## 1 Introduction  
Burnout is a psychological concept that refers to the experience of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization [1]. Burnout syndrome affects individuals' psychological and physical statuses and has been the subject of a significant amount of research interest around the world [2]. The increased research on this phenomenon, along with the unfavourable consequences it causes, calls for proper estimation of burnout levels [2]. Many tools have been proposed to calculate burnout levels [3]. The most common among them is the MBI (Maslach Burnout Inventory). The MBI incorporates [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s 3-dimensional view of burnout syndrome and its functioning and has been translated to different languages to be used in different parts of the world [4]. The back-and-forth translation of the survey, however, is often questioned, as results produced from previous studies using translated models are considered to be low in quality, reliability and validity [5]. Higher burnout is linked with higher Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and/or Depersonalization (DP) scores and lower Personal Accomplishment (PA) scores [6]. Among these subscale scores, the emotional exhaustion score is considered especially important for determining burnout levels [7]. Although the MBI is the gold standard tool for burnout estimation, its validity and reliability are often topics of debate. As a result, some studies have been performed aiming to assess the psychometric properties of the MBI [7]. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are often used to judge the validity of the proposed models [8]. In addition, the reliability of each subscale can be determined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient [9; 10]. In questioning of the internal consistency of the MBI, depersonalization has been found to have lower reliability than the other two subscales. This finding has been consistent across both the original version and translated versions of the MBI [11]. Different alterations to the tool have often been made by changing the number of factors or items. The results of these altered versions have been evaluated against those of the original version [3]. While performing initial studies on the MBI, [PERSON] discovered that the 16 th item, \"working with people directly puts too much stress on me\", which belongs to the emotional exhaustion subscale, measures depersonalization to an extent, while the 12 th item, \"I feel very energetic\", which belongs to the Personal Accomplishment subscale, tends to instead evaluate aspects of emotional exhaustion. Hence, it was suggested that the removal of certain items such as items 16 and 12 from the tool would improve its functioning, and recent studies have verified this theory based on the improvement of fit indices [3]. Eliminating problematic items of the MBI has now become one of the most frequently employed techniques used by researchers who aim to develop better versions of the tool [3]. Different studies on this topic have been conducted in different areas of the world. A version of the tool with 16 items was tested in Belgium in a study by [12], a 15-item version was suggested by [13] in eastern Asia, and a model with 18 items was tested in northern Europe by [14]. Despite these efforts, however, the results obtained by these versions were not conclusive enough to justify reconstructing the original tool [3]. The 3 dimensions of burnout were previously considered to be independent in their functioning based on [PERSON]'s interpretation, but recent studies have indicated a contradicting view, as the dimensions appear to correlate with one another, with correlations up to 0.73 between depersonalization and emotional exhaustion, 0.49 between personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion, and 0.62 between depersonalization and personal accomplishment [11]. According to several studies, personal accomplishment is observed to be the subscale that shows the weakest association with the other dimensions.