Psychometric properties of parent and child reported sleep assessment tools in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

Bautista, Manuel; Whittingham, Koa; Edwards, Priya; Boyd, Roslyn N.

doi:10.1111/dmcn.13609

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, SNAKE the sleep questionnaire for children with severe psychomotor impairment underwent all 11 steps and was uniquely developed (hence not modified) for a specific population. More alike are needed (149). Thirdly, PADSS, and BRIAN-K both newly developed tools drew our attention because they examine arousal level and biological rhythm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric Sleep Tools: An Updated Literature Review

Sen

Spruyt

2020

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since a thorough review in 2011 by Spruyt, into the integral pitfalls of pediatric questionnaires in sleep, sleep researchers worldwide have further evaluated many existing tools. This systematic review aims to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the tools currently in circulation and provide recommendations for potential evolving avenues of pediatric sleep interest. 144 "tool"-studies (70 tools) have been published aiming at investigating sleep in primarily 6-18 years old per parental report. Although 27 new tools were discovered, most of the studies translated or evaluated the psychometric properties of existing tools. Some form of normative values has been established in 18 studies. More than half of the tools queried general sleep problems. Extra efforts in tool development are still needed for tools that assess children outside the 6-to-12-year-old age range, as well as for tools examining sleep-related aspects beyond sleep problems/disorders. Especially assessing the validity of tools has been pursued vis-à-vis fulfillment of psychometric criteria. While the Spruyt et al. review provided a rigorous step-by-step guide into the development and validation of such tools, a pattern of steps continue to be overlooked. As these instruments are potentially valuable in assisting in the development of a clinical diagnosis into pediatric sleep pathologies, it is required that while they are primary subjective measures, they behave as objective measures. More tools for specific populations (e.g., in terms of ages, developmental disabilities, and sleep pathologies) are still needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pediatric Sleep Tools: An Updated Literature Review

Sen

Spruyt

2020

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, 25 systematic reviews (Alheresh, Vaughan, LaValley, Coster & Keysor, ; Barten, Pisters, Huisman, Takken & Veenhof, ; Bautista, Whittingham, Edwards & Boyd, ; Bissett, Cusick & Lannin, ; Bouffard, Bertrand‐Charette & Roy, ; Chumney et al ., ; Cordier et al ., , ; Darzins, Imms & Di Stefano, ; Furlan, Noonan, Singh & Fehlings, ; Ireland & Johnston, ; James, Ziviani & Boyd, ; Janaudis‐Ferreira, Beauchamp, Robles, Goldstein & Brooks, ; Ji & Liu, ; Kaur, Belchior, Gelinas & Bier, ; Kendzerska, Smith, Brignardello‐Petersen, Leung & Tomlinson, ; Magasi & Post, ; Mollayeva et al ., ; Mollayeya, Kendzerska & Colantonio, ; Monjazebi et al ., ; Rainey, van Nispen