Corrigendum

This article refers to:

Cognitive performance in both clinical and non-clinical burnout

Correction to: Cognitive performance in both clinical and non-clinical burnout by Bart G. Oosterholt, Joseph H. R. Maes, Dimitri Van der Linden, Marc J. P. M. Verbraak, and Michiel A. J. Kompier

The publisher would like to apologize on behalf of the authors. Since publication of the ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT in Stress, 2014; 17(5): 400–409, the authors have informed us of the following error on page 405 of the article.

Post-hoc tests showed that all the three groups differed significantly from each other on all subscales, except for a marginally significant difference (p = 0.078) between the non-clinical burnout group and the control group on the professional efficacy scale (all other p values < 0.01).

This should have read as:

Post-hoc tests showed that all the three groups differed significantly from each other on all subscales, except for a marginally significant difference (p = 0.072) between the non-clinical burnout group and the control group on the professional efficacy scale (all other p values < 0.01).

In addition to this change in the text, please note that Table 2 and 3 have also been altered. These corrected tables are below and the amendments signified by the bold figures.

Table 2. Group means and standard deviations, and the results of the statistical analysis of the UBOS, SCL-90-R, and CFQ.

	Clinical burnout		Non-clinical burnout		Control
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Effect	df2	F	p	η^2
UBOS
Exhaustion*	4.65	0.94	2.73	0.86	1.07	0.51	Group	89	159.40	0.00	0.78
Cynicism*	3.46	1.19	1.75	1.08	0.79	0.62	Group	89	57.67	0.00	0.56
Personal efficacy†	3.50	1.03	4.21	0.70	4.59	0.64	Group	89	14.63	0.00	0.25
SCL-90-R*	185.39	45.78	133.56	33.51	106.87	14.30	Group	89	43.06	0.00	0.49
CFQ*	76.42	13.36	64.17	10.77	53.80	9.70	Group	89	30.80	0.00	0.41

*All groups significantly differed from each other.

†The clinical burnout group significantly differed from both the control group and the non-clinical burnout group (the non-clinical burnout group differed marginally significant from the control group (p = 0.072)).

Table 3. Group means and standard deviations, and the results of the statistical analysis of the cognitive tests.

	Clinical burnout		Non-clinical burnout		Control
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	Effect	df2	F	p	η^2
2-Back Task^a	53.58	15.93	57.45	13.94	56.37	13.20	Group	89	0.60	0.55	0.01
STOP-IT
p(respond|signal)^b	38.75	10.56	36.17	9.95	36.58	9.10	Group	89	0.62	0.54	0.01
SSRT^c	257.25	67.48	269.81	63.68	280.41	62.46	Group	89	1.01	0.37	0.02
Go-trial RT^c	648.19	110.50	641.18	118.98	663.51	135.51	Group	89	0.26	0.77	0.01
Flanker Task
Overall errors	0.70	0.30	0.59	0.34	0.58	0.24	Group	88	1.45	0.24	0.03
Congruency effect^b	0.09	0.56	0.13	0.50	0.10	0.45	Tt × G	88	0.05	0.95	0.00
Matching Task
Overall RT^c*	1250.89	208.82	1134.85	225.80	1108.69	255.61	Group	89	3.44	0.04	0.07
Switch cost^c	169.63	227.04	126.76	148.23	158.43	164.70	Rt × G	89	0.44	0.65	0.01
Digit Span Task^a	8.85	3.03	9.69	3.19	8.87	2.78	Group	89	0.76	0.47	0.02

Tt = Trial type. G = Group. Rt = Run type. The outcome variables in italics represent measures of executive functioning; those in standard letters reflect more general cognitive processes. ^aCorrect responses.

^bErrors.

^cReaction times in milliseconds.

*Clinical burnout group significantly differed from the control group (and differed marginally significant from the non-clinical burnout group (p = 0.051)).