Burnout test accuracy: what research says and why your score changes

Your work-related burnout comes out at 54, “Moderate burnout”, on the burnout self-check; after a holiday you take it again and get 46, “Low burnout”; or a different burnout test at work said you were fine. Stories like these are common, and they raise the obvious questions: which one is right, and can a burnout test be trusted at all?

The short answer: the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) that mind.io uses measures exhaustion fairly consistently. In a Danish survey of human service workers, its internal consistency, which shows how closely the items move together, was .87 for both personal and work-related burnout (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004). But the World Health Organization classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, not a disease (WHO, 2019), so there is no internationally agreed diagnosis to check a score against. Tests differ in what they count as burnout and where they draw the line, so their results can disagree, and scores naturally move with your recent work and rest.

This guide covers how the accuracy of a test without a diagnostic standard is judged, how well the CBI has held up in research, why burnout tests disagree, why your score moves when you take it again, what a burnout score can miss, and how to read and use your result. Where your score on the mind.io burnout self-check sits next to other people’s is covered in average burnout score, what burnout looks like in burnout symptoms, and how it differs from depression in burnout versus depression.

The accuracy of a psychological test is usually judged on two counts. Reliability is whether the items move together consistently (internal consistency) and whether you get a similar result when measured again a short time later (test-retest reliability). Validity is whether the test measures what it sets out to measure, and whether scores connect in meaningful ways with other measures and with what happens later.

Depression and anxiety self-checks add one more step: they are compared with a professional’s diagnostic interview, to see how many people with the condition they pick up (sensitivity) and how many people without it they rule out (specificity). Most burnout tests cannot be checked that way. The World Health Organization included burnout in the ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon, but did not classify it as a medical condition, and said the term should be used only in the context of work (WHO, 2019). Researchers who reviewed five burnout questionnaires called developing a diagnostic standard for burnout a priority, so that the questionnaires’ sensitivity and specificity could be assessed (Shoman et al., 2021). Nor is there a single definition: a study that sorted 88 definitions found in the literature and put a proposal to 50 experts from 29 countries reached 82% agreement on “exhaustion due to prolonged exposure to work-related problems”, physical and emotional, in a worker (Guseva Canu et al., 2021).

That does not mean it is never diagnosed. Sweden has a diagnosis of “exhaustion disorder” with criteria set by its National Board of Health and Welfare (Hadžibajramović et al., 2026), and in the Netherlands occupational physicians diagnose burnout in an interview, following the Royal Dutch Medical Association’s guidelines (Schaufeli et al., 2023). Researchers also note that some European countries recognise burnout as an occupational disease (Schaufeli et al., 2023). In Japan, by contrast, it was not recognised as a formal diagnosis at the time of a 2020 study (Sakakibara et al., 2020). Studies comparing scores with such diagnoses come from the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), covered below; we did not find one for the CBI that mind.io uses.

So the accuracy of a burnout test comes down to four questions: do the items point to the same thing, do short retests agree, do scores connect with what they should (fatigue, sick leave), and, for some tests only, how well do they pick out people with a diagnosis? mind.io has not studied any of this for its own burnout self-check. The figures in this guide come from research, except how far mind.io scores move, which is calculated from its scoring.

The CBI is a freely available scale developed by researchers at Denmark’s National Institute of Occupational Health. It was built in the PUMA study, which followed employees in the human service sector, and has three scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout and client-related burnout. The development paper reported very high internal consistency for all three, scores that differed clearly between occupations, and scales that predicted later sickness absence, sleep problems, use of painkillers and intention to quit (Kristensen et al., 2005, from the abstract). In the figures the researchers published, internal consistency in the PUMA study was .87 for personal burnout, .87 for work-related burnout and .85 for client-related burnout, and in a sample of 1,498 people chosen to represent Danish adults aged 20 to 59, the personal burnout scale’s internal consistency was .80 (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004). In a three-year follow-up, the quarter with the lowest work-related burnout scores reported 5.4 days of sickness absence a year on average and the highest quarter 13.6 days (Borritz et al., 2006, from the abstract).

