated with MBI and BAT scores and positively associated with wellbeing is consistent with a model in which the IBI primarily captures protective conditions and capacities, and, by implication, lower burnout risk.

3.1 Positive vs. negative wording

As noted, mixed positive/negative item wording can depress reliability and confuse respondents; consistently positive wording can enhance clarity but requires safeguards against acquiescence (Roszkowski and Soven, 2010; Zeng et al., 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2003). The Intersectionality Burnout Inventory was developed using positively framed items. This approach supports emotional safety and aligns with cognitive and emotional processing. For example, reframing a negatively worded item like “I cannot be myself at work” as “I can be myself at work” promotes clarity and encourages authentic reflection. This alignment between neuroscience, emotional framing, and scale design was intended to support more holistically inclusive and psychologically attuned measurement (Figures 1–3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

The positive wording or framed items used in the IBI resonated with focus group respondents that participated in phase two of the data collection. Respondents observed and acknowledged, without being prompted, how they noticed and liked the positively framed items as they noted it was different than other instruments and surveys they had seen with more “negatively framed questions” (items). One participant specifically stated how they liked and preferred positively framed items in the intersectionality inventory and the remaining participants all agreed. “I like the way these items are written positively. Sometimes survey questions (items) are written so negatively. I really like this positive orientation. It makes me feel good” (Focus Group Participant). Pillay's (2011) positive mindset research validates the focus group finding stating that positive framing impacts growth and development and stimulates productive and optimistic thinking.

This positive framing can also stimulate the positive emotional attractor (PEA) which creates a sense of optimism, strength, and purpose (Boyatzis et al., 2015). Consequently, in situations of negative framing, one's perceived value and mindset can negatively influence personal and professional perceptions and experiences (Pillay, 2011), which can lead to a negative emotional attractor (NEA) that creates a sense of hopelessness and anxiety (Boyatzis et al., 2015). Also, as Roszkowski and Soven's (2010) found, positive framing demonstrated improved item-to-item correlations. This combination of positive framing appears to have direct impact on the participant, as well as outcome of the instrument.

3.2 Theoretical implications

First, the IBI operationalizes an expanded view of burnout antecedents by integrating intersectionality and environment with core burnout outcomes, an integration anticipated but rarely measured within JD-R, COR, and stress-appraisal perspectives. By showing that a concise set of positively worded items correlates in expected ways with legacy burnout symptoms and outcomes, the study supports a multilevel pathway: distal organizational context → identity-contingent stressors and appraisals → regulatory load → burnout-related outcomes.

Second, the results advance measurement practice by demonstrating that a uniformly positive wording strategy can yield reliable scores while being experienced by respondents as clearer and psychologically safer. Third, the pattern of correlations suggests that contextual and identity-related risks are not redundant with symptom inventories; rather, they provide actionable antecedent information that organizations can target upstream.

3.3 Implications for practice

The output of the instrument can be useful at the overall instrument level, but allows for greater visibility drivers at the Environment and Purpose, Intersectionality and Identity, and Emotional Capacity subscale levels. The specific items within each of the subscales, in addition to the collected demographic information (see Table 4), help to create a line of sight and a measurement mechanism to specific population risks, needs, and concerns.

The aggregate results at the subscale level indicate burnout risk indicators based on the frequency of specific environmental and identity experiences. At the item level, for example, if a Person of Color identifies as not feeling congruent to other co-workers, based on frequency of response, it may be determined that the individual is not only speaking for themselves, but also representing other colleagues within the organization. At a minimum, the Person of Color may not experience the same treatment or feel they are being given the same opportunities (Kern and Grandey, 2009). In addition, the Person of Color could be holding back on their identity as they do not feel they have the same privileges as others of different races or ethnicities. This identity hold back and difference of experience to others can have a negative impact on personal confidence, performance, and job satisfaction (Roberts et al., 2019; Steele and Aronson, 1995; Tabor and Dalton, 2021).

