MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091610401 · doi:10.1111/jsr.13198

The European Portuguese version of the insomnia severity index

2020· article· en· W3091610401 on OpenAlex
Vanda Clemente, Daniel Ruivo Marques, Mariana Miller‐Mendes, Charles M. Morin, Joana Serra, Ana Allen Gomes

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sleep Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexCronbach's alphaPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyBeck Depression InventoryEuropean PortuguesePsychologyDiscriminant validityPhysical therapyPortugueseAnxietyPsychometricsInternal consistencySleep quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Insomnia is the most prevalent sleep complaint, but remains largely an unidentified public health issue. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a brief self‐report questionnaire to assess insomnia, long‐established both in clinical and research settings. The present study aimed to analyse the reliability, validity, and accuracy of the ISI European Portuguese version. After the translation protocol, 1,274 participants (65.54% female), with a mean ( SD , range) age of 37.52 (16.82, 18–95) years, completed the ISI. This sample included 250 patients with insomnia from a Sleep Medicine Centre, presenting a diagnosis of insomnia disorder ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition; International Classification of Sleep Disorders , Third Edition), and 1,024 individuals from the community. A group of 30 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was also recruited. Cronbach’s α was 0.88 (internal consistency), and corrected item‐total correlations ranged from 0.56 to 0.83. An exploratory factor analysis (oblique rotation) revealed a two‐factor solution for both clinical and community samples. The ISI total score significantly differentiated insomnia disorder, no insomnia, and OSA subgroups with a large effect size ( η 2 = 0.42). The correlation between ISI and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index supported concurrent validity (0.82), and discriminant validity was confirmed by a moderate correlation between ISI and Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (0.32). The area under the curve was 0.88, and the optimal cut‐off to detect clinical insomnia was 14 (82.1% sensitivity, 79.5% specificity). In conclusion, the Portuguese version of the ISI is a reliable and valid measure of insomnia in clinical and non‐clinical populations. Our present study also contributes to relevant data for the international literature regarding the cut‐off score of the scale for the detection of clinical insomnia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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