Secondary School Burnout Scale (SSBS).
2012; EDAM-Education Consultancy Limited; Volume: 12; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2148-7561
Autores Tópico(s)Educational Leadership and Administration
ResumoAbstract The purpose this study is to develop Secondary School Burnout Scale. Study group included 728 students out 14 schools in four cities in Turkey. Both Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were conducted on the data. A seven-factor solution emerged. The seven factors explained 61 % the total variance. The model indices the Confirmatory Factor Analysis indicated a good-fit. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for the sub-dimensions the instrument ranged from .67 to .86. Split-half correlation coefficient for the sub-dimensions the instrument ranged between .63 and .86. To establish criterion validity the scale 'Academic Locus Control Belief was used. There were low and medium correlations among the scales Key Words 3urnout, School Burnout, Scale The majority research that focused on the rela¬tionship between school-student concerned with the effects psychological and social school characteristics on students (Kuperminc, Lead-beater, & Blatt, 2001; Normandeau & Guay 1998; Rigby 1999; Schunk, 1991). One the strands that is concerned with the relationship between school and student in the literature is school burnout, a phenomenon that stem from school life. Since it has come up in the literature, the concept burnout was considered only a syndrome that experienced in business life (Yang & Farn, 2005). The main reason for that, a high level burnout was perceived as a threat to both organizational psychology and individual effectiveness in orga¬nizations (Kahill, 1988; Lowenstein, 1991). Thus, studies usually designed around individual busi¬ness practices and issues related to burnout which emerge in business contexts (Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer, 1996; Jacobs & Dodd, 2003). Since school requires an intensive and contini-ous interaction (Farber & Miller, 1981; Van Horn, Schaufeli, & Enzmann, 1999) and it is a source stress by itself (Chang, Rand, & Strunk, 2000); there have been studies conducted on the burnout teachers, school psychologists and other school staff(Akcamete, Kaner, & Sucuoglu 2001; Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Cemaloglu & Kayabasi, 2007; Far¬ber & Miller; Friedman, 1999; Greenglass, Fiksen-baum, & Burke, 1994; Huebner, 1992; Ross, Altmai-er, & Russell, 1989; Russell, Altmaier, & Van Velzen, 1987; Sandoval, 1993; Sucuoglu & Kuloglu, 1996; Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003). However, it is ignored until recently that the relationship among student-school-burnout handled as if schools are busi¬ness contexts (McCarthy, Pretty & Catano, 1990; Salmela-Aro, Savolainen, & Holopainen, 2009) and students carried out tasks regarding school related duties like work environment (Balogun, Helgemoe, Pellegrini, & Hoeberlein, 1996; Chambel & Curral, 2005; Fimian, Fastenau, Tashner, & Cross, 1989). The syndrome cited in the literature as school burn¬out defined burnout observed on students. This syndrome could be defined as the exhaustion as a result the stress and pressure that stem from as¬signments and responsibilities students concern¬ing school and school related activities (McCarthy, Pretty, & Catano, 1990; Yang & Farn, 2005). The concept burnout is defined as a three-dimen¬sional syndrome: emotional exhaustion, depersonali¬zation and reduced of personal accomplish¬ment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The basic indicators emotional exhaustion are chronic fatique and ten¬sion. The main indicator depersonalization is cal¬lousness (Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, & Nurmi, 2009). Individual finds the work meaningless and loses out his/her motivation (Green, Walkey & Taylor, 1991). The main indicator reduced sense personal achievement is a perception low level self-effica¬cy (Jacobs & Dodd, 2003; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001; Salmela-Aro, Savolainen et al. …
Referência(s)