Page 18 - Istenič Andreja, Gačnik Mateja, Horvat Barbara, Kukanja Gabrijelčič Mojca, Kiswarday Vanja Riccarda, Lebeničnik Maja, Mezgec Maja, Volk Marina. Ur. 2023. Vzgoja in izobraževanje med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 18
ra Dolenc
chometric properties within different samples. The Slovenian version
of MAAS was used in our study, showing adequate validity and reliabil-
ity (Simčič 2022, 81–82).
– The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) (Smith et al. 2008) was used to measure
trait resilience. The scale includes six items (three positively worded
and three negatively worded) that participants rate on a 5-point scale
from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree (an example item: ‘I tend
to bounce back quickly after hard times’). Responses to these six items
are averaged to create a composite score of resilience. Higher scores
indicated higher levels of resilience. In the original study Cronbach’s
alpha ranged from 0.80 to 0.91 over four samples (Smith et al. 2008).
Validity and reliability have been confirmed in many studies (Kyriazos
et al. 2018).
– The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Kristensen et al. 2005) is one of the
most commonly used instruments for measuring burnout. Although it
measures various aspects of burnout, only the work-related burnout
subscale (CBI-W) was used in this study since it refers to the degree of
physical and mental exhaustion that an individual can perceive in the
workplace (examples of items: ‘Is your work emotionally exhausting?’
and ‘Are you exhausted in the morning at the thought of another day
at work?’). Participants answered the seven items of the CBI-W subscale
using a 5-point scale (from 1 – never to 5 – always). A higher overall
score means a higher burnout rate. The authors of the original ques-
tionnaire reported good internal consistency, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87
(Kristensen et al. 2005). It has also been validated in various cultural
contexts (Berat, Jelić, and Popov 2016; Papaefstathiou et al. 2019).
The Slovenian translations of the BRS and the CBI-W were made following
the back-translation method. The original English scales were initially trans-
lated into the Slovenian language by the author of this study and a native
Slovenian speaker, fluent in English and psychological terminology. These
versions were then translated back to English by an independent translator
familiar with both languages. The original scales and back-translations were
compared by the author and translators. After resolving minor differences,
consensus on the final version of the instruments was reached.
Procedure
The invitation to participate in the study was sent by e-mail to primary school
teachers. They were also asked to share the invitation with their professional
18
chometric properties within different samples. The Slovenian version
of MAAS was used in our study, showing adequate validity and reliabil-
ity (Simčič 2022, 81–82).
– The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) (Smith et al. 2008) was used to measure
trait resilience. The scale includes six items (three positively worded
and three negatively worded) that participants rate on a 5-point scale
from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree (an example item: ‘I tend
to bounce back quickly after hard times’). Responses to these six items
are averaged to create a composite score of resilience. Higher scores
indicated higher levels of resilience. In the original study Cronbach’s
alpha ranged from 0.80 to 0.91 over four samples (Smith et al. 2008).
Validity and reliability have been confirmed in many studies (Kyriazos
et al. 2018).
– The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (Kristensen et al. 2005) is one of the
most commonly used instruments for measuring burnout. Although it
measures various aspects of burnout, only the work-related burnout
subscale (CBI-W) was used in this study since it refers to the degree of
physical and mental exhaustion that an individual can perceive in the
workplace (examples of items: ‘Is your work emotionally exhausting?’
and ‘Are you exhausted in the morning at the thought of another day
at work?’). Participants answered the seven items of the CBI-W subscale
using a 5-point scale (from 1 – never to 5 – always). A higher overall
score means a higher burnout rate. The authors of the original ques-
tionnaire reported good internal consistency, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87
(Kristensen et al. 2005). It has also been validated in various cultural
contexts (Berat, Jelić, and Popov 2016; Papaefstathiou et al. 2019).
The Slovenian translations of the BRS and the CBI-W were made following
the back-translation method. The original English scales were initially trans-
lated into the Slovenian language by the author of this study and a native
Slovenian speaker, fluent in English and psychological terminology. These
versions were then translated back to English by an independent translator
familiar with both languages. The original scales and back-translations were
compared by the author and translators. After resolving minor differences,
consensus on the final version of the instruments was reached.
Procedure
The invitation to participate in the study was sent by e-mail to primary school
teachers. They were also asked to share the invitation with their professional
18
