Reports an error in "Inquiry into the correlation between burnout and depression" by Irvin Sam Schonfeld, Jay Verkuilen and Renzo Bianchi (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Advanced Online Publication, Apr 04, 2019, np). In the article, there were wording errors in the Results section. Specifically, we referred to imposing "constraints" when we meant the opposite, namely, relaxing constraints, such as allowing residuals to correlate. We corrected the wording errors, added chi-square statistics, and corrected four small typographic errors bearing on fit statistics (three changes of .001 and one change of .003). The results remain fundamentally the same. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-18074-001.) The extent to which burnout refers to anything other than a depressive condition remains an object of controversy among occupational health specialists. In three studies conducted in two different countries and two different languages, we investigated the discriminant validity of burnout scales by evaluating the magnitude of the correlation between (latent) burnout and (latent) depression. In Study 1 (N = 911), burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey's Exhaustion subscale and depression with the depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). In Study 2 (N = 1,386), the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure was used to assess burnout and the PHQ, depression. In Study 3 (N = 734), burnout was assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey and depression, with the PHQ and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale; additionally, anxiety was measured with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. In each study, we examined the burnout-depression association based on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), controlling for item-level content overlap. In the three studies, latent exhaustion, the core of burnout, and latent depression were highly correlated (correlations ranging from .83 to .88). In Studies 2 and 3, second-order CFAs indicated that depressive (and anxiety) symptoms and the exhaustion and depersonalization components of burnout are reflective of the same second-order distress/dysphoria factor. Our findings, with their replication across samples, languages, and measures, together with meta-analytic findings, cast serious doubt on the discriminant validity of the burnout construct. The implications of burnout's problematic discriminant validity are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“研究倦怠与抑郁之间的相关性”：对Schonfeld等人的更正。（2019）。

报告Irvin Sam Schonfeld，Jay Verkuilen和Renzo Bianchi的“对倦怠与抑郁之间的相关性进行调查”中的错误（职业健康心理学杂志，高级在线出版物，2019年4月4日，np）。在本文中，“结果”部分中存在措辞错误。具体而言，当我们指相反的意思（即放宽约束，例如允许残差相关）时，我们提到施加“约束”。我们更正了措辞错误，添加了卡方统计量，并更正了四个与拟合统计有关的小的印刷错误（三个更改为.001，一个更改为.003）。结果基本上保持不变。本文的所有版本都已得到纠正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2019-18074-001中。）职业倦怠在多大程度上是指除抑郁症以外的其他疾病，仍然是职业健康专家争论的对象。在两个不同国家和两种不同语言下进行的三项研究中，我们通过评估（潜在）倦怠与（潜在）抑郁之间的相关程度，调查了倦怠量表的判别效度。在研究1（N = 911）中，用Maslach倦怠量表-一般调查的疲倦量表和抑郁症与患者健康问卷（PHQ）的抑郁量进行评估。在研究2中（N = 1,386），使用了Shirom-Melamed倦怠测量来评估倦怠和PHQ抑郁。在研究3（N = 734）中，倦怠是通过Maslach倦怠量表教育者调查和抑郁评估的，与PHQ和流行病学研究中心抑郁量表一起使用；另外，用广义焦虑症量表测量焦虑。在每项研究中，我们根据验证性因素分析（CFA）检查了倦怠与抑郁的关联，并控制了项目级内容的重叠。在这三项研究中，潜伏性疲劳，倦怠的核心和潜伏性抑郁症高度相关（相关性介于0.83至0.88之间）。在研究2和研究3中，二阶CFAs表示抑郁（和焦虑）症状以及倦怠的疲惫和去个性化成分反映了相同的二阶困扰/烦躁因素。我们的发现，以及它们在样本，语言和度量之间的复制，以及荟萃分析的发现，对倦怠结构的判别有效性产生了严重的怀疑。讨论了倦怠问题的判别效度的含义。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。