Reviewers are more cautious. In a systematic review that rated five burnout questionnaires against the same standards, the CBI appeared the most valid, but the authors said this was mainly down to its content validity, that is, how well the items capture the core of burnout. The CBI had been validated by its developers in a single study (a very comprehensive one), and the evidence on its test-retest reliability, measurement error and structure was rated very low in quality. The authors said that, beyond content validity, the evidence was still not enough to recommend the CBI as the best measure, and noted that translations need to be checked separately (Shoman et al., 2021). In the original, scores on the three scales were fairly strongly linked, at around .46 to .75 (Kristensen et al., 2005, as cited in INRS, 2014).

Some countries have their own studies. In Korea, researchers gave their Korean translation of the CBI to 464 homecare workers for older adults drawn in a nationwide probability sample, and the original three-scale structure did not fit well. The only reverse-scored item, on “energy for family and friends”, barely moved with the other items, and only after the model was refined, including dropping that item, did it reach an acceptable level; composite reliability was then .90 to .92 per scale. Work-related burnout was linked to the other two scales at more than .85, making it hard to tell apart (Jeon et al., 2019). A preliminary study of the Korean Burnout Assessment Tool (K-BAT) in 345 office workers found internal consistency of .84 to .91 for its four subscales (Cho, 2020). For Japan, a Japanese translation of the CBI is recorded (INRS, 2014), but we did not find a study checking its reliability; the Japanese Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT-J), given to 982 employees, had an internal consistency of .96 for its core symptom scale (Sakakibara et al., 2020). As of the 2014 review by France’s occupational safety institute (INRS), the French version was a partial one that translated only two of the three scales, personal and client-related burnout, with internal consistency of .88 and .85 in a survey of hospital doctors and pharmacists (Doppia et al., 2011, as cited in INRS, 2014). The INRS wrote that French validation should continue, adding the work-related scale, and that there were no French norms at the time (INRS, 2014).

The mind.io burnout self-check uses the CBI’s 6 personal burnout items and 7 work-related burnout items and, as in the original, scores answers 100, 75, 50, 25 or 0 and averages each scale. The English items follow the published wording; the Korean, Japanese and French items are mind.io’s translations, not the versions in the studies above, and have not been validated separately. So these figures describe the research scale, not how accurate a mind.io result is.

Tests with the same “burnout test” label ask different things. The CBI treats fatigue and exhaustion as the core of burnout, and its developers explained that burnout is not just fatigue: it is fatigue that a person attributes to a specific domain such as work (Kristensen et al., 2005, as cited in Guseva Canu et al., 2021). The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) gives three separate scores, for emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation (cynicism) and reduced personal accomplishment, and according to the BAT researchers it is estimated to have been used in 88% of publications on burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2020). The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) measures four core symptoms together: exhaustion, mental distance from work, trouble regulating thoughts and trouble regulating emotions. They are set out in burnout symptoms.

Where the line is drawn differs too. A review of 182 studies on burnout prevalence among physicians (45 countries, 109,628 people) found that although 85.7% used a version of the MBI, there were at least 142 ways of defining burnout, and overall burnout prevalence ranged from 0% to 80.5% depending on the study (Rotenstein et al., 2018, from the abstract). Some studies have given the same people two tests. Among 147 Canadian emergency physicians and trainees, 44.2% had an overall CBI mean of 50 or more and 44.9% met the criterion on the MBI’s single items, almost the same share, yet 21.1% were classified differently by the two tests; under the age of 35 the figure was 30.2% (Li et al., 2024).

Limits have been reported for using the MBI to diagnose. Its manual advises against combining the three scores into a single burnout score (as cited in Schaufeli et al., 2020). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients from 84 studies found that the three scales’ averages generally fell between .70 and .80, and that the personal accomplishment and depersonalisation scales were well below the levels recommended for high-stakes decisions such as diagnosing burnout (Wheeler et al., 2011, from the abstract). Among 419 outpatients of a Dutch service treating work-related psychological problems, compared with a diagnosis from a structured interview (“undifferentiated somatoform disorder”, used in place of burnout), even the best cut-off reached only 78% sensitivity and 48% specificity, and the authors said using the MBI alone as a diagnostic tool risks overdiagnosing burnout (Kleijweg et al., 2013, from the abstract). France’s INRS likewise notes that the French MBI has not been published as a standardised test, so it cannot be used for individual clinical diagnosis (INRS, 2022).

