School-Burnout Inventory (SBI) - Studenthealth 2012

Table 2. Estimated item reliability and standardized validity coefficients (in parentheses) for the SBI models
M1 Each factor in separate model M2 M3
SBI OSB EXH CYN INAD EXH CYN INAD OSB EXH CYN INAD
Item EXH1 .33 (.58) .39 (.63) – – .43 (.65) – – – .43 (.65) – –
Item EXH2 .35 (.59) .56 (.75) – – .54 (.74) – – – .54 (.74) – –
Item EXH3 .32 (.57) .60 (.77) – – .57 (.76) – – – .56 (.75) – –
Item EXH4 .35 (.60) .45 (.67) – – .47 (.68) – – – .47 (.68) – –
Item CYN1 .60 (.78) – .72 (.85) – – .73 (.85) – – – .73 (.85) –
Item CYN2 .62 (.79) – .78 (.88) – – .77 (.87) – – – .77 (.88) –
Item CYN3 .47 (.68) – .52 (.72) – – .53 (.73) – – – .53 (.73) –
Item INAD1 .52 (.72) – – .58 (.76) – – .52 (.72) – – – .58
(.76)
Item INAD2 .52 (.72) – – .45 (.67) – – .51 (.71) – – – .55
(.75)
Exhaustion – – – – – – – .65 (.80) – – –
Cynicism – – – – – – – .65 (.81) – – –
Inadequacya – – – – – – – 1.00 (1.00) – – –
Note. M1 = one-factor model; M2 = three-factor model; M3 = second-order-factor model. OSB = overall school burnout; EXH = exhaustion;
CYN = cynicism; INAD = inadequacy. aResidual variance of Inadequacy is fixed to zero.
Table 3. Coefficients for factor score scales, reliabilities for factor score scales and Cronbach’s αs
M1 Each factor in separate model M2 M3
SBI OSB EXH CYN INAD EXH CYN INAD OSB EXH CYN INAD
Item EXH1 .05 .12 – – .12 .003 .07 .03 .12 .01 .05
Item EXH2 .06 .21 – – .17 .004 .10 .05 .17 .02 .06
Item EXH3 .05 .21 – – .17 .01 .10 .04 .16 .02 .06
Item EXH4 .06 .15 – – .14 .004 .08 .04 .14 .01 .05
Item CYN1 .13 – .36 – .01 .29 .14 .07 .03 .29 .09
Item CYN2 .12 – .45 – – .32 .15 .07 .03 .33 .10
Item CYN3 .09 – .14 – .004 .15 .07 .03 .01 .15 .05
Item INAD1 .10 – – .45 .09 .08 .10 .16 .07 .06 .23
Item INAD2 .09 – – .34 .08 .07 .08 .13 .06 .05 .19a Factor score
scale reliability
.89 .81 .88 .69 .84 .89 .91 .83 .84 .83 .83
Cronbach’s α .88 .80 .80 .67
Note. M1 = one-factor model; M2 = three-factor model; M3 = second-order-factor model. OSB = overall school burnout; EXH = exhaustion;
CYN = cynicism; INAD = inadequacy. aResidual variance of Inadequacy is fixed to zero.
results also showed that the factor-score scale reliabilities
for the correlated three-factor model M2 were higher than
those for the three separate one-factor models. The factorscore
scale reliabilities were also good for Model M3.
However, these reliabilities were slightly lower than the
reliabilities for Model M2.
Concurrent Validity
The final aim of the present study was to examine whether
academic achievement, school engagement, and depressive
symptoms would predict school-burnout factors when con-
K. Salmela-Aro et al.: School-Burnout Inventory 53
trolled for gender and school track, thus, providing evidence
of the concurrent validity of the SBI. First, the predictors
were added to the final model M2 by estimating the
regression coefficients for academic achievement, school
engagement, and depressive symptoms for each latent factor.
The estimation results for the final model M2, χ²(57, N
= 1418) = 203.11, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .97, TLI
= .96, SRMR = .03, containing only statistically significant
regression coefficients, are presented in Figure 2. The results
showed that, when controlling for the effects of gender
and school track, the more depressive symptoms adolescents
suffered, the higher also was their level of each component
of school burnout. Moreover, the lower their aca-
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2009; Vol. 25(1):48–57