As demands and resources are not experienced uniformly, intersectionality also highlights how overlapping identities (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, class, disability, immigration status) shape exposure to stressors and access to buffers (Danquah et al., 2021; Crenshaw, 1989). Identity-contingent stressors of microaggressions, tokenism and representation burden, racial battle fatigue, stereotype threat, and racial incongruence, all require sustained emotional labor and vigilance (Hochschild, 1983; Grandey, 2000; Kanter, 1977, 1993; Smith et al., 2008; Sue et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2019). Organizational climate and culture determine whether these stressors escalate into burnout such as justice and fairness (Colquitt, 2001), psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), and inclusive leadership (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Randel et al., 2018) buffer identity threats, whereas incivility and interpersonal mistreatment intensify exhaustion and withdrawal (Cortina et al., 2001, 2013).

Context determines whether identity-contingent stress is buffered or exacerbated. Organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interpersonal) predicts wellbeing and commitment (Colquitt, 2001). Psychological safety enables voice and learning, reducing interpersonal threat (Edmondson, 1999). Inclusive leadership signals respect and belonging, particularly for underrepresented employees (Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006; Randel et al., 2018). Conversely, incivility and mistreatment correlate with emotional exhaustion and withdrawal (Cortina et al., 2001, 2013). These levers map onto the resources side of JD-R/COR and are actionable for leaders. Beyond day-to-day interactions, industry contexts amplify risk. Service workers report heightened customer incivility tied to race (Kern and Grandey, 2009); health and human service professionals experience racial incongruence and bias that contribute to emotional exhaustion (Salyers and Bond, 2001; Dyrbye et al., 2019); and public service settings document unequal treatment and support gaps (Dowler, 2005). These overlapping pressures create persistent strain that accelerates burnout.

At the individual item level, the IBI highlights potential burnout risks based on the frequency of specific experiences. For example, an individual with a distressed relationship with their manager may be at a higher risk for stress, dissatisfaction, and eventual burnout (Elçi et al., 2018). At the individual level, items like “I can be myself in my personal life without fear of judgment or discrimination” help understand the experiences and impacts on the identity of people of color. Identifying racial burden shift, such as “I can be myself at work without fear of judgment or discrimination,” can reveal potential risks like incongruence.

At the team level, patterns in subscale or full instrument scores can reveal shared experiences or behavioral dynamics that warrant further team-level exploration or greater awareness. At the group and system level, items like “I believe I've been treated differently in my personal life because of my gender” and “I believe I've been treated differently at work because of my race or ethnicity” contribute to feelings of incongruence and self-censorship. Even personal experiences can affect confidence in the work environment and identity. This implies potential systemic issues, such as institutional and workplace racial climate problems, that require awareness building and diversity efforts.

Finally, at the system level, the subscale and full instrument scores can indicate broader cultural or systemic considerations, such as issues of inclusivity and in-group and out-group behavior, that influence burnout across the organization. Understanding if these experiences are localized or widespread helps determine the need for support systems or inclusiveness training. It also facilitates difficult conversations to address and resolve such issues as a system.

Using a directional diagnosis tool such as the IBI could aid an organization in seeing additional factors contributing to burnout and recognizing that more targeted interventions may be of benefit. As a potential predictor of burnout risk, the IBI creates visibility to specific environmental and intersectionality factors that contribute to risk identification. Identification of these risks could allow organizations to more specifically target interventions to mitigate such drivers. These interventions may not be the traditional programs, such as capacity-building, resilience, and wellbeing, but may be focused on cultural change, workplace environmental factors, leadership development, diversity, and inclusivity. For example, understanding that there are risks of racial incongruence (Kern and Grandey, 2009), unequal workplace workload, or responsibility shifts due to tokenism (Wekenborg et al., 2019; Kern and Grandey, 2009) can lead to reduced satisfaction and undue burden on an employee of color. Understanding the potential of such behaviors creates a forum to recognize workforce behavior and cultural norms, conduct inclusive conversations, and tailor needed programs (Winters, 2020).

