MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416328231 · doi:10.1080/15289168.2025.2581882

Predictors of Burnout Among Child Counselors

2025· article· en· W4416328231 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olivia Fichtner, Sejal Parikh Foxx, Kyle Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryBurnoutWorkloadMental healthQuarter (Canadian coin)Quality (philosophy)Health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2022 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities report disclosed that approximately a quarter of children ages 3–17 in the United States experience a mental health disorder. As a result, there is a growing need for well-trained child counselors to provide support services for this population. However, numerous systematic reviews have highlighted the prevalence of burnout among child counselors, which can compromise the quality of care. In response, researchers have sought to explore factors related to burnout among child counselors. While several studies have identified the risks of professional burnout, limited research focuses on burnout among child counselors. This study investigated how self-efficacy, workload, and parent disengagement predict burnout among child counselors. A multiple regression analysis indicated that 63 percent of the variance in burnout was accounted for by the predictor variables. Our results demonstrated that addressing factors such as self-efficacy, workload, and parent disengagement through targeted interventions, such as professional development, workload management strategies, and parental engagement programs; may help mitigate burnout among child counselors, thus enhancing the sustainability and effectiveness of mental health services for children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infant Child and Adolescent PsychotherapySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207