Abstract:Researchers have begun to explore the characteristics and risk factors for autistic burnout, but assessment tools are lacking. Our study comprehensively examined and compared the psychometric properties of the unpublished 27‐item AASPIRE Autistic Burnout Measure (ABM), and personal and work scales of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) to evaluate their efficacy as screening measures for autistic burnout, with a group of 238 autistic adults. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) revealed a 4‐factor structure for the ABM and a 2‐factor structure for the CBI personal scale (CBI‐P). Factorial validity and dimensionality were examined with four exploratory models which indicated a unidimensional structure for the ABM with an overarching 'Autistic Burnout' construct, and multidimensional CBI‐P structure comprising two subscales and overarching 'Personal Burnout' construct. Other reliability and validity indicators included Spearman correlations, analysis of variance, receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, and intra‐class correlations (ICC). The ABM and CBI‐P were strongly correlated with depression, anxiety, stress, and fatigue. Unexpectedly, correlations between the burnout measures and camouflaging, and wellbeing measures were moderate. Potential overlap between burnout and depression and fatigue was examined through EFA, which supported convergent validity of the ABM and depression measure, while correlations and ICC analyses revealed mixed results. We concluded that the ABM and the CBI‐P Emotional Exhaustion subscale were valid preliminary screening tools for autistic burnout. Testing with larger and more diverse autistic samples is required to further examine the psychometric properties of the ABM, and to understand the relationships between autistic burnout and depression, and masking.

Measurement of the Type a Behavior Pattern by Self-Report Questionnaires: Several Perspectives on Validity

Examining the relationships among self-report measures of the Type A behavior pattern: The effects of dimensionality, measurement error, and differences in underlying constructs.

Assessment of the Type A Behavior Pattern in Adolescents

The nomological validity of the Type A personality among employed adults.

Relationship between Type A behavior pattern and mental and physical symptoms: A comparison of global and component measures.

Identifying coronary-prone behavior in adolescents using the Bortner Self-rating Scale

Impatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A pattern: Differential effects on students' health and academic achievement.

Type a Behavior Pattern and Motor Vehicle Drivers' Behavior

Criterion Validity of a New Measure of Self-Actualization

Construct Validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality – Self-Report Form (CAPP-SR)

Assessment of the convergent validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale

Type a coronary-prone behavior pattern and cardiovascular risk factor variables in children and adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study

Convergent Reliability and Validity of the Questions About Behavioral Function and the Motivation Assessment Scale: A Replication Study

Reliability and Validity of the Child and Adolescent Behavior Assessment (CABA): A Brief Structured Scale

The Measure of Adolescent Heterosocial Competence: Development and Initial Validation

Validation of the Approach-Avoidance Temperament Questionnaire in Individuals with Anxiety and Depression

Concordance between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) over-reporting validity scales for detecting invalid ADHD symptom reporting

Measuring and validating autistic burnout

Scale Construction for Measuring Adolescent Boys' and Girls' Attitudes, Beliefs, Perception of Control, and Intention to Engage in Leisure-Time Physical Activity

Construct Validity of Values System Evaluation Tool Reflected in Lifestyle: A Bifactor Model Approach