ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Factor Structure and Validity of the Burnout Assessment for Developmental Disability Settings (BADDS).
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study examined the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Burnout Assessment for Developmental Disability Settings (BADDS), a self-report scale for measuring workplace stressors that contribute to burnout specifically among behavioral health providers for autism and related developmental disabilities.
methodWe conducted an online survey of 566 autism service providers that comprised the BADDS, the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey (MBI), Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 (PHQ-9). Conducted confirmatory factor analysis based on (Bottini et al., 2026) showed poor fit. An expert panel cut 17 redundant items. Exploratory factor analysis on the remaining 56 items resulted in further reduction to 39 items. To evaluate the validity of the 39-item version, the BADDS was compared to the MBI, AWS, and PHQ-9.
resultsThe 39-item BADDS had six factors: Physical Safety, Training & Supervision, Stakeholder Interactions, Professional Development, Stress Management, and Ethics & Values. Across subscales, internal reliability ranged 0.75-0.92. Correlations with MBI and AWS subscales ranged from 0.04 to 0.60. Elevations across BADDS subscales were associated with incremental increases in MBI scores.
conclusionThe BADDS subscales showed solid internal consistency. Consistent increases in burnout symptoms (MBI scores) with elevations on BADDS subscales, supporting convergent validity. Additional research to confirm the psychometrics and utility of the BADDS is warranted.
Identifiers
42799970What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.