Are the Insomnia Severity Index and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index valid outcome measures for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia? Inquiry from the perspective of response shifts and longitudinal measurement invariance in their Chinese versions

Chen, Po‐Yi; Jan, Ya-Wen; Yang, Chien‐Ming

doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2017.04.003

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We counted the number of studies reporting any of the following 5 indices: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy, Bartlett’s sphericity test, determinant score, anti-image, and component correlations (Table 1 ). Eighteen studies reported both the KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity test [ 15 – 17 , 25 , 39 , 43 – 45 , 51 – 53 , 57 – 59 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 67 ], reported inter-item correlations [ 16 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 – 34 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 50 , 53 , 57 , 64 – 67 ], and 11 studies did not report any index [ 23 , 26 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 49 , 60 , 62 , 63 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies did not report which software program was used [ 22 , 50 , 51 , 59 , 66 ]. Thirteen studies did not report the method of extraction [ 23 , 24 , 29 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 49 – 53 , 60 , 63 ]. Nine studies used weighted least squares methods [ 26 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 58 , 66 ], 8 employed MLE [ 15 , 16 , 33 , 36 , 38 , 44 , 59 , 62 ], 2 used MLE with bootstrapping for smoothing multivariate non-normality [ 17 , 22 ], and 1 used robust MLE [ 42 ] (Table 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies did not use a modification index [ 17 , 24 , 26 , 33 – 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 44 – 46 ]. Twelve studies reported the result of the suggestions of the modification indices, 2 used path diagram change [ 23 , 29 ], 6 used correlations between error terms [ 15 , 16 , 32 , 42 , 58 , 60 ], 1 used path diagram change with Lagrange modifiers [ 22 ], and 2 did not provide details [ 36 , 63 ] (Table 3 ). The reported correlation values between the factors of the final CFA models varied from 0.07 to 1.0.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies reported finding a 2-factor model with just 5 PSQI components [ 16 , 23 ], while 1 study reported a model with only three PSQI components [ 48 ] (Table 3 ). Three studies reported final models with cross-loads [ 29 , 45 , 63 ]. Two studies reported non-standardized factor loadings, while 2 studies did not report the factor loadings (Table 3 ) [ 26 , 29 , 46 , 63 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Manzar

BaHammam

Hameed³

et al. 2018

Health Qual Life Outcomes

141

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) dimensionality is much debated, with the greatest number of reported factor structures. Therefore, this review appraised the methodologies of studies investigating the factor structure of the PSQI.Material and methodsMEDLINE, PsycInfo, AJOL, BASE, Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals (Lund University), CINAHL, and Embase were searched systematically to include articles published till 23rd March, 2018. The articles with the objective of factor analysis of the PSQI (20 articles) or with a major section on the same subject (25 articles) were included. There was no limitation about participant characteristics. Descriptive analysis of articles for measures of the suitability of the data for factor analysis, details of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and details of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed.ResultsThe analysis used by the majority did not employ the simplest scheme for interpreting the observed data: the parsimony principle. Other shortcomings included under- or non-reporting of sample adequacy measures (11 out of 45 articles), non-use of EFA (20 out of 45 articles), use of EFA without relevant details, non-use of CFA (11 out of 45 articles), and use of CFA without relevant details. Overall, 31 out of 45 articles did not use either EFA or CFA.ConclusionWe conclude that the various PSQI factor structures for standard sleep assessment in research and clinical settings may need further validation.Trial registrationNot applicable because this was a review of existing literature.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Manzar

BaHammam

Hameed³

et al. 2018

Health Qual Life Outcomes

141

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…e Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a self-reported questionnaire and its Chinese version was tested to be valid for assessing insomnia [19], including the current severity of insomnia symptoms, sleep dissatisfaction, daytime impacts, and distress about sleep difficulties [20].…”

Section: Efficacy Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of Jiawei Suanzaoren Decoction Combined with Lorazepam for Chronic Insomnia: A Parallel‐Group Randomized Controlled Trial

Song

Chen

Shao

et al. 2020

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Chronic insomnia is a major public health problem, but there are limited effective therapies. Jiawei Suanzaoren Decoction (JW-SZRD) has been used as an alternative option for treating insomnia. This study aimed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of JW-SZRD in combination with lorazepam for chronic insomnia. Methods. A total of 207 participants were analyzed in this study. The treatment group (TG) received JW-SZRD and lorazepam orally, and the control group (CG) received lorazepam alone. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Somatic Self-rating Scale (SSS) were evaluated at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and 12. The MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was assessed at baseline and week 12. Adverse effects (AEs) were evaluated by the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS). Results. Both TG and CG showed obvious improvements in the sleep onset latency (SOL) (P=0.001 and 0.005) and total sleep time (TST) (P=0.0001 and 0.001). However, TG was more effective than CG at weeks 8 (P=0.02 for SOL, P=0.008 for TST) and 12 (P=0.03 for SOL, P=0.04 for TST), especially in shortening SOL (Cohen’s d = 1.28). The ISI reduction rate in TG was higher than that in CG at weeks 4, 8, and 12 (P=0.008, 0.001 and 0.001). After treatment, TG had lower SAS scores (P=0.0001, 0.007), less somatic symptoms (P<0.05 or 0.01), higher SF-36 scores (P<0.05 or 0.01), better compliance (P=0.0001), and less adverse effects (P<0.05 or 0.01) than those in CG. Conclusion. The combination of JW-SZRD with lorazepam can significantly improve sleep quality with fewer AEs. It is an effective treatment and superior to lorazepam alone for chronic insomnia.

show abstract

Can mindfulness‐based interventions improve outcomes in cognitive‐behavioural therapy for chronic insomnia disorder in the general population? Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Entrambasaguas

Díaz-Silveira

Burgos-Julián

et al. 2023

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive‐behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I) is the recommended first‐line therapy for adults with chronic insomnia disorder (ID), which is characterized by hyperarousal. Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) are protocols aimed at stress reduction based on non‐judgmental attention control in the present moment. However, MBIs have been increasingly used without a clear scientific basis. The objective of this analysis was to examine if MBIs could be useful as a component of the CBT‐I therapeutic system through a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized studies (NRS) searched in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane and WoS. The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) was the primary outcome, while the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and a composite sleep variable (CSV) were secondary outcomes. Thirteen articles corresponding to nine studies (three pragmatic RCTs, three explanatory RCTs and three NRS) were included. The omnibus test found that MBIs had a small to medium effect size on ISI nearing signification when comparing active control groups in the pretest–posttest period [Δ = 0.44, p = 0.07], a medium, non‐significant, effect size on PSQI [Δ = 0.52, p = 0.18], and a significant though small effect size on CSV [Δ = 0.05, p < 0.01]. No heterogeneity was found. The analysis could not demonstrate that MBIs, combined with CBT‐I components in some studies, positively affected ID in the general adult population. This was probably due to the lack of pragmatic designs and suitable measuring instruments. Recommendations are made for designing further studies to address these issues.

show abstract

Are the Insomnia Severity Index and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index valid outcome measures for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia? Inquiry from the perspective of response shifts and longitudinal measurement invariance in their Chinese versions

Cited by 35 publications

References 29 publications

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Efficacy and Safety of Jiawei Suanzaoren Decoction Combined with Lorazepam for Chronic Insomnia: A Parallel‐Group Randomized Controlled Trial

Can mindfulness‐based interventions improve outcomes in cognitive‐behavioural therapy for chronic insomnia disorder in the general population? Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About