4.3 Article

Exploring within- and between-gender differences in burnout: 8 different occupational groups

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-011-0667-y

关键词

Burnout; Gender differences; Occupational differences; Latent mean analysis; Multi-group analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine gender differences in burnout within and between occupations using latent mean analysis. Methods Burnout was measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), designed to assess the two sub-dimension exhaustion and disengagement. Men and women from eight different occupational groups in Norway were investigated: lawyers, physicians, nurses, teachers, church ministers, bus drivers and people working in advertising and information technology (n = 4,965). The average age was 42 years (SD 10.8), and 50.5% of the respondents were female. Within- and between-gender differences were examined by multi-group latent mean analysis by means of LISREL. Results Significant latent mean differences in the two dimensions of burnout between men and women were demonstrated. In general, the analyses indicate that overall, women report more exhaustion, but not more disengagement, than men. However, separate analyses indicate that the gender differences vary across occupational groups, especially for the disengagement dimension. Within- gender analyses suggest an approximately similar burnout profile across occupational groups for men and women. Conclusions Despite gender equality in society in general, and inconclusive findings in previous studies on gender differences in burnout, women in this study seem to experience slightly higher burnout levels than men. Occupational differences found in the burnout profiles indicate that some professions may be more prone to burnout than others. For the occupational groups most at risk, more research is needed to disclose potential organizational factors that may make these workers more prone to burnout than others.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据