Psychometric Validation of the Athens Insomnia Scale Among Nurses: A Robust Approach Using Both Classical Theory and Rating Scale Model Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Md Dilshad Manzar,1 Abdulrhman Albougami,1 Hamid Yimam Hassen,2 Mohamed Yacin Sikkandar,3 Seithikurippu R Pandi-Perumal,4,5 Ahmed S Bahammam6,7 1Department of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah, 11952, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610, Belgium; 3Department of Medical Equipment Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah, 11952, Saudi Arabia; 4Somnogen Canada Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5Saveetha Medical College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India; 6The University Sleep Disorders Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11324, Saudi Arabia; 7National Plan for Science and Technology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Md Dilshad Manzar, Department of Nursing College of Applied Medical Sciences, Majmaah University, Al Majmaah, 11952, Saudi Arabia, Email m.manzar@mu.edu.saPurpose: Few studies have investigated the validity of the Athens insomnia scale (AIS) using a robust approach of both classical theory and the rating scale model. Therefore, in this study, we investigated psychometric validation of the AIS using both of these approaches in nurses.Methods: Nurses (n= 563, age= 33.2± 7.1 years) working in health facilities in Saudi Arabia participated in a cross-sectional study. Participants completed the AIS, socio-demographics tool, and sleep health-related questions.Results: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) favored a 2-factor structure with both comparative fit index (CFI), and incremental fit index (IFI) having values above 0.95. The 2-factor model had the lowest values of Akaike information criterion (AIC), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), χ2, and χ2/df. This 2-factor structure showed configural invariance (CFI more than 0.95, RMSEA less than 0.08, and &KHgr;2/df less than 3), and metric, scalar, and strict invariance (based on Δ CFI ≤-0.01, and Δ RMSEA ≥ 0.015 criteria). No ceiling/floor effects were seen for the AIS total scores. Infit and outfit mean square values for all the items were within the acceptable range (< 1.4, > 0.6). The threshold estimates for each item were ordered as expected. Cronbach’s α for the AIS tool, factor-1 score, factor-2 score was 0.86, 0.82, and 0.72, respectively. AIS factor scores-1/2 were significantly associated with a habitual feeling of tiredness after usual night sleep (p< 0.001), Impairment of daytime socio-occupational functioning (p< 0.05), and with a feeling of daytime fatigue, irritability, and restlessness (p< 0.05).Conclusion: The findings favor the validity of a 2-factor structure of the AIS with adequate item properties, convergent validity, and reliability in nurses.Keywords: insomnia, reliability, factor analysis, sleep, validity
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 | 0.035 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".