Burnout, work engagement and workaholism in a group of Dutch judges: distinctiveness and two-year structural stability

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Wave 1
1. Exhaustion	1.74	1.09	—
2. Cynicism	1.02	0.84	.65***	—
3. Professional efficacy	4.37	0.77	−.35***	−.46***	—
4. Vigor	4.14	0.80	−.44***	−.53***	.56***	—
5. Dedication	4.65	0.95	−.43***	−.62***	.67***	.76***	—
6. Absorption	3.54	0.79	−.13	−.27**	.41***	.59***	.62***	—
7. Working excessively	2.15	0.41	.50***	.31***	−.15	−.09	−.03	.20*	—
8. Working compulsively	1.84	0.53	.50***	.40***	−.13	−.22*	−.15	.10	.63***	—
Wave 2
9. Exhaustion	1.89	1.12	.70***	.49***	−.26**	−.42***	−.36***	−.08	.45***	.42***	—
10. Cynicism	1.12	0.84	.54***	.57***	−.33***	−.47***	−.45***	−.19*	.36***	.41***	.62***	—
11. Professional efficacy	4.35	0.83	−.28***	−.33***	.71***	.45***	.53***	.30***	−.15	−.16	−.24**	−.37***	—
12. Vigor	4.10	0.86	−.36***	−.39***	.53***	.70***	.65***	.50***	−.07	−.14	−.39***	−.51***	.67***	—
13. Dedication	4.65	0.92	−.35***	−.41***	.56***	.58***	.74***	.46***	−.11	−.19*	−.30***	−.56***	.72***	.83***	—
14. Absorption	3.67	0.80	−.14	−.15	.47***	.52***	.54***	.68***	−.14	−.08	−.05	−.31***	.49***	.70***	.69***	—
15. Working excessively	2.20	0.49	.45***	.25**	−.12	−.11	−.05	.11	.66***	.50***	.59***	.43***	−.11	−.08	−.11	.17	—
16. Working compulsively	1.85	0.57	.35***	.26**	−.11	−.14	−.09	.11	.51***	.64***	.55***	.45***	−.17	−.14	−.14	.16	.72***

Note: N = 118.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p <.001.

Figure 1. Burnout, work engagement and workaholism: distinctiveness and 2-year structural stability. Note. **p < .01. ***p < .001. N = 118. This structural equation model shows the distinctiveness and the stability of the constructs in one model over 2 years. Values represent standardized regression coefficients. BU = burnout; EN = work engagement; W = workaholism; EX = exhaustion; CY = cynicism; PE = professional efficacy; VI = vigor; DE = dedication; AB = absorption; WE = working excessively; WC = working compulsively. The dotted lines represent non-significant relationships between professional efficacy and the latent factor burnout. Bold lines reflect loadings of the dimensions on the ‘wrong’ factor.

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices of the models, concerning burnout, work engagement and workaholism.

Model	χ^2	df	p	GFI	AGFI	NFI	CFI	RMSEA
Baseline model	2549.633	556		.68	.61	.67	.72	.078
Final model	572.339	542	.177	.90	.87	.93	.996	.010

Note: N = 118. Structural equation modelling was used for the analysis. The baseline model is the model consisting of three constructs, burnout, work engagement and workaholism, with corresponding paths. The final model is the baseline model with additional paths and covariances. X² = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.