Using the IBI may create needed exposure and further the necessary work to reduce burden shifts and risks of burnout. For example, social justice advocates in the not-for-profit world have been encouraged and taught skills for dialogue on race and social identity topics for some time. However, this type of dialogue is increasingly being developed in corporate settings. Corporate leaders find that structured opportunities for such conversations lead to greater productivity, engagement, innovation, and retention among employees. But the conversation should also benefit the people. Overall, higher indicators of risk can create awareness to drive more targeted interventions in support of the employee population. Through the use of the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory, these early risk factors can be identified by measuring where an individual and team may be at a point in time based on the frequency of circumstances being experienced.

We recommend reporting subscale profiles (rather than only a total score) at individual confidential, team aggregated, and unit levels; sharing results with psychological safety safeguards; and pairing IBI diagnostics with targeted, system level actions rather than individual remediation alone. Because the IBI assesses context and identity safety, it should not be used for punitive evaluation or ranking. Findings point to three actionable domains that could inform areas of intervention design. Considering environment and purpose, organizational wellness interventions could consider including fairness and workload audits, transparent decision-making process, psychological safe team routines, role clarity, and explicit purpose alignment in goal-setting. Regarding intersectionality and identity, consideration may be of greatest use being focused on reducing representation burden and tokenism, investing in inclusive leadership behaviors, and creating visible structures and channels for reporting and repair. For emotional capacity, support should focus on reducing surface acting demands, enabling authentic expression, and expanding wellness opportunities.

3.4 Generalizability, cultural validity, and potential biases

The study intentionally used two distinct samples (Phase III MTurk; Phase IV industry sample), yet generalizability remains bounded by United States contexts and the demographic composition of the samples. Cultural validity can be strengthened by (a) cognitive interviewing with members of key identity groups; (b) translation/back-translation for multilingual administration; and (c) measurement invariance testing (configural → metric → scalar) across race/ethnicity, gender, nativity, and language. Where scalar invariance is not achieved, partial invariance and group-specific norms should be considered. Because all items are positively keyed, future work should monitor acquiescence (yes-saying) using a short marker set or a latent method factor in CFA.

3.5 Limitations and future research

As a cross-sectional study across two different populations causal inferences are limited. Further research is needed to elevate the predictability and validity of the instrument and increase the relativity of certain environmental and intersectionality correlations, it is recommended that a longitudinal future study be conducted with a larger and more diverse population sample. In addition, there is an opportunity to look more closely at different elements of identity such as genders, age, or social-economic status both quantitatively through instrument testing and qualitatively through focus groups and unstructured interviews to throughoughly explore and determine additional contributing factors (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).

A key limitation relates to demographic representativeness across analytic phases. The Phase III EFA sample, recruited through MTurk, was disproportionately White and male, whereas the Phase IV CFA sample was more racially diverse and predominantly female. Given the purpose of the Intersectionality Burnout Inventory, these demographic imbalances raise the possibility of biased item functioning and warrant caution when generalizing the findings. Although the factor structure replicated across both samples, suggesting structural robustness, future research should intentionally sample more diverse populations, evaluate measurement invariance across identity groups, and examine potential differential item functioning to ensure the instrument fully captures intersectional experiences.

Another limitation concerns the use of positively worded items. Although the Intersectionality and Identity items reflect adverse or discriminatory experiences, they are not reverse-worded or valence-opposite items, and no wording-related clustering emerged in the modification indices. However, future research should explicitly test for potential method variance (e.g., adding a correlated-method factor or testing bifactor structures) to ensure that item valence does not influence the factor configuration.

While the conducted study did account for different gender and racial identity, the results by no mean are intended to generalize findings for their broader representative population. Additionally, while the paid sample through MTurk ensured an adequate sample size for phase three data collection, it could have limited how vested participants were in their participation and responses, as they may have been more motivated to be paid for their time than the actual quality of responses. There was less risk of this with the phase four population as data collection was not compensated.

The IBI demonstrates potential as a powerful tool to better understand risks of burnout, turnover intention, and wellbeing, not only at the individual level but also at the team, organizational, and system levels however more research is needed. To expand upon this work, future studies could act as a continuation of this model with more repetitive data collections at different frequencies that include larger and more expansive population samples. In addition, the sample population could be expanded to look at more diverse populations inclusive of race, ethnicity, gender, age, industry, profession, and workplace culture. In addition, there is an opportunity to conduct a longitudinal study based on zip code, income level, and even marital status. Qualitative interviews could further be conducted after the data is collected to explore more of the rationale or association on how personal experiences may influence responses at the item level. Added evaluation of the impact of positively vs. negatively framed items can create more associations for future scale and item development, as well as to inform what may be driving the impact of burnout across each of the populations.

