... However, even though the MBI has long served as the gold standard in burnout measurement, several problems were recently identified in relation to this measure and its operationalization. For instance, (i) the utility of reduced professional efficacy as a core component of burnout has been seriously challenged (Bresó et al., 2007;De Beer & Bianchi, 2019;Sandrin et al., 2022;Schaufeli & Taris, 2005), (ii) the neglect of other, arguably critical, manifestations of burnout such as cognitive impairment has been highlighted (Deligkaris et al., 2014;Schaufeli et al., 2020), (iii) the lack of proper cut-off scores (those proposed over time are now mainly outdated) established with representative samples and lack of proper nosological representation as a standalone diagnostic category have been highlighted as a severe impediment to its diagnostic use (Bianchi et al., 2013(Bianchi et al., , 2015b(Bianchi et al., , 2017bNadon et al., 2022;Schaufeli et al., 2020), (iv) some researchers have expressed concern about the inconsistent and arbitrary use of different factor structures (like one-, two-, or three-factor specifications) to represent burnout across studies, suggesting that these structures might be selected more to match researchers' objectives rather than to accurately reflect the true nature of burnout (Nadon et al., 2022;Worley et al., 2008), and (v) the MBI was never designed as a diagnostic tool (Maslach & Leiter, 2021). This is again exemplified by the fact that-according to the MBI manual (Maslach et al., 2017)-the MBI does not produce, and should not be used to produce, a single burnout score. ...