| Literature DB >> 30458785 |
Nuwan Darshana Wickramasinghe1, Devani Sakunthala Dissanayake2, Gihan Sajiwa Abeywardena3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Absence of context-specific clinically validated cut-off values for assessing burnout as a dichotomous phenomenon has hindered the progress of student burnout research with regard to quantifying the magnitude of the problem. Hence, the present study was aimed at developing clinically validated cut-off values and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the Sinhala translation of the 15-item Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS) in assessing burnout among collegiate cycle students in Sri Lanka.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical validity; Collegiate cycle; Diagnostic accuracy; MBI-SS; Sri Lanka; Student burnout
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30458785 PMCID: PMC6247504 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-018-1048-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Distribution of the sample according to sex and subject stream (n = 194)
| Characteristic | Number | Percentage (%) | Cumulative Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Female | 107 | 55.2 | 55.2 |
| Male | 87 | 44.8 | 100.0 |
| Subject stream | |||
| Science | 78 | 40.2 | 40.2 |
| Arts | 60 | 30.9 | 71.1 |
| Commerce | 41 | 21.2 | 92.3 |
| Technology | 15 | 7.7 | 100.0 |
| Total | 194 | 100.0 | |
Fig. 1Receiver operating characteristic curves for three subscale scores against clinical diagnosis. (EX: Exhaustion; CY: Cynicism, rPE: reversed Professional Efficacy)
Sensitivity, specificity, distance from curve and Youden index for different cut-off values of the EX, CY and rPE subscales
| Subscale | Cut-off Value * | Sensitivity | Specificity | (1 – Specificity) | Distance from Curve | Youden Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EX | 8.50 | 0.919 | 0.568 | 0.432 | 0.439 | 0.487 |
| 9.50 | 0.919 | 0.712 | 0.288 | 0.299 | 0.631 | |
| 10.50 | 0.919 | 0.795 | 0.205 | 0.220 | 0.714 | |
| 11.50 | 0.919 | 0.841 | 0.159 | 0.178 | 0.760 | |
| 12.50 | 0.919 | 0.886 | 0.114 | 0.139 | 0.805 | |
| 13.50 | 0.806 | 0.924 | 0.076 | 0.208 | 0.730 | |
| 14.50 | 0.790 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.221 | 0.722 | |
| 15.50 | 0.774 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.236 | 0.706 | |
| 16.50 | 0.726 | 0.939 | 0.061 | 0.281 | 0.665 | |
| CY | 3.50 | 1.000 | 0.553 | 0.447 | 1.000 | 0.553 |
| 4.50 | 0.984 | 0.712 | 0.288 | 1.000 | 0.696 | |
| 5.50 | 0.952 | 0.826 | 0.174 | 1.000 | 0.778 | |
| 6.50 | 0.903 | 0.917 | 0.083 | 0.128 | 0.820 | |
| 7.50 | 0.903 | 0.924 | 0.076 | 0.123 | 0.827 | |
| 8.50 | 0.871 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.146 | 0.803 | |
| 9.50 | 0.855 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.160 | 0.787 | |
| 10.50 | 0.839 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.175 | 0.771 | |
| 11.50 | 0.790 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.221 | 0.722 | |
| rPE | 6.50 | 0.935 | 0.636 | 0.364 | 0.369 | 0.571 |
| 7.50 | 0.919 | 0.765 | 0.235 | 0.248 | 0.684 | |
| 8.50 | 0.919 | 0.848 | 0.152 | 0.172 | 0.767 | |
| 9.50 | 0.887 | 0.879 | 0.121 | 0.166 | 0.766 | |
| 10.50 | 0.887 | 0.894 | 0.106 | 0.155 | 0.781 | |
| 11.50 | 0.855 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.160 | 0.779 | |
| 12.50 | 0.839 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.175 | 0.771 | |
| 13.50 | 0.790 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.221 | 0.722 | |
| 14.50 | 0.710 | 0.932 | 0.068 | 0.298 | 0.642 |
*The cut-off values for EX range from 0 to 26, CY range from 0 to 22 and rPE range from 0 to 30 and only a selection of scores are reported without the extreme values
Fig. 2Flow diagram of participants through the study (The Consultant Psychiatrist was unaware of the results of the MBI-SS scores.)
Comparison of clinical diagnosis against the diagnosis made by the clinically validated cut-off values for the MBI-SS subscales for 194 grade thirteen students
| MBI-SS Diagnosis | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burnout | Not burnout | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| Clinical Diagnosis | Burnout | 57 | 91.9 | 5 | 8.1 | 62 | 100.0 |
| Not burnout | 9 | 6.8 | 123 | 93.2 | 132 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 66 | 34.0 | 128 | 66.0 | 194 | 100.0 | |
Summary of indicators of diagnostic accuracy of the MBI-SS assessment of burnout status in 194 grade thirteen students
| Indicator | Formula | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | TP / (TP + FN) | 91.9% | 82.5–96.5% |
| Specificity | TN / (TN + FP) | 93.2% | 87.5–96.4% |
| PPV | TP / (TP + FP) | 86.4% | 76.1–92.7% |
| NPV | TN / (TN + FN) | 96.1% | 91.2 - 98.3% |
| LR+ | Sensitivity/(1-Specificity) | 13.48 | 7.15–25.44 |
| LR- | (1-Sensitivity)/Specificity | 0.09 | 0.04–0.20 |
95% CI: 95% Confidence Interval; FN: False Negatives; FP: False Positives; LR+: Positive Likelihood Ratio; LR-: Negative Likelihood Ratio; PPV: Positive Predictive Value; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; TN: True Negatives; TP: True Positives.