TEST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

Amid the pandemic, various conflicts sets in to such extent as global economic and health
crisis had been in steep downfall. Every person’s personal lives had respective specific problems
to handle complying with the mandated procedures and limitations against the pandemic.
Through this perspective students under the educational field of the community do face an
unfamiliar change in the system. Burnout is characterized as phenomena through such extensive
professional or non-professional context of stress that would require demands to a person’s role.
Through this phase impairment in one’s emotional, mental as well with the physical well-being
would result to reduced efficacy in the overall performance and punctuality.

The test objectives are as follows:

 To measure the probability of burn-out in three dimensions: Emotional/Mental

Exhaustion, Reduced Sense of Performance, and Devaluation through the Maslach
Burnout Inventory Scale.
 Describe relating issues from the set of questionnaire and predict factors that is present
during the phase of burnout divided in three categories: Emotional/Mental Exhaustion,
Reduced Sense of Performance, and Devaluation.
Hence, the goals of the project are as follows:

 Identify these students as an aid as well as our contribution in the development in

measurement and effectiveness for this scale.
 Assess the well-being of students in these unexpected changes.
The developed scale limits its availability to students as the scale’s audience mainly students
that currently partake in an online class learning system. The scale will focus on these student
due to a wide variety of uniformity in issues that would may result to uncorrelated sets of
questions with 20 respondents as a source of results in this study. The scale will focus on these
students due to a wide variety of uniformity in issues that would may result to uncorrelated sets
of questions with 20 respondents as a source of results in this study.

Through the study of the effects involved in the phenomena, suggested emotional, mental
and physical responses to burnout will be made as sets of questions in the draft that would give
leverage to this study and provide relations to the student’s status in the corresponding factors.
The study pursue to be as valid and reliable as possible with the chosen sets of questions where
issues regarding these areas are studied and systematically picked and narrowed down to a 20
item test.
II. TEST OR SCALE DEVELOPMENT

The items given in the scale are used to measure the probable aspects of a burnout. The
scale development process as described is done with five steps and done to assess measured traits
in terms of burnout which is divided into three sub-scales: Emotional/Mental Exhaustion which
used the scale development process based on Maslach Burnout Inventory Scale (1996; 2018). On
the other hand the two other sub-scales: Reduced Sense of Performance and Devaluation are
based on the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (2018). Therefore, generate 20 items rated on 5-
point Likert response scale. Then administer it to the respondents to give their responses on the
1-5 scale (from 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5= Strongly Agree).

III. USE OF TEST

 Purpose

As per the study of Son et al. (2020), 138 out of 195 students (71%) reported an increase
on stress and anxiety brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aforementioned outbreak
caused major changes on the learning modalities of the academic institutions as well, imposing a
sudden shift from previously face-to-face into primarily digital ones. In line with that, the
purpose of the Distance Learning Burnout Inventory-Students (DILB-S) test development is to
establish a psychometrically-valid and reliable measurement of student burnout that is
specifically experienced in distance learning.

 Groups to which applicable/not applicable

The DILB-S is essentially catered to students enrolled in schools and universities

implementing the use of learning modalities in the “new normal” such as modular distance
learning, online distance learning, and television/radio-based instruction. However, the DILB-S
is ideally not applicable to measure burnout due to the traditional learning system such as in
face-to-face classes.

IV. DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATION

This study was administered through the use of google forms which is the most
convenient and commonly used in data gathering. With this, the respondents were able to
complete the survey with an approximate time of 5 minutes. For this study, there is no special
training required since all the respondents were college students. The students do not need
special training to become the respondents of the study.

V. SCORING AND INTERPRETATION PROCEDURES

For scoring and interpretation procedures of DLBI-S, each respondent’s test form is
scored by using a scoring key or table that contains directions for scoring each subscale. All
DLBI-S items are scored using a 5-point Likert-scale rating from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. It has three subscales: Emotional/Mental Exhaustion (11 items), Reduced Sense of
Performance (5 items), and Devaluation (4 items). Each subscale assesses its own unique
dimension of burnout and is correlated to each other. The scores for each subscale are computed
separately for each respondents; an Emotional/Mental Exhaustion score (range 1-55), a Reduced
Sense of Performance score (range 1-25) and a Devaluation (range 1-20), thus, scores for
subscale are not combine into a single, total score. If needed for individual feedback, each score
can then be coded as low, average, or high by using numerical cut-off points listed on the scoring
table (see Table 1).

For Emotional/Mental Exhaustion subscale, Reduced Sense of Performance subscale, and

Devaluation subscale higher scores corresponds to higher degrees of experienced burnout, since
there three-subscales are correlated to each other.

Emotional/Mental Reduced Sense of

Levels of Burnout Devaluation
Exhaustion Performance

Low Burnout <17 <6 <5

Moderate Burnout 18-33 7-12 6-10

High Burnout >34 >13 >11

Table 1.Normative scores to calculate level of burnout with the Distance Learning Burnonout Inventory Scale - Students

VI. RELIABILITY

Table 2. Time 1 Reliability Statistics

Table 3. Time 2 Reliability Statistics

 In this study, reliability was assessed using internal consistency and test-retest reliability,
which assessed after an interval of 24 hours, due to a short period of time. Even so, researchers
were able to reconduct the scale and obtained an acceptable value of alpha.