Finally, a longitudinal study could be conducted across a cross-section of industries that explore different organizational types, including for-profit, not-for-profit, small vs. large organizations, as well as private vs. public entities, looking at specific business or cultural norms that may act as drivers of one or more types of burnout risk factors. This may also help to answer the question of how people adapt in different organizational settings.

It is proposed that each item in their respective subscales (Environment and Purpose, Intersectionality and Identity, Emotional Capacity) would be averaged to calculate a mean for its respective dimension. These three subscales represent distinct constructs: higher scores on Environment & Purpose and Emotional Capacity indicate greater resources and emotional energy, whereas higher scores on Intersectionality and Identity indicate greater identity-related strain. Because of these differing directional meanings, no items require reverse-coding when the IBI is used at the subscale level, and subscale scores should be interpreted independently.

If users wish to compute an optional total burnout score, the Environment & Purpose and Emotional Capacity items should be reverse-coded so that higher scores uniformly indicate greater burnout, while Intersectionality and Identity items retain their original direction. After reverse-coding Environment and Purpose and Emotional Capacity, the total burnout score can be calculated by averaging all 31 items.

As a preliminary scoring framework, mean scores of 0–2 may indicate lower risk and scores of 3–5 may indicate moderate to higher risk within a given subscale or total score. However, we emphasize that these cut points are provisional and that the scoring methodology, including subscale thresholds and total-score interpretation, requires additional validation in future research.

The IBI ultimately stands for future use and testing as a new instrument to help organizations and systems recognize and respond to burnout. It promotes awareness of burnout risk factors at the individual, group, and systemic levels, broadening the lens through which burnout is understood and measured.

3.6 Conclusion

The results of this study suggest a meaningful opportunity to examine burnout risk through more holistic measures, such as the IBI. Developed through a multi-phase study with multiple samples, the results demonstrated strong evidence of reliability and validity for the IBI to be used a tool to assess burnout risk in a more inclusive and comprehensive manner potentially offering practical insight into where underlying burnout risks may exist. It also provides directional guidance for organizations to think about the cost of turnover and the importance of wellbeing. As the workforce continues to evolve, tools such as the IBI could potentially help organizations adapt in ways that are responsive, sustainable, and equity-focused by focusing on more targeted and precise areas to ensure chronic and perpetuated issues are mitigated and workplace change is holistic, meaningful, and sustainable.

Unlike existing burnout assessments, the IBI offers a comprehensive perspective by considering individual, organizational, and systemic factors that contribute to burnout risk. A key contribution of the IBI is its intersectionality-informed approach, which captures the complex interactions between social and cultural identities and various workplace stressors that shape the burnout experience. The IBI also accounts for broader environmental factors, such as community safety, caregiving responsibilities, and workplace inclusivity, which are often overlooked in traditional burnout models. This tool not only expands the understanding of burnout but also enhances cognitive processing through its use of positively framed items, improving item-to-item correlations and yielding more accurate and meaningful responses. By broadening the scope of burnout evaluation beyond emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and cynicism, the IBI aligns more closely with the real-world experiences of diverse professionals.

