Using specific, validated vs. non-specific, non-validated tools to measure a subjective concept: application on COVID-19 burnout scales in a working population

Abstract

Abstract Objectives The first objective is to compare the psychometric properties of two scales, measuring COVID-19-related burnout in a general working population during an economic crisis. The second objective is to compare the relevance through the assessment of statistically significant associations between the independent variables and the validated (scale 1) or non-validated (scale 2) scales taken as dependent variables. Methods This study enrolled 151 Lebanese participants, using a snowball sampling method. Two scales that measure burnout during COVID-19 were used. Results A significantly strong correlation was found between the validated COVID-19 burnout scale (scale 1) and the new pandemic-related burnout scale (scale 2) (r=0.796, p<0.001). A first linear regression on scale 1 (dependent) showed that increased concern about the impact of the economic crisis and COVID-19 (Beta=9.61) was significantly associated with higher COVID-19 burnout. However, higher financial well-being (Beta=−0.23) and working as a full timer (Beta=−7.80) were significantly associated with a lower COVID-19 burnout score. A second regression model on scale 2 (dependent) showed that higher financial well-being was only significantly associated with a lower pandemic-related burnout score (Beta=−0.72). Conclusions Our results showed that more specific scales have better psychometric properties while using non-validated, non-specific scales to evaluate an outcome might lead to biased associations and incorrect conclusions.