Open AccessReliability and validity of the Chinese version of Oldenburg Burnout Inventory for Chinese nurses
Author(s) -
Xu Huiwen,
Yuan Yuan,
Gong Weijuan,
Zhang Jingyi,
Liu Xinyi,
Zhu Pingting,
Takashi En,
Kitayama Akio,
Wan Xiaojuan,
Jiao Jianhui
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
nursing open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.55
H-Index - 12
ISSN - 2054-1058
DOI - 10.1002/nop2.1065
Subject(s) - cronbach's alpha , burnout , confirmatory factor analysis , disengagement theory , psychology , structural equation modeling , construct validity , pearson product moment correlation coefficient , reliability (semiconductor) , emotional exhaustion , exploratory factor analysis , criterion validity , discriminant validity , validity , statistics , clinical psychology , mathematics , internal consistency , psychometrics , medicine , gerontology , physics , quantum mechanics , power (physics)
Aim This study aims to develop a reliable and validate Chinese version of Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). Design A cross‐sectional validation design was adopted in this study. Methods After obtaining the copyright by contacting with the author, the original English OLBI was developed to Chinese by forward translation, back‐translation, cultural adaptation and a pre‐test (20 nurses). The Chinese OLBI and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) were administered to 641 clinical nurses during July and August, 2020. Internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient), split reliability (split half coefficient), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis) and criterion validity (comparison with MBI, using Pearson correlation analysis) were assessed. Results The Chinese OLBI included 16 items. Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors with a cumulative contribution of 62.245%. Two‐dimensional structure (exhaustion and disengagement) was confirmed. It has good internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient values of 0.905, 0.933 and 0.876 for the total questionnaire, exhaustion dimension and disengagement dimension, respectively), split half reliability (split half coefficient = 0.883, p < .01) and criterion validity ( r = 0.873, p < .01). Pearson coefficients between 16 items and the scale varied from 0.479–0.765. An acceptable model fit (χ 2 / df = 2.49, RMSEA = 0.068, TLI = 0.906, CFI = 0.922, SRMR = 0.061) was achieved.