The test with cut-offs set against diagnosed people is the BAT. A study in the Netherlands, Flanders (Belgium) and Finland compared representative samples of workers (excluding anyone treated for burnout in the past five years) with employees diagnosed with burnout; the 23-item BAT total separated the two groups with an area under the curve (AUC) of .91. The “severe” cut-off set from the pooled data picked out 74% of the diagnosed people and ruled out 91% of the others, and the “at risk” cut-off 92% and 79%. But the subscale on mental distance from work picked out only 30% of diagnosed people at the “severe” cut-off, and the authors noted that they could not check how consistent the diagnoses were between assessors, and said the cut-offs should be used tentatively (Schaufeli et al., 2023). A Swedish study comparing 159 people who reported a diagnosis of exhaustion disorder with a representative sample of workers found an AUC of .92 and, at the “severe” cut-off, 69% sensitivity and 91% specificity; the Swedish cut-offs were somewhat lower than in the other three countries (Hadžibajramović et al., 2026). Both studies compared people with a diagnosis with workers who had not been treated for burnout or stress in the past five years. In mind.io’s reading, such a design shows how well a test separates clear cases from clear non-cases, so the figures cannot be carried straight over to working people in general, who include people near the boundary.

The CBI has no such study. In what we found, no study set CBI cut-offs against a diagnosis; 50 is a research convention. The CBI developers’ document defines 50 or more as a “high degree of burnout” (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004), and some studies split the scale into 50–74 moderate, 75–99 high and 100 severe (Creedy et al., 2017). mind.io likewise reads under 50 as “Low burnout”, 50–74 as “Moderate burnout” and 75 or more as “High burnout”, but these are reading aids, not diagnostic thresholds. How common 50 or more was in research is covered in average burnout score.

A burnout score measures a current state, not an inborn trait. In the PUMA study, where the CBI was developed, a substantial share of employees changed in their level of burnout over time (Kristensen et al., 2005, from the abstract), and changes in burnout over three years went together with changes in days of sickness absence (Borritz et al., 2006, from the abstract). Swedish researchers also note that burnout symptoms fluctuate over time (Hadžibajramović et al., 2026). And unlike the PHQ-9 or GAD-7, CBI items name no period such as “over the last two weeks”, so your answers can depend on which stretch of time you picture. mind.io asks you to answer with the last few weeks in mind rather than today, and, if you are not working, to answer the work items for the role that takes most of your time these days, such as studying or caring for someone.

Few studies have measured burnout twice a short time apart. Among 485 employees who answered the Japanese Burnout Assessment Tool twice, one month apart, the correlation between the two scores was .64 for core symptoms and .71 for secondary symptoms (Sakakibara et al., 2020). The Chinese CBI, in human service workers in Hong Kong, gave .60 to .63 over four months (Fong et al., 2014, as cited in INRS, 2014), and the MBI, re-measured two to four weeks later in 53 people, gave .82 for emotional exhaustion, .60 for depersonalisation and .80 for personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986, as cited in INRS, 2022). For a test of a state that changes when your work changes, some movement in the score is natural. Part of it may be measurement error, though, and we did not find a study that sets how many points on the CBI make a meaningful change.

On mind.io, one answer can be enough to change the range. Personal burnout is the mean of 6 items, so moving one answer by one step shifts the score by 4 to 5 points; work-related burnout is the mean of 7 items, so it shifts by 3 to 4 points. Worked out, on both scales 46 and 50, and 71 and 75, are one answer apart: 46 “Low burnout” and 50 “Moderate burnout”, or 71 “Moderate burnout” and 75 “High burnout”, can be split by a single item. Choosing “Sometimes” or “Somewhat” for every item gives 50 on both scales, “Moderate burnout”. The result title uses the range of the higher of the two scales, and if either scale is 75 or more, the result page shows where to get support first. There is no separate note when a score sits near a boundary, so look at the score rather than the range name. If the same browser holds an earlier result, the result page shows how many points each scale changed and notes that burnout scores naturally move with your recent workload and rest.