References

• 1

  AllanB. A.DuffyR. D.CollissonB. (2018). Helping others increases meaningful work: evidence from three experiments. J. Counsel. Psychol.65, 155–165. doi: 10.1037/cou0000228

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  ArnoldK. A.TurnerN.BarlingJ.KellowayE. K.McKeeM. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work. J. Occup. Health Psychol.12, 193–203. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  ArnstenA. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.10, 410–422. doi: 10.1038/nrn2648

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AwangZ. (2014). Research Methodology and Data Analysis. Shah Alam; Selangor: Universiti Teknologi Mara Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BakkerA. B.DemeroutiE. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. J. Manager. Psychol.22, 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BoyatzisR. E.RochfordK.TaylorS. N. (2015). The role of the positive emotional attractor in vision and shared vision: toward effective leadership, relationships, and engagement. Front. Psychol.6:670. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00670

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ClarkR.BenkertR. A.FlackJ. M. (2006). Large arterial elasticity varies as a function of gender and racism-related vigilance in Black youth. J. Adolescent Health39, 562–569. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.02.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol.86, 386–400. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CortinaL. M.Kabat-FarrD.LeskinenE. A.HuertaM.MagleyV. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: evidence and impact. J. Manag.39, 1579–1605. doi: 10.1177/0149206311418835

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CortinaL. M.MagleyV. J.WilliamsJ. H.LanghoutR. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol.6, 64–80. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: Black Feminist Critique of Anti-discrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum. Available online at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 (Accessed May 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DanquahR.LopezC.WadeL.CastilloL. G. (2021). Racial justice activist burnout of women of color in the United States: practical tools for counselor intervention. Int. J. Adv. Counsel.43, 519–533. doi: 10.1007/s10447-021-09449-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DavisL. L. (1992). Instrument review: getting the most from your panel of experts. Appl. Nurs. Res.5, 194–197. doi: 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DemeroutiE.BakkerA. B. (2008). The Oldenburg burnout inventory: a good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. Handb. Stress Burnout Health Care65, 65–78.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DemeroutiE.BakkerA. B.NachreinerF.SchaufeliW. B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol.86, 499–512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DickensD. D.WomackV. Y.DimesT. (2020). Managing hypervisibility and invisibility in the workplace: the experiences of Black professionals. J. Vocat. Behav. 118:103376. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103376

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DienerE.Biswas-DienerR. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DowlerK. (2005). Job satisfaction, burnout, and perception of unfair treatment: the relationship between race and police work. Police Q.8, 476–489. doi: 10.1177/1098611104269787

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DyrbyeL.HerrinJ.WestC. P.WittlinN. M.DovidioJ. F.HardemanR.et al. (2019). Association of racial bias with burnout among resident physicians. JAMA Netw. Open2:e197457. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7457

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Q.44, 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ElçiM.YildizB. Erdilek. M. K. (2018). How burnout affects turnover intention? The conditional effects of subjective vitality and supervisor support. Int. J. Org. Leadership7, 47–60. doi: 10.33844/ijol.2018.60233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  FordM. T.TetrickL. E. (2011). Relations among occupational hazards, attitudes, and safety performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol.16, 48–66. doi: 10.1037/a0021296

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  FreudenbergerH. J. (1974), Staff burn-out. J. Social Iss.30, 159–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x.

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GrandeyA. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: a new way to conceptualize emotional labor. J. Occup. Health Psychol.5, 95–110. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  GrandeyA. A.MelloyR. C. (2017). The state of the heart: emotional labor as emotion regulation reviewed and revised. J. Occup. Health Psychol.22, 407–422. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000067

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HadŽibajramovićE.SchaufeliW.De WitteH. (2022). Shortening of the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—from 23 to 12 items using content and Rasch analysis. BMC Public Health22:560. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12946-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HaytonJ. C.AllenD. G.ScarpelloV. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Org. Res. Methods7, 191–205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HershcovisM. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: a call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. J. Org. Behav.32, 499–519. doi: 10.1002/job.689

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Org. Res. Methods1, 104–121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HobfollS. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol.44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HobfollS. E.HalbeslebenJ.NeveuJ.-P.WestmanM. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annu. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav.5, 103–128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HochschildA. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods6, 53–60. doi: 10.21427/D7CF7R

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HuangL.LongX.LiuY.LiuX. (2024). Effects of workplace incivility and workload on nurses' work attitude: the mediating effect of burnout. J. Nurs. Manage. 71, 1080–1087. doi: 10.1111/inr.12974

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HülshegerU. R.ScheweA. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: a meta-analysis of three decades of research. J. Occup. Health Psychol.16, 361–389. doi: 10.1037/a0022876

