4.5 Article

Examining factor structure of Maslach burnout inventory among nurses in Taiwan

Journal

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 648-656

Publisher

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01427.x

Keywords

burnout; confirmatory factor analysis; exploratory factor analysis; MBI-HSS; nurses; Taiwan

Funding

  1. Department of Health, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan) [DOH099-TD-M-113-97025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

lee h.-f., chien t.-w. & yen m. (2013) Journal of Nursing Management21, 648656 Examining factor structure of Maslach burnout inventory among nurses in Taiwan Aim To investigate the factorial structure of a Chinese version of the MBI-HSS for nurses in Taiwan. Background Previous studies have presented different factorial structures using the Maslach burnout inventory-human services survey (MBI-HSS). Methods Secondary data analysis was implemented to explore the factor structure of MBI-HSS using exploratory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was then performed to verify the modified structure for nurses in Taiwan. Results The EFA found that three factors explaining 57% of the variance were extracted, and 20 of the 22 items were retained. The goodness-of-fit test was performed using the CFA approach, and it was verified that the modified version of MBI-HSS is a suitable instrument for measuring burnout for nurses in Taiwan. Conclusions A nationwide sample confirmed the factorial structure of MBI-HSS for nurses in Taiwan with a three-dimension, 20-item assessment, and the variance was not diminished in this sample. Implications for nursing management These findings demonstrate that the modified version of MBI-HSS provides a suitable instrument for measuring burnout for nurses in Taiwan. Therefore, the modified version of MBI-HSS can be used to compare burnout of nurses across cultures, providing valuable information for policies or preventions in the future.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available