Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2026
Distinguishing moral injury from burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and depression in animal care workers: A condition differentiation analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McNally Jamie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Animal care workers operate in conditions involving substantial occupational stressors that can significantly impact their mental health and well-being. Despite a growing awareness of these stressors, moral injury, a values-based condition arising from violations of deeply held moral beliefs, has not been empirically established in this population as a relevant condition distinct from burnout and compassion fatigue, the constructs that dominate the literature. The present study examined whether moral injury is empirically distinguishable from burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and depression and whether current frameworks adequately identify morally distressed workers.
METHOD: A sample of 291 U.S.-based animal care workers completed the Moral Injury Outcome Scale, Professional Quality of Life Scale-5, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Condition differentiation was evaluated through correlation, regression, classification, and profile analyses.
RESULTS: Moral injury shared 17%-39% of variance with adjacent constructs, leaving 61%-83% unique variance. After controlling for depression, the moral injury-secondary traumatic stress association became nonsignificant while the moral injury-burnout association persisted. Moral injury demonstrated incremental validity for both depression and functional impairment beyond all Professional Quality of Life Scale subscales (ΔR² = .073 and .012, respectively). The shame subvariant drove depression prediction (β = .39) while trust violations did not. Professional Quality of Life Scale and depression scores alone correctly classified only 66.2% of moral injury caseness, whereas adding Moral Injury Outcome Scale subscales improved classification to 84.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Moral injury is empirically distinguishable from burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and depression, while existing assessment frameworks may fail to detect nearly half of morally distressed animal care workers, with implications for clinical assessment and intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
METHOD: A sample of 291 U.S.-based animal care workers completed the Moral Injury Outcome Scale, Professional Quality of Life Scale-5, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Condition differentiation was evaluated through correlation, regression, classification, and profile analyses.
RESULTS: Moral injury shared 17%-39% of variance with adjacent constructs, leaving 61%-83% unique variance. After controlling for depression, the moral injury-secondary traumatic stress association became nonsignificant while the moral injury-burnout association persisted. Moral injury demonstrated incremental validity for both depression and functional impairment beyond all Professional Quality of Life Scale subscales (ΔR² = .073 and .012, respectively). The shame subvariant drove depression prediction (β = .39) while trust violations did not. Professional Quality of Life Scale and depression scores alone correctly classified only 66.2% of moral injury caseness, whereas adding Moral Injury Outcome Scale subscales improved classification to 84.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Moral injury is empirically distinguishable from burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and depression, while existing assessment frameworks may fail to detect nearly half of morally distressed animal care workers, with implications for clinical assessment and intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).