One item needs particular care. On the work-related scale, “Do you have enough energy for family and friends during leisure time?” is the only positively worded item, so it is reverse-scored (“Always” scores 0). In the Korean study above it moved apart from the other items and had to be dropped, and the researchers thought respondents may have answered it the same way as the others without attending to its content (Jeon et al., 2019). Several studies have reported a possible halo effect on this single item, with answers carried over from the earlier ones (Campos et al., 2013; Yeh et al., 2007, as cited in INRS, 2014). Worked out, choosing “Always” or “To a very high degree” for all 13 items gives work-related burnout 86, not 100. The CBI documentation also says its items should not be printed in the order it lists them, and that they could very well be mixed with questions on other topics to avoid stereotyped response patterns (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004); mind.io shows the 13 items one after another in their original order.

The CBI measures burnout mainly as exhaustion. The researchers who built the Burnout Assessment Tool classed the CBI among questionnaires that narrow burnout down to exhaustion alone (Schaufeli et al., 2020). So whether you have pulled away from your work, or whether concentration and keeping emotions in check are what they used to be, barely shows in the score. Look at those changes separately, against burnout symptoms. The two scales also overlap a good deal. In a study of 384 employees of two companies in Taiwan, personal and work-related burnout were highly correlated and appeared to measure overlapping concepts (Yeh et al., 2007, from the abstract), and in the Korean study work-related burnout was linked to the other scales at more than .85 (Jeon et al., 2019). When the mind.io result page points out which scale is higher because the two differ by 15 points or more, that is a reading aid chosen by mind.io, not a CBI rule.

Burnout also overlaps a good deal with depression and anxiety. A meta-analysis of 67 studies with 84,169 people found a correlation of .52 between burnout and depression, and of .46 between burnout and anxiety in 34 studies with 40,751 people; the authors concluded that they are closely related but do not overlap enough to be the same construct (Koutsimani et al., 2019). Another team, reviewing 92 studies, found the distinction between burnout and depression conceptually fragile and the evidence inconsistent (Bianchi et al., 2015, from the abstract). In the Korean study, all three CBI scales were related to depressive symptoms (Jeon et al., 2019). So a burnout score cannot pick out depression. If your mood has been low or your interest has faded, try the depression check-in (PHQ-9) as well. It is not a diagnosis either; how to read its score is covered in PHQ-9 accuracy, and the difference between the two states in burnout versus depression.

Physical problems add to fatigue as well. Similar tiredness can come from physical illnesses such as anaemia or thyroid problems, or from sleep problems. If fatigue lasts, do not put it all down to burnout: see a doctor to check for other causes. Personal burnout asks how worn out you are whatever the cause, so burdens outside work, such as caregiving, illness or big changes in life, also raise the score.

If your workplace runs burnout surveys for everyone, it is worth asking how the results will be used. The BAT researchers recommend that individual scores be disclosed only to the people who took the test, with only aggregated results reported to the organisation (Schaufeli et al., 2023). A burnout score is not a tool for hiring or performance reviews.

First, look at the two scales separately, and check how far each score is from 50 and 75. Since 46 and 50 are one answer apart, the number tells you more than the range name.

Second, to compare yourself with others, see average burnout score. In a sample chosen to represent Danish adults, the mean personal burnout score was 32.7 (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004). Translations, survey years and jobs differ, so use it only as a rough reference point.

Third, take it again about two to four weeks after a break or a change in workload, in similar circumstances. Noting how your sleep, workload and time off changed makes it easier to see why the score moved. Look at the direction over several check-ins rather than a difference of a few points once.

Fourth, if either scale is 75 or more, if scores of 50 or more last for weeks, or if your sleep, meals and daily life start to slip, do not carry it alone: talk to someone you trust, an employee assistance program (EAP) or occupational health service at work, or a doctor. Steps for rebalancing workload and recovery are set out in how to recover from burnout.

