The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Questions and directions

By T. Cox, Mary Tisserand, Toon W. Taris. 2005

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01d869549b87a98a7e884bca70696639871e014f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. É. Laurent
2. Renzo Bianchi
3. I. Schonfeld
4. Marisa Salanova
5. Wilmar B. Schaufeli
6. Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell
7. Arnold B. Bakker
8. Giovanni Di Stefano

In General Health Professions

1. Wilmar B. Schaufeli
2. Marisa Salanova
3. É. Laurent
4. Renzo Bianchi
5. I. Schonfeld
6. Arnold B. Bakker
7. Evangelia Demerouti
8. Osman M. Karatepe

Citations in the corpus

• Clergy Burnout: A Comparison Study with Other Helping Professions (2017, methodology): “The MBI has been criticized because it was derived from field and clinical observation rather than being based on a theoretical model or empirical evidence (Cox et al. 2005; Kristensen et al. 2005).”
• Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs (2007, background): “Our study adds an important element to the ongoing discussion about the conceptualization and measurement of burnout (Cox et al., 2005).”
• Burnout: Moving beyond the status quo. (2017, background): “Contemporaneously, Cox et al. (2005) regretted that burnout researchers still had to deal with basic definitional and measurement issues regarding their entity of interest: “. . . despite the large number of scientific papers published on burnout, we have not yet convincingly answered many of the…”