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 28.0.1.0) [Computer Software]. IBM Corp.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  InzlichtM.SchmeichelB. J.MacraeC. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends Cogn. Sci.18, 127–133. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  JacksonD. L.GillaspyJ. A.Purc-StephensonR. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol. Methods14, 6–23. doi: 10.1037/a0014694

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  JonesJ. K.TurnerM. J.BarkerJ. B. (2021a). The effects of a cognitive–behavioral stress intervention on the motivation and psychological well-being of senior U.K. police personnel. Int. J. Stress Manage.28, 46–60. doi: 10.1037/str0000218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  JonesJ. W. (1980). A Measure of Staff Burnout Among Health Professionals. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  JonesM. S.WomackV. Y.Jérémie-BrinkG.DickensD. D. (2021b). Gendered racism and mental health among young adult U.S. Black women: the moderating roles of gendered racial identity centrality and identity shifting. Sex Roles85, 163–175. doi: 10.1007/s11199-020-01214-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Kammeyer-MuellerJ. D.RubensteinA. L.LongD. M.OdioM. A.BuckmanB. R.ZhangY.et al. (2013). A meta-analytic structural model of dispositional affectivity and emotional labor. Personal Psychol.66, 47–90. doi: 10.1111/peps.12009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  KanterR. (1993). Men and Women of the Corporation, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Basic Book.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  KanterR. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KellowayE. K.GottliebB. H.BarhamL. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: a longitudinal investigation. J. Occup. Health Psychol.4, 337–346. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.4.4.337

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  KernJ. H.GrandeyA. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: the role of race and racial identity for service employees. J. Occup. Health Psychol.14, 46–57. doi: 10.1037/a0012684

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KlineR. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th Edn.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  KristensenT. S.BorritzM.VilladsenE.ChristensenK. B. (2005). The Copenhagen burnout inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress19, 192–207. doi: 10.1080/02678370500297720

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LawrenceJ. A.DavisB. A.CorbetteT. (2021). Racial/ethnic differences in burnout: a systematic review. J. Racial Ethnic Health Disparities9, 257–269. doi: 10.1007/s40615-020-00950-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  LawsheC. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol.28, 563–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  LazarusR. S.FolkmanS. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  LiangJ.FarhC. I. C.FarhJ.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination. Acad. Manage. J.55, 71–92. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Malach-PinesA. (2005). The burnout measure, short version. Int. J. Stress Manage.12, 78–88. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MaslachC.JacksonS. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. J. Occup. Behav.2, 99–113. doi: 10.1002/job.4030020205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MaslachC.JacksonS. E.LeiterM. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual, 3rd Edn. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MaslachC.JacksonS. E.LeiterM. P. (1997). “Maslach burnout inventory: Third edition,” in Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources, eds. C. P. Zalaquett and R. J. Wood (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education), 191–218.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MaslachC.LeiterM. P. (2016). “Burnout,” in Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior, ed G. Fink (San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press), 351–357.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  McCluneyC. L.RobothamK.LeeS.SmithR.DurkeeM. (2019). The Costs of Code-Switching. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  McEwenB. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: allostasis and allostatic load. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.840, 33–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09546.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th Edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A.WaxA. (2012). Moving emotional labor beyond surface and deep acting: a discordance-congruence perspective. Org. Psychol. Rev.2, 6–53. doi: 10.1177/2041386611417746

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  MossJ. (2019). Burnout Is About Your Workplace, Not Your People. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  NembhardI. M.EdmondsonA. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J. Org. Behav.27, 941–966. doi: 10.1002/job.413

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  NewmanA.DonohueR.EvaN. (2017). Psychological safety: a systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Manage. Rev.27, 521–535. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  OchsnerK. N.GrossJ. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends Cogn. Sci.9, 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  PillayS. (2011). Your Brain and Business: The Neuroscience of Great Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol.88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  PolitD. F.BeckC. T. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, 7th Edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  RandelA. E.GalvinB. M.ShoreL. M.EhrhartK. H.ChungB. G.DeanM. A.et al. (2018). Inclusive leadership: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum. Resourc Manage. Rev.28, 190–203. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  RobertsL. M.MayoA. J.ThomasD. A. (2019). Race Work and Leadership: New Perspectives on the Black Experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  RoszkowskiM. J.SovenM. (2010). Shifting gears: consequences of including two negatively worded items in the middle of a positively worded questionnaire. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ.35, 117–134. doi: 10.1080/02602930802618344

