Symptoms of distress when suffering from burnout

Objective: To compare the structure and explanatory power of the traditional and the subtype burnout definitions on symptoms of distress. Methods: We used a cross-sectional design with a random sample of university employees (n=429), who completed the MBI-GS, BCSQ-12 and HSCL-30. The structure of the scales was assessed using parallel analysis from polychoric correlations, unweighted least squares and promin rotation. Multivariate regression models were built among symptoms and burnout models. Results: The HSCL showed a two-factor structure (psychological and somatic; IFS=0.87; GFI=0.99; RMSR=0.05); the MBI a forced three-factor structure (exhaustion, efficacy and cynicism; IFS=0.95; GFI>0.99; RMSR=0.03); the BCSQ a three-factor structure (neglect, lack of development and overload; IFS=0.98; GFI>0.99; RMSR=0.02). The variance of psychological distress was for 40% explained by MBI-GS and for 27% by BCSQ-12; the variance of somatic symptoms was for 31% explained by MBI-GS and 16% by BCSQ-12. All the BCSQ-12 factors contributed to explain psychological and somatic symptoms, but only exhaustion from MBI-GS. Conclusions: The typological definition showed better structure, but worse explanatory power on symptoms, than the traditional perspective. Exhaustion seems to be the burnout core dimension, althought the subtypes would explain a specific characterization of the syndrom