Purpose: With the uptick in videoconferencing platforms resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, there were increased reports of videoconferencing fatigue among students. Previous research and measures have been developed to capture videoconferencing fatigue. One instrument, the Zoom Fatigue Scale (ZEF), has been previously researched, demonstrating validity and reliability. Despite this, there is a dearth of knowledge regarding the validity and reliability of videoconferencing fatigue instruments among social work students. Method: This study examined the psychometric properties of the ZEF instrument by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) among social work students. Results: Significant findings from the CFA concluded that the ZEF instrument has strong content, convergent and discriminant validity. The results indicate that the ZEF instrument is psychometrically sound in measuring videoconferencing fatigue among social work students. Discussion: Measuring videoconferencing fatigue is vital for academic institutions to implement preventative measures to alleviate it.
AcockA. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press Books.
2.
AuerbachC.BeckermanN. L. (2011). What social workers in health care should know about lupus: A structural equation model. Health & Social Work, 36(4), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/36.4.269
3.
AuerbachC.Zeitlin SchudrichW.McGowanB. G. (2013). Predicting turnover: Validating the intent to leave child welfare scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(3), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513494021
4.
BaschJ. M.AlbusP.SeufertT. (2025). Fighting zoom fatigue: Evidence-based approaches in university online education. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 7091. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90973-6
5.
BashirA.BashirS.RanaK.LambertP.VernallisA. (2021). Post-COVID-19 adaptations; the shifts towards online learning, hybrid course delivery and the implications for biosciences courses in the higher education setting. Frontiers in Education, 6, 711619. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.711619
6.
BenderA. E.BergK. A.MillerE. K.EvansK.HolmesM. (2021). Making sure we are all okay": Healthcare workers’ strategies for emotional connectedness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(4), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00781-w
7.
BennettA. A.CampionE. D.KeelerK. R.KeenerS. K. (2021). Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000906
BeyeaD.LimC.LoverA.FoxmanM.RatanR.LeithA. (2025). Zoom fatigue in review: A meta-analytical examination of videoconferencing fatigue's antecedents. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100571
11.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). Routledge.
15.
CainM. K.ZhangZ.YuanK.-H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1716–1735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1
16.
CamilleriM. A. (2021). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post-COVID-19 outlook. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034
17.
ChamH.ReshetnyakE.RosenfeldB.BreitbartW. (2017). Full information maximum likelihood estimation for latent variable interactions with incomplete indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1245600
18.
ChoS. Y.ImT. (2024). The structural relationships among online class related factors, zoom fatigue, learning engagement, perceived achievement, and class satisfaction in university online classes. Education and Information Technologies, 29(15), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12658-3
19.
ClaiborneN.AuerbachC.LawrenceC.McGowanB.LawsonH.McCarthyM.Strolin-GoltzmanJ.CaringiJ. (2014). Design teams as an organizational intervention to improve job satisfaction and worker turnover in public child welfare. Journal of Family Strengths, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.58464/2168-670X.1227
DavisC.GreenawayR.MooreM.CooperL. (2019). Online teaching in social work education: Understanding the challenges. Australian Social Work, 72(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1524918
23.
DenizM. E.SaticiS. A.DoanyesC.GriffithsM. D. (2022). Zoom fatigue, psychological distress, life satisfaction, and academic well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(5), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0249
24.
de Oliveira Kubrusly SobralJ. B.LimaD. L. F.Lima RochaH. A.de BritoE. S.DuarteL. H. G.BentoL. B. B. B.KubruslyM. (2022). Active methodologies association with online learning fatigue among medical students. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03143-x
25.
ElbogenE. B.LanierM.GriffinS. C.BlakeyS. M.GluffJ. A.Ryan WagnerH.TsaiJ. (2022). A national study of zoom fatigue and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for future remote work. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(7), 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0257
26.
FauvilleG.LuoM.QueirozA. C. M.BailensonJ. N.HancockJ. (2021). Zoom exhaustion and fatigue scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4, 100119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100119
27.
GatesT. G.RossD.BennettB.JonathanK. (2021). Teaching mental health and well-being online in a crisis: Fostering love and self-compassion in clinical social work education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 50(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-021-00786-z
28.
GoldA. H.MalhotraA.SegarsA. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
29.
