MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280752446 · doi:10.1037/pas0000128

The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: Validity and factor structure in young people.

2015· article· en· W2280752446 on OpenAlexafffund
Rocío de la Vega, Catarina Tomé‐Pires, Ester Solé, Mélanie Racine, Elena Castarlenas, Mark P. Jensen, Jordi Miró

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónWestern UniversityAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis AvançatsFundació la Marató de TV3
KeywordsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexPsychologyCronbach's alphaConvergent validityClinical psychologyPopulationReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsConcurrent validitySleep qualityGerontologyPsychiatryMedicineInternal consistencyInsomniaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is a widely used measure of sleep quality in adolescents, but information regarding its psychometric strengths and weaknesses in this population is limited. In particular, questions remain regarding whether it measures one or two sleep quality domains. The aims of the present study were to (a) adapt the PSQI for use in adolescents and young adults, and (b) evaluate the psychometric properties of the adapted measure in this population. The PSQI was slightly modified to make it more appropriate for use in youth populations and was translated into Spanish for administration to the sample population available to the study investigators. It was then administered with validity criterion measures to a community-based sample of Spanish adolescents and young adults (AYA) between 14 and 24 years old (N = 216). The results indicated that the questionnaire (AYA-PSQI-S) assesses a single factor. The total score evidenced good convergent and divergent validity and moderate reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .72). The AYA-PSQI-S demonstrates adequate psychometric properties for use in clinical trials involving adolescents and young adults. Additional research to further evaluate the reliability and validity of the measure for use in clinical settings is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations217
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207