*3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Original CBB Model*

The principal component analysis (chosen since the determinant of *p* = 0.086 showed intercorrelation of the variables, required for this method) revealed the existence of two components with eigenvalues over 1 in the first block, that is, the general antecedents scale. Thus, the scree test indicated the advisability of rotation with two factors with eigenvalues of 3.56 and 1.37, since they were clearly distanced from the third, with a score of 0.86.

After factor analysis, the items with factor saturations over 0.40 were selected from the direct oblimin rotation matrix of rotated components. As seen in Table 1, factor 1 corresponds to the items that make up the scale's organization factor. Factor 1 comprises four items, all with loadings over 0.60, which explain 38.18% of the variance. Factor 2 is made up of five items and forms part of the task component, and explains 15.22% of the variance.


**Table 1.** Factor structure, communalities (h2), eigenvalues, Cronbach's alpha, and percentage of explained variance (*n* = 1236). Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Note: Items are listed in decreasing order by saturation. Visualization coefficient > 0.40. F1: organization; F2: task.

In the second block of the burnout syndrome scale, principal component analysis (determinant *p* = 0.124 shows intercorrelation of the variables) revealed the existence of one component with an eigenvalue over 1. As the theoretical structure of the construct was three factors, we used principal axis factoring to force the presence of three factors with varimax rotation. The scree test shows the adequacy of rotation with one factor with a value of 3.38, and the following two are scarcely below 1, with values of 0.98 and 0.96, although they are at a distance from the quartile score of 0.84.

After the factor analysis, we selected the items with the highest factor saturations from the matrix of rotated components (varimax rotation). Table 2 shows how factor 1 corresponds to the items that make up the scale's emotional exhaustion factor. This factor comprises three items, all with loadings over 0.60, explaining 31.93% of the variance. The original questionnaire did not include item 3 in this factor, which saturated highest in factor 3. Factor 2 comprises four items, which form the lack of accomplishment component, explaining 4.99% of the variance. Item 18 is included in this factor, but not in the original version, where it was in factor 3. Finally, it should be mentioned that factor 3, which is formed by the depersonalization component, is composed of two items, and that item 3 is in this factor, unlike the original questionnaire.

**Table 2.** Factor structure, communalities (*h*2), eigenvalues, Cronbach's alpha, and percentage of explained variance (*n* = 1236). Extraction method: principal component analysis.


Note: Items are listed order by saturation in decreasing. Visualization coefficient >0.40. F1: emotional exhaustion; F2: lack of accomplishment; F3: depersonalization.


**Table 3.** Factor structure, communalities (*h*2), eigenvalues, Cronbach's alpha, and percentage of explained variance (*n* = 1236). Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Note: Items are listed in decreasing order by saturation. Visualization coefficient >0.40. F1: job dissatisfaction; F2: social climate; F3: personal impact; F4: motivational exhaustion.

The third part of the scale corresponds to the consequences of burnout, and analysis of principal components revealed the existence of one component with eigenvalues over 1. It comprises three items (13, 17, and 21), all with loadings over 0.75 (.79, 0.79, and 0.76, respectively), which explain 60.53% of the variance (KMO = 0.66; *χ*<sup>2</sup> (3) = 560.17, *p* < 0.000; Cronbach's alpha = 0.67).
