Parental report of infant sleep behavior by electronic versus paper-and-pencil diaries, and their relationship to actigraphic sleep measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable, valid and cost-effective methods for the assessment of infant sleep and sleep problems are of major importance. In this study, the first aim was to assess the agreement of an electronic diary as well as a paper diary with actigraphy for measuring infant sleep patterns in a community sample. The second aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptance of, and compliance with, the electronic diary and the paper diary. Ninety parents reported infant sleep behavior in a paper diary in their home environments for a total of 6 days, 95 in an electronic diary, within two consecutive weeks while actigraphic data were obtained simultaneously. We found moderate to good agreement between electronic diaries and actigraphy (r = 0.41-0.65, P < 0.01), and paper diaries and actigraphy (r = 0.47-0.70, P < 0.01). In addition, this study also found good agreement between both diaries and also between both diaries and actigraphy for sleep percentage over 24 h (electronic diaries and actigraphy: 54.1 ± 0.7%, 52.5 ± 0.7%, P < 0.05; paper diaries and actigraphy: 55.1 ± 0.5%, 52.2 ± 0.6%, P < 0.01) and for daytime (electronic diaries and actigraphy: 27.3 ± 0.9%, 23.5 ± 1.2%, P < 0.01; paper diaries and actigraphy: 27.3 ± 0.8%, 23.2 ± 1.0%, P < 0.01), with the exception that less daytime sleep was recorded on actigraphy than on either diary. In conclusion, the electronic diary and the paper diary are valid and well-accepted methods for the assessment of infant sleep. Parents preferred the electronic diary but, conversely, they were less compliant in completing it.
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".