التحقق من البنية العاملية وتكافؤ القياس عبر النوع الاجتماعي في مقياس ماسلاش للاحتراق النفسي

حسين عايض البقمي; عبدالرحمن جمعان الزهراني

doi:10.55074/hesj.vi46.1406

Authors

Hussain Ayidh Albagami Ministry of the Interior - Saudi Arabia
Abdulrahman Jmman Alzahrani Ministry of Education - Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55074/hesj.vi46.1406

Keywords:

invariance measurement and Levels, psychological Burnout

Abstract

The study aimed to verify the invariance measurement at its four levels (Configural, Metric or weak, Scalar or strong invariance, and residual level), Maslach's measure of psychological Burnout across the Mecca gender variable, the study sample was formed (377) An employee in the educational sector, The results showed the conformity of the working structure where the confirmatory working analysis was performed using AMOS-(22) software, (6) compatibility quality gauges were used between the model and the data and (4) compatibility quality indicators of the triple factor model showed a good level of conformity, and the comparative conformity indicator was used (CFI) and the TLI (TLI) where they were very close to the quantified values (0.90) The results also showed an appropriate conformity with the form model that serves as the basic model in light of the indicators of good conformity where the poor resemblance to the structure of the Maslash scale of psychological combustion across males and females in Saudi society has been achieved and the value of CFI, RMSEA, TLI and SRMR has fallen below 0.01. The results also showed differences between the CFI, RMSEA and TLI conformity indices between strong and rigorous models below 0.010. This is an indication of the equal variations of measurement errors of the MSM vocabulary across THC and females in a sense that provides rigorous similarity. The researchers recommended that the measure could be used to study gender differences at the provincial level to determine the degree of psychological Burnout.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

هيبة، محمد أحمد علي. (2011). تكافؤ قياس القائمة المختصرة للعوامل الخمسة للشخصية بين الجنسين في ضوء نظرية الاستجابة للمفردة ونمذجة المعادلة البنائية. مجلة القراءة والمعرفة، 115، 90-131.

صالح، عمرو. (2020). نادي الاحتراق النفسي. دار اكتب للنشر والتوزيع: القاهرة، مصر.

Abdelmounaim, B., Boumaaize, Z., Elmadhi, Y., Hami, H., Soulaymani, A., & Darif, H. (2022). The development and validation of an academic burnout questionnaire among Moroccan trainee teachers using the maslach burnout inventory-student survey. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 11(1), 138. ‏

Bravo, D. M., Suárez-Falcón, J. C., Bianchi, J. M., Segura-Vargas, M. A., & Ruiz, F. J. (2021). Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the maslach burnout inventory–general survey in Colombia. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(10), 5118. ‏

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Bui, T. H. T., Tran, T. M. D., Nguyen, T. N. T., Vu, T. C., Ngo, X. D., Nguyen, T. H. P., & Do, T. L. H. (2022). Reassessing the most popularly suggested measurement models and measurement invariance of the Maslach Burnout Inventory–human service survey among Vietnamese healthcare professionals. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 10(1), 104-120. ‏

Fernández-Arata, M., Juárez García, A., and Merino Soto, C. (2015). Análisis estructural e invarianza de medición del MBI-GS en trabajadores peruanos [Structural analysis and measurement invariance of MBI-GS in peruvian workers]. Liberabit 21, 9-20.

Kline, R. K. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th.ed). New York: Guilford publications, Inc.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: A social psychological analysis. In The Burnout syndrome ed. JW Jones, 30-53.‏

Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111-130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3, 71-92.‏

Wang, A., Duan, Y., Norton, P. G., Leiter, M. P., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2024). Validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey 9-item short version: psychometric properties and measurement invariance across age, gender, and continent. Frontiers in Psychology, 15.‏

Xanthoupoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Kantas, A., & Demerouti, E. (2013). Measuring burnout and work engagement: Factor structure, invariance, and latent mean differences across Greece and the Netherlands. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 7(2), 41-52.‏

Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872-882.

Awang, Z. (2012). A handbook on SEM Structural Equation Modeling: SEM using AMOS Graphic. Kota Baru Malaysia, University Teknologi Mara Kelantan.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 31-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of good of fit indexes to lack of measurement

invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary

Journal, 14, 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-69.