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SalyersM. P.BondG. R. (2001). An exploratory analysis of racial factors in staff burnout among assertive community treatment workers. Commun. Mental Health J.37, 393–404. doi: 10.1023/A:1017575912288

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  SchaufeliW. B.De WitteH.DesartS. (2020). Manual Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) – Version 2.0, Unpublished Internal Report. Belgium: KU Leuven. doi: 10.1037/t92259-000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  SchaufeliW. B.TarisT. W. (2014). “A critical review of the job demands-resources model: implications for improving work and health,” in Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach, eds. G. F. Bauer and O. Hämmig (New York, NY: Springer), 43–68.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  SchilpzandP.De PaterI. E.ErezA. (2016). Workplace incivility: a review of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Org. Behav.37, S57–S88. doi: 10.1002/job.1976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  SchmaderT.JohnsM. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.85, 440–452. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  SchnellT.HögeT.WeberW. G. (2019). “‘Belonging' and its relationship to the experience of meaningful work,” in The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work, eds. R. Yeoman, C. Bailey, A. Madden, and M. Thompson (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 165–185. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788232.013.10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  SmithL.ConstantineM. G.GrahamS. V.DizeC. B. (2008). The territory ahead for multicultural competence: the “spinning” of racism. Profess. Psychol. Res. Prac.39, 337–345. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.39.3.337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Social Psychol.69:797. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  StegerM. F.DikB. J.DuffyR. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: the work and meaning inventory (WAMI). J. Career Assess.20, 322–337. doi: 10.1177/1069072711436160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  SternthalM. J.SlopenN.WilliamsD. R. (2011). Racial disparities in health. Du Bois Rev. Social Sci. Res. Race8, 95–113. doi: 10.1017/S1742058X11000087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  SueD. W.CapodilupoC. M.TorinoG. C.BucceriJ. M.HolderA.NadalK. L.et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: implications for clinical practice. Am. Psychol.62, 271–286. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci.12, 257–285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  SwellerJ.van MerrienboerJ. J. G.PaasF. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev.10, 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  TaborF.DaltonP. (2021). Perception of racial discrimination in the workplace and its impact on job satisfaction and job security. J. Graduate Educ. Res.2, 31–47.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  TrianaM. D.JayasingheM.PieperJ. R. (2015). Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: a metaanalysis. J. Org. Behav.36, 491–513. doi: 10.1002/job.1988

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  WekenborgM. K.HillL. K.ThayerJ. F.PenzM.WittlingR. A.KirschbaumC. (2019). The longitudinal association of reduced vagal tone with burnout. Psychosomatic Med.81, 791–798. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000750

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  WilliamsA. A.BryantZ.CarvellC. (2019). Uncompensated emotional labor, racial battle fatigue, and (in) civility in digital spaces. Socio. Compass13:e12658. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  WilliamsD. R. (2020). Harnessing the outrage: it's time the NHS tackled racial bias. BMJ368:m341. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  WilliamsD. R.YuY.JacksonJ. S.AndersonN. B. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: socioeconomic status, stress, and discrimination. J. Health Psychol.2, 335–351. doi: 10.1177/135910539700200305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  WintersM. (2020). Inclusive Conversations: Fostering Equity, Empathy, and Belonging Across Differences. Oakland, CA: Barrett Koehler.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  World Health Organization (2019). Burn-out an Occupational Phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases (Accessed May 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  WorthingtonR. L.WhittakerT. A. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counsel. Psychol.34, 806–838. doi: 10.1177/0011000006288127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  ZengB.WenH.ZhangJ. (2020). How does the valence of wording affect features of a scale? The method effects in the undergraduate learning burnout scale. Front. Psychol.11:585179. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.585179

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar