Reliability and validity of the Daily Cognitive–Communication and Sleep Profile: a new instrument for monitoring sleep, wakefulness and daytime function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Daily Cognitive Communicative and Sleep Profile (DCCASP) is a seven-item instrument that captures daily subjective sleep quality, perceived mood, cognitive, and communication functions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the DCCASP. The DCCASP was self-administered daily to a convenience sample of young adults (n = 54) for two two-week blocks, interspersed with a two-week rest period. Afterwards, participants completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Internal consistency and criterion validity were calculated by Cronbach's α coefficient, Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC), and Spearman rank (rs) correlation coefficient, respectively. Results indicated high internal consistency (Cronbach-s α = 0.864-0.938) among mean ratings of sleep quality on the DCCASP. There were significant correlations between mean ratings of sleep quality and all domains (rs=0.38-0.55, p<0.0001). Criterion validity was established between mean sleep quality ratings on the DCCASP and PSQI (rs=0.40, p<0.001). The DCCASP is a reliable and valid self-report instrument to monitor daily sleep quality and perceived mood, cognitive, and communication functions over time, amongst a normative sample of young adults. Further studies on its psychometric properties are necessary to clarify its utility in a clinical population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".