Factorial validity and consistency of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among staff working with persons with intellectual disability and dementia.
The Depersonalization sub-scale of the MBI underperforms with ID direct-care staff—interpret low scores cautiously.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The authors gave the Maslach Burnout Inventory to 214 staff who work with adults with intellectual disability and dementia.
They ran a factor analysis to see if the three burnout scales still hang together in this group.
All staff worked in community homes, not big institutions.
What they found
The inventory mostly kept its three-part shape: Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment.
But the Depersonalization scale had weak reliability (alpha = 0.58).
Low scores on that scale may not truly mean low cynicism—use caution.
How this fits with other research
Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) also found shaky item-level reliability in two ID informant tools (MAS and QABF).
Both papers warn that weak sub-scales can mislead you in practice.
Lerman et al. (1995) showed the opposite: their SKIS interview had strong internal consistency across ID clients.
The difference is method—SKIS used clear sex-ed questions while MBI uses broad attitude items that staff may answer in a socially desirable way.
Why it matters
If you screen staff burnout, do not trust Depersonalization scores alone. Pair the MBI with brief interviews or direct observation. A low score might reflect courtesy bias, not real engagement.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one open question—"What makes you feel distant from clients?"—whenever MBI Depersonalization is low.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Burnout has been considered important to understanding the well-being of workers in the intellectual disabilities (ID) field and the quality of services delivered to clients/consumers. However, little research has examined the psychometric properties and applicability to staff in ID services of one of the most widely used burnout measurements - the Human Services Survey version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS). METHODS: Data were gathered using a mailed questionnaire comprising the MBI-HSS and demographic information. The sample consisted of 435 staff delivering direct care and working in out-of-home community placements for persons with ID in New York state. The factorial structure of the scale was examined using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency estimates of reliability of the MBI-HSS were determined using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the MBI-HSS as an acceptable measure to evaluate burnout in ID services staff. However, the reliability statistics obtained for the Depersonalization (DP) sub-scale was much lower than what has been reported in studies with other staff populations. An exploratory factor analysis suggested that a four-factor solution, dividing the DP sub-scale into two factors, provided a somewhat better fit for the sample. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the MBI-HHS as an instrument for measuring burnout among ID workers has its attraction but also its limitations. In particular, the DP sub-scale should be used with caution because there appear to be wording issues for staff in ID settings that may lead to inconsistent responses.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2011 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01413.x