Don’ts: do not use a burnout score alone to judge yourself or anyone else, do not dismiss your exhaustion because the score was low, and do not decide “it’s burnout, so it can’t be depression”. A burnout score is a gauge of how worn out you are these days, not a verdict.

Q. Can a burnout test be trusted? A. The research version of the CBI has items that move together fairly consistently: its internal consistency was .87 for both personal and work-related burnout in a Danish survey of human service workers (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004), and in a review comparing five burnout questionnaires it appeared the most valid, mainly on content validity, though the authors said the evidence was not enough to recommend it as the best. The evidence on its test-retest reliability is also still weak (Shoman et al., 2021), and burnout has no internationally agreed diagnosis to check a score against. mind.io has no reliability data of its own for its check, so use your result as a rough gauge of how you are now.

Q. Does a score over 50 or 75 mean I have burnout? A. Not on its own. Treating 50 or more as “high burnout” is a CBI research convention (Borritz & Kristensen, 2004), and some studies add a further split at 75 (Creedy et al., 2017), but we did not find any CBI cut-off set against a diagnosis. If either scale is 75 or more, the mind.io result page shows where to get support first.

Q. A burnout test on another site gave a different result. Why? A. Tests define burnout differently and draw their lines in different places. Studies of physicians alone used at least 142 definitions (Rotenstein et al., 2018, from the abstract), and among 147 Canadian emergency physicians and trainees who took both the CBI and the MBI’s single items, 21.1% were classified differently (Li et al., 2024). The CBI mainly measures exhaustion, while other tests also ask about cynicism or trouble concentrating.

Q. My score is different from last time. Which one is right? A. Both reflect how you were at the time. Burnout is a state that changes with work and rest: the Japanese Burnout Assessment Tool, taken again one month later, correlated .64 with the first score (Sakakibara et al., 2020). On mind.io, changing a single answer moves a score by 3 to 5 points. Look at the direction over several check-ins, alongside what changed in your workload, sleep and time off.

Q. Would the MBI or BAT be more accurate? A. There is no one right test for everyone. The MBI has been widely used in burnout research, but limits have been reported for using it to diagnose (Wheeler et al., 2011, from the abstract; Kleijweg et al., 2013, from the abstract); the BAT has cut-offs set against diagnosed people, but its authors call them tentative (Schaufeli et al., 2023). The CBI is a freely available scale focused on exhaustion. What matters is reading each one knowing what it asks.

Q. Can a doctor diagnose burnout? A. The World Health Organization classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition (WHO, 2019). Some countries do diagnose it, such as Sweden’s exhaustion disorder or burnout diagnosed by occupational physicians in the Netherlands (Hadžibajramović et al., 2026; Schaufeli et al., 2023), while in Japan it was not a formal diagnosis (Sakakibara et al., 2020). In a consultation, the whole picture of symptoms matters more than a score, and other causes such as depression or physical illness are checked too.

Q. Can a burnout score tell me whether I am depressed? A. No. Pooled studies put the correlation between burnout and depression at .52: closely entangled, but not overlapping enough to be the same thing (Koutsimani et al., 2019). If a low mood has lasted more than two weeks, try the depression check-in (PHQ-9) as well. Neither check-in is a diagnosis.

Q. When should I get help? A. If a low mood keeps going, talk to a professional. If you have thoughts of harming yourself, treat it as a mental health crisis rather than burnout and reach out to a crisis line right away: 988 in the US and Canada (call or text), Samaritans on 116 123 in the UK and Ireland, or findahelpline.com elsewhere. If you are in immediate danger, contact your local emergency services.

