IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350023.html

Benefits and harms of copyright restrictions and conditions on burnout and other psychometric assessment scales

Author

Listed:
  • Robert G Badgett
  • Sudha Xirasagar
  • Hayrettin Okut

Abstract

Introduction: Copyright conditions can hinder the scientific and usage impact of essential assessment tools in healthcare, organizational psychology, and other fields. The stories of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) are well-documented. Despite decades-old recommendations to blend copyright restrictions of intellectual property when used for commercial purposes with permissive but distinct copyright terms for non-commercial and scholarly use, few authors of assessment tools do so. Objective: To assess whether restrictive copyrights limit the long-term scientific impact of copyright holders (often medical schools/faculty), by inhibiting downstream use, research, and improvement of measurement tools by other researchers. Methods: We compared MEDLINE citation trends of two restrictive surveys (requiring royalty payments, prohibiting item modifications) – the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) – against four free-to-use and adapt surveys. Our outcome was the annual, theme-relevant citation ratio of each survey since publication. The ratio was the number of publications featuring the scale name in the title or abstract divided by total publications addressing the original theme (purpose) of the scale. We performed paired comparisons of the most recent slopes of the annual citation ratio, pairing each restrictive scale with a permissive scale, totaling eight comparisons. Results: The restrictive MBI and MMSE initially showed rising slopes of annual citation ratios, and a decline in later years with negative slopes. Further, the final slope segments for all four permissive surveys were positive, vs. negative for the restrictive surveys, the slope difference being statistically significant for six out of eight comparisons. Conclusions: Restrictive copyright conditions on assessment scales risk undermining their long-term scientific and functional relevance. Previously recommended blended copyright approaches can facilitate survey creators’ revenues via commercial use royalties, while sustaining continued scholarly development and noncommercial usage to improve long-term relevance.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert G Badgett & Sudha Xirasagar & Hayrettin Okut, 2026. "Benefits and harms of copyright restrictions and conditions on burnout and other psychometric assessment scales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350023
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350023
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350023&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner & Jean Triole, 2000. "The Simple Economics of Open Source," NBER Working Papers 7600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    2. Xavier Lecocq & Benoît Demil, 2005. "Les effets de l’introduction d’un système ouvert sur la structure d’un secteur : le cas de l’industrie américaine du jeu de rôle," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 8(3), pages 105-123, September.
    3. Alessandro Rossi & Alessandro Narduzzo, 2003. "Modular design and the development of complex artifact lesson fron free open source software," Quaderni DISA 080, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Sep 2003.
    4. Gwendolyn K. Lee & Robert E. Cole, 2003. "From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 633-649, December.
    5. Campbell-Kelly, Martin & Garcia-Swartz, Daniel D., 2009. "Pragmatism, not ideology: Historical perspectives on IBM's adoption of open-source software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 229-244, August.
    6. Paola Giuri & Gaia Rocchetti & Salvatore Torrisi, 2002. "Open Source Software: From Open Science to New Marketing Models," LEM Papers Series 2002/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "The open source movement: Key research questions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 819-826, May.
    8. O'Mahony, Siobhan, 2003. "Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1179-1198, July.
    9. Martin Campbell-Kelly & Daniel Garcia-Swartz, 2010. "The Move to the Middle: Convergence of the Open-Source and Proprietary Software Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 223-252.
    10. Martha A. Starr, 2014. "Qualitative And Mixed-Methods Research In Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 238-264, April.
    11. Arjo Klamer & Hendrik van Dalen, 2001. "Attention and the art of scientific publishing," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 289-315.
    12. Deng, Feng, 2008. "What Is “Open”? An Economic Analysis of Open Institutions," MPRA Paper 8888, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Knut Blind & Jakob Edler, 2003. "Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 71-96, May.
    14. Dalle, Jean-Michel & Jullien, Nicolas, 2003. "'Libre' software: turning fads into institutions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-11, January.
    15. Dean Baker, 2016. "Working Paper: Rents and Inefficiency in the Patent and Copyright System: Is There a Better Route?," CEPR Reports and Issue Briefs 2016-12, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
    16. Cowan, Robin & Harison, Elad, 2001. "Protecting the digital endeavour: prospects for intellectual property rights in the information society," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Leona Achtenhagen & Jörg Müller-Lietzkow & Dodo Knyphausen-Aufseß, 2003. "Das Open Source-Dilemma: Open Source-Software zwischen freier Verfügbarkeit und Kommerzialisierung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 455-481, August.
    18. Giovanni Baiocchi, 2007. "Reproducible research in computational economics: guidelines, integrated approaches, and open source software," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 19-40, August.
    19. Tomak, Kerem & Keskin, Tayfun, 2008. "Exploring the trade-off between immediate gratification and delayed network externalities in the consumption of information goods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 887-902, June.
    20. Rajeev K. Tyagi, 2004. "Technological Advances, Transaction Costs, and Consumer Welfare," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 335-344, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350023. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.