GoldkindL.LaMendolaW.Taylor-BeswickA. (2020). Tackling COVID-19 is a crucible for privacy. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(2), 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2020.1757559
30.
GoldkindL.WolfL. (2015). A digital environment approach: Four technologies that will disrupt social work practice. Social Work, 60(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swu045
31.
HeinschM.CliffK.TicknerC.BettsD. (2025). Social work virtual: Preparing social work students for a digital future. Social Work Education, 44(6), 1391–1397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2023.2254796
32.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
33.
HiltyD. M.GroshongL. W.ColemanM.MaheuM. M.ArmstrongC. M.SmoutS. A.CrawfordA.DrudeK. P.KrupinskiE. A. (2023). Best practices for technology in clinical social work and mental health professions to promote well-being and prevent fatigue. Clinical Social Work Journal, 51(3), 211–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-023-00865-3
34.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application (pp. 77–99). Sage.
35.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
36.
JoreskogK. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Sage.
37.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
38.
KnoxL. E.BerzenskiS. R.DrewS. A. (2023). Measuring zoom fatigue in college students: Development and validation of the meeting fatigue scale for videoconferencing (MFS-V) and the meeting fatigue scale for in-person (MFS-I). Media Psychology, 26(6), 680–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2204529
39.
LiB. J.LeeE. W.GohZ. H.TandocE. (2022). From frequency to fatigue: Exploring the influence of videoconference use on videoconference fatigue in Singapore. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100214
40.
LiB. J.YeeA. Z. H. (2024). Development and validation of the antecedents to videoconference fatigue scale in higher education (AVFS-HE). Education and Information Technologies, 29(18), 25511–25532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12876-9
LombardiB. M.de Saxe ZerdenL.FraherE. (2024). Varying estimates of social workers in the United States: Which data source to use?Medical Care Research and Review, 81(5), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587241257983
43.
MassnerC. K. (2022). Communication management. In PollakF.SoviarJ.Vavrek R. (Eds.), The use of videoconferencing in higher education. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99308.
44.
MclaughlinH.ScholarH.TeaterB. (2020). Social work education in a global pandemic: Strategies, reflections, and challenges. Social Work Education, 39(8), 975–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1834545
MitchellB.SarfatiD.StewartM. (2022). COVID-19 and beyond: A prototype for remote/virtual social work field placement. Clinical Social Work Journal, 50(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-021-00788-x
47.
MoralistaR. B.OducadoR. M. F.RoblesB. R. G.RosanoD. A. (2022). Determinants of zoom fatigue among graduate students of teacher education program. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(13), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i13.31511
48.
Nesher ShoshanH.WehrtW. (2025). Zoom fatigue” revisited: Are video meetings still exhausting post-COVID-19?Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 30(5), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000409
49.
OducadoR. M. F.FajardoM. T. R.Parreño-LachicaG. M.ManiagoJ. D.VillanuevaP. M. B.DequillaM. A. C. V.MontañoH. C.RobiteE. E. (2021). Predictors of videoconference fatigue: Results from undergraduate nursing students in the Philippines. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 9(4), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.15206/ajpor.2021.9.4.310
50.
RatcliffM. (2024). Social workers, burnout, and self-care: A public health issue. Delaware Journal of Public Health, 10(1), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2024.03.05
51.
RinkelM.MaynardS.MartinE. (2023). Teaching note—telehealth on the fly: Why we need a more thoughtful approach in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 59(4), 1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2022.2051105
52.
RodríguezM. L.Pulido-MontesC. (2022). Use of digital resources in higher education during COVID-19: A literature review. Education Sciences, 12(9), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090612
53.
RubinA.BabbieE. R. (2011). Research methods for social work (7th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
54.
SalsabilaS. T.PratiwiI.RufaidaA.SariI. P.DewiK. K.PrajaW. N. (2021). Zoom fatigue on teacher and student's communication pattern. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social Sciences and Education (ICSSE 2021), 288–298.
55.
ShockleyK. M.GabrielA. S.RobertsonD.RosenC. C.ChawlaN.GansterM. L.EzerinsM. E. (2021). The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), 1137–1155. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000948
TeoT. S.SrivastavaS. C.JiangL. I. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303
58.
TuckerL. R.LewisC. (1973). A reliability coefficient for Maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
59.
WebbM. (2021). Zoom fatigue and how to prevent it. Journal of Registry Management, 48(4), 181–182.