References: Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Laurent, E. (2015), Burnout–depression overlap: A review, Clinical Psychology Review 36, 28-41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.004; Borritz, M., & Kristensen, T. S. (2004), Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: Normative data from a representative Danish population on Personal Burnout and Results from the PUMA study on Personal Burnout, Work Burnout, and Client Burnout, National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark, https://nfa.dk/media/hl5nbers/cbi-first-edition.pdf; Borritz, M., Rugulies, R., Christensen, K. B., Villadsen, E., & Kristensen, T. S. (2006), Burnout as a predictor of self-reported sickness absence among human service workers: Prospective findings from three year follow up of the PUMA study, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 63(2), 98-106, https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.019364; Cho, S. (2020), A preliminary validation study for the Korean version of the Burnout Assessment Tool (K-BAT) [in Korean], Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 33(4), 461-499, https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v33i4.461-499; Creedy, D. K., Sidebotham, M., Gamble, J., Pallant, J., & Fenwick, J. (2017), Prevalence of burnout, depression, anxiety and stress in Australian midwives: A cross-sectional survey, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 17, 13, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1212-5; Guseva Canu, I., Marca, S. C., Dell’Oro, F., Balázs, Á., Bergamaschi, E., Besse, C., Bianchi, R., Bislimovska, J., Koscec Bjelajac, A., Bugge, M., et al. (2021), Harmonized definition of occupational burnout: A systematic review, semantic analysis, and Delphi consensus in 29 countries, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 47(2), 95-107, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3935; Hadžibajramović, E., Dahlqvist, I., Jonsdottir, I. H., & De Witte, H. (2026), Clinical and screening utility of the Burnout Assessment Tool: A comparative evaluation of BAT23, BAT12 and BAT4 in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 52(3), 263-271, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4286; INRS: Langevin, V., Boini, S., François, M., & Riou, A. (2014), Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), fiche FRPS 38, Références en santé au travail 138, 123-126, https://www.inrs.fr/dam/inrs/CataloguePapier/DMT/TI-FRPS-38.pdf; INRS: Langevin, V., & Boini, S. (2022), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), fiche FRPS 26, Références en santé au travail 172, 115-118, https://www.inrs.fr/dam/inrs/CataloguePapier/DMT/TI-FRPS-26.pdf; Jeon, G.-S., You, S.-J., Kim, M.-G., Kim, Y.-M., & Cho, S.-I. (2019), Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in Korean homecare workers for older adults, PLoS One 14(8), e0221323, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221323; Kleijweg, J. H. M., Verbraak, M. J. P. M., & Van Dijk, M. K. (2013), The clinical utility of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in a clinical population, Psychological Assessment 25(2), 435-441, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031334; Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A., & Georganta, K. (2019), The relationship between burnout, depression, and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Frontiers in Psychology 10, 284, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00284; Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005), The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout, Work & Stress 19(3), 192-207, https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720; Li, H., Dance, E., Poonja, Z., Aguilar, L. S., & Colmers-Gray, I. (2024), Agreement between the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory among emergency physicians and trainees, Academic Emergency Medicine 31(12), 1243-1255, https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14994; Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., Rosales, R. C., Guille, C., Sen, S., & Mata, D. A. (2018), Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review, JAMA 320(11), 1131-1150, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12777; Sakakibara, K., Shimazu, A., Toyama, H., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2020), Validation of the Japanese version of the Burnout Assessment Tool, Frontiers in Psychology 11, 1819, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01819; Schaufeli, W. B., Desart, S., & De Witte, H. (2020), Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)—Development, validity, and reliability, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(24), 9495, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249495; Schaufeli, W. B., De Witte, H., Hakanen, J. J., Kaltiainen, J., & Kok, R. (2023), How to assess severe burnout? Cutoff points for the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) based on three European samples, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 49(4), 293-302, https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4093; Shoman, Y., Marca, S. C., Bianchi, R., Godderis, L., van der Molen, H. F., & Guseva Canu, I. (2021), Psychometric properties of burnout measures: A systematic review, Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 30, e8, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796020001134; Wheeler, D. L., Vassar, M., Worley, J. A., & Barnes, L. L. B. (2011), A reliability generalization meta-analysis of coefficient alpha for the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(1), 231-244, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410391579; World Health Organization (2019), Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases, https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases; Yeh, W.-Y., Cheng, Y., Chen, C.-J., Hu, P.-Y., & Kristensen, T. S. (2007), Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Copenhagen Burnout Inventory among employees in two companies in Taiwan, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 14(3), 126-133, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03000183