WEDI
Work Exhaustion and Distress Inventory
This exploratory questionnaire covers the signs of burnout (exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive and emotional impairment) and their sources in how work is organized (workload, autonomy and recognition, relationships, value conflicts). It helps gauge how severe the exhaustion is and identify the factors to act on, with the patient and, where appropriate, with occupational health services.
- Number of questions
- 28 questions
- Estimated duration
- 7 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Work Exhaustion and Distress Inventory
- Target audience
- Adults
- Category
- Burnout, Work-related distress
- Exploratory questionnaire
- Exploratory questionnaire
Preview of the 28 questions
Scoring & interpretation
Scoring
Signs
| Mental distance | 10 / 16 |
Distancing from one's work: loss of interest, cynicism, the feeling of going through the motions without believing in it.
Areas to explore: what has changed in the person's relationship to work, loss of meaning, attitude toward colleagues, clients, or the public.
| Cognitive and emotional impairment | 9 / 16 |
Difficulty concentrating and remembering at work, emotions that are hard to contain.
Areas to explore: recent mistakes and lapses, emotional reactions at work, their impact at home.
| Exhaustion | 5 / 16 |
Physical and emotional fatigue related to work that rest no longer relieves.
Areas to explore: how the fatigue has developed, sleep, sick leave, the energy left for life outside work.
Sources
| Workload and pace | 11 / 16 |
Amount of work, time pressure, working hours, and interruptions.
Areas to explore: the actual workload (hours, targets), interruptions, opportunities to recover, work taken home.
| Autonomy and recognition | 6 / 16 |
Little control over how one's work is organized, efforts that go unrecognized (pay, appreciation, career prospects).
Areas to explore: the decisions the person has a say in, the recognition received, the sense of fairness.
| Work relationships | 6 / 16 |
Tension with supervisors or colleagues, lack of support, isolation, hostile behavior.
Areas to explore: the people involved, the support available, repeated incidents of belittling or exclusion, possible courses of action.
| Value conflicts and loss of meaning | 4 / 16 |
Having to do work one considers poor quality, against one's values, or meaningless.
Areas to explore: what the person considers good work, the situations that clash with their values, what used to give their job meaning.
No validated clinical or psychometric cutoffs have been established for this test yet. The results should therefore be considered exploratory indicators, meant to support the clinical interview, not diagnostic findings.
Scoring
Each statement is scored from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) based on its frequency over the past three months. Each domain combines 4 statements spread throughout the questionnaire, giving a score from 0 to 16.
Reading the profile
There is no total score. Within each block, domains are ranked from most to least elevated, each with a description of what it covers and points to explore in the interview. The results show two blocks: the signs of burnout, then their sources in the work environment. When the signs are elevated but no source stands out, life outside work should be explored as well.
Clinical cautions
High ratings on the "Work relationships" statements (criticism, exclusion, belittling) may point to workplace bullying. Explore this in the interview, with a possible referral to occupational health services.
Limitations
This exploratory questionnaire has not undergone psychometric validation and has no cutoffs. It supports the clinical interview and does not provide a diagnosis.
Similar tools
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?