Based on the reliability statistics, the first result obtained Cronbach alpha ratings of .935
and Cronbach’s alpha of .940 based on standardized items. Whereas in second administration,
results shown a Cronbach alpha ratings of .926 and Cronbach’s alpha of 9.28 based on
standardized items. Furthermore, all three subscales show high internal consistency, except for
the Devaluation subscale, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.903, 0.809 and 0.675, and test-retest
reliability was high. Hence, the scale was reliable and consistent.

VII. VALIDITY

Total

Pearson Correlation .732**

Q1. I always feel tired for no
reason. N 20

Pearson Correlation .857**

Q2. I don't feel like studying at all.
N 20

Pearson Correlation .891**

Q3. My mental health is getting
into the way of my studies. N 20

Q4. I feel less concerned about my Pearson Correlation .649**

academic performance than I used
N 20
to.

Q5. I hardly find time for my own Pearson Correlation .730**

personal interests. N 20

Q6. I feel like I'm not performing Pearson Correlation .869**

up to my ability in doing assigned
N 20
tasks.

Q7. I somehow feel I'm unable to Pearson Correlation .712**

cope with the demands of life. N 20

Q8. I feel I don't want to see Pearson Correlation .598**

anybody. N 20

Q9. I feel that it is hard to finish my Pearson Correlation .835**

modules. N 20

Q10. I feel emotionally drained Pearson Correlation .862**

from doing school works. N 20

Q11. I often feel the need to work Pearson Correlation .435

extra harder. N 20

Q12. I refrain from opening my Pearson Correlation .337

google classroom as much as
N 20
possible.

Q13. I find it harder to creative Pearson Correlation .576**

tasks as I did before. N 20

Q14. I experience trouble falling Pearson Correlation .238

asleep or staying asleep. N 20

Q15. I have difficulty concentrating Pearson Correlation .824**

on one task. N 20

Q16. I often feel irritable these Pearson Correlation .608**

days. N 20

Pearson Correlation .637**

Q17. I felt a decreased passion for
things I used to love.
N 20

.447*
Q18. I don't feel connected to other Pearson Correlation
people.
N 20

Q19. I feel overwhelmed by the Pearson Correlation .420

amount of school works. N 20

Pearson Correlation .701**

Q20. I feel exhausted at the end of
the day. N 20

Pearson Correlation 1
Total
N 20
Table 4. Testing Validity Using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 -tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed).

To assess the validity of the scale, the researchers used, construct validity and correlate
the 20 Likert-type items with each other using Pearson r Correlation Coefficient. Based on the
results, observed correlations were ranging from .24 to .89.

The table above shows most items are highly significant and valid question based on the
Critical Value for Pearson Correlation Coefficient (𝞪= .444). If questions obtained value is less
than .444, it indicates that the question was insignificant, not valid and can be eliminated from
the questionnaire. In this case, based on the Table 3, Q14 (obtained value = .238) and Q19
(obtained value = .420) are considered insignificant and not valid. Therefore it is not measuring
what it supposed to measure. All in all, most items are highly significant and valid.

The face validity was also used for the assessment of the validity. With the help of our
Psychological Assessment Professor, the researchers assessed each modified and created item on
its relevance, appropriateness of the wording used and context for assessing burnout among
students in distance learning; and arrived to conclusion that the developed scale was a good
representation for measuring distance learning burnout.

VIII. ITEM ANALYSIS

Mean Std. Deviation N

Q1 4.05000 1.145931 20

Q2 4.00000 1.256562 20

Q3 4.00000 1.450953 20

Q4 3.75000 1.332785 20

Q5 3.20000 1.576138 20

Q6 4.15000 1.308877 20
 Q7 4.15000 1.039990 20

Q8 2.60000 1.429022 20

Q9 4.10000 1.372665 20

Q10 4.25000 1.371707 20

Q11 4.05000 1.394538 20

Q12 3.45000 1.356272 20

Q13 3.50000 1.395481 20

Q14 4.15000 1.308877 20

Q15 4.10000 1.252366 20

Q16 4.10000 1.165287 20

Q17 4.20000 .894427 20

Q18 3.25000 1.332785 20

Q19 4.35000 1.039990 20

Q20 4.50000 1.100239 20

Table 5. Item Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

77.90000 274.832 16.578045 20

Table 6. Scale Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Cronbach's Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Item Deleted

Q1 73.85000 248.345 .697 . .920

Q2 73.90000 240.726 .834 . .917

Q3 73.90000 234.095 .870 . .916

Q4 74.15000 247.924 .599 . .922

 Q5 74.70000 239.168 .681 . .920

Q6 73.75000 238.829 .848 . .917

Q7 73.75000 251.355 .679 . .921

Q8 75.30000 248.537 .538 . .924

Q9 73.80000 238.695 .808 . .918

Q10 73.65000 237.503 .838 . .917

Q11 73.85000 256.661 .363 . .927

Q12 74.45000 261.524 .261 . .929

Q13 74.40000 250.147 .515 . .924

Q14 73.75000 266.197 .162 . .931

Q15 73.80000 242.168 .798 . .918

Q16 73.80000 252.695 .561 . .923

Q17 73.70000 256.747 .603 . .923

Q18 74.65000 256.871 .379 . .927

Q19 73.55000 261.418 .367 . .926

Q20 73.40000 250.463 .665 . .921

Table 7. Item-Total Statistics

The Table 5, shows the item statistics which includes the mean and standard deviation
for each item. While Table 6, shows the mean, variance, standard deviation and number of items
of the scale.

Table 7, shows the Scale Mean if Item Deleted, Scale Variance if Item Deleted,
Corrected Item – Total Correlation and Cornbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted. Based on table, the
values listed on each section are lower than the computed mean and standard deviation of scale
and obtained Crobach’s Alpha. Therefore removing items is not required for this scale.

Selecting Items for the Scale

The researchers developed Distance Learning Burnout Inventory – Students (DLBI-S)

based on the Maslach’s Burnout Inventory – Survey for Students (MBI-SS). The researchers
modified MBI-SS and developed some items that correspond to the context of distance learning
or online class experienced by the students during the pandemic. Moreover, the subscale of MBI-
SS was also modified from Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Cynicism (CS) and Depersonalization
(DP) to Emotional/Mental Exhaustion (E/ME), Reduced Sense of Performance (RSP) and
Devaluation (DV), to align it in the distance learning context.

The DLBI-S is composed of 20 items measuring the three (3) dimensions of

emotional/mental exhaustion, reduced sense of performance and devaluation. Responses are
rated on a 5-point Likert-Scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). It is
designed for students – from high school to college – who takes online classes.

Psychometric Properties for Scale

There are 20 items developed in the Distance Learning Burnout Inventory – Students
(DLBIS), and was administered to 20 respondents for pilot testing to assess its reliability. The
initial result of the DLBIS was 𝞪=.935 (See Table 2), which indicates that the scale has a high
reliability. In second administration, 𝞪=.926 (See Table 3), was obtained. Based on the results
from Time 1 and Time 2, it can be concluded that it is reliable and has a good internal-
consistency and test-retest reliability.

Validity of Assessment of the Scale

The researchers used Face Validity, Concurrent Validity and Pearson r Correlation
Coefficient to assess the validity of the scale. Based on the results from Table 4, it is concluded
that most items are highly significant and valid. However, Q14 (obtained value = .238) and Q19
(obtained value = .420) are considered insignificant and not valid. Therefore, it does not measure
what it supposed to measure, and can be eliminate from questionnaire for improvement of the
scale in the future. All in all, most items are highly significant and valid.

Consulting with our Psychological Assessment Professor, ensures the Face Validity of
questionnaire, which means that it has a good representation for measuring distance learning
burnout for students.

IX. GENERAL EVALUATION

 Special merits of test

The DILB-S test development is time-relevant amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic
due to the widely prevalent burnout manifesting among students subjected to distance learning.
Moreover, the DILB-S is user-friendly as the test administration takes up roughly 5 minutes only
in answering a 20-item, 5-point Likert scale. In addition, the three dimensions (Emotional
Exhaustion, Reduced Sense of Performance, and Devaluation) of the DILB-S is foundationally
anchored on the existing Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Athlete Burnout
Questionnaire (ABQ), which then makes the DILB-S a fusion of the two in the context of
distance learning for students.
  Recommendation

The present test construction aimed to develop a measure of student burnout due to
distance learning, whereas the DILB-S facilitates the quantification of the emotional exhaustion,
reduced sense of performance, and devaluation experienced by students undergoing distance
learning. Future validation and modification of the test can also focus on other social groups for
study sample that might also be experiencing burnout in their respective contexts such as
teachers, healthcare workers, and employees to name a few. It would also be ideal to replicate
this test development with a larger study sample. Thus, these recommendations may contribute
to an even more comprehensive test.

References:
Jackson S., Maslach C., and Leiter M. (2018). The Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. 4th
Edition. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277816643_The_Maslach_Burnout_Inventory_Manual

Isoard-Gautheur S., Emma G., Martinent G., and Trouilloud D. (2018). Development and
evaluation of the psychometric properties of a new measure of athlete burnout: The Athlete
Burnout Scale (ABO-S). Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319273458_Development_and_evaluation_of_the_psy
chometric_properties_of_a_new_measure_of_athlete_burnout_The_Athlete_Burnout_Scale_AB
O-S
Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on
College Students' Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study. Journal of
medical Internet research, 22(9), e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279

NCBI (2018). Depression: What is burnout? Retrieved from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279286/

Scott, MS. E. (2020) Burnout Symptoms and Treatments. Retrieved from:

https://www.verywellmind.com/stress-and-burnout-symptoms-and-causes-
3144516#:~:text=Burnout%20is%20a%20reaction%20to,feelings%20of%20reduced%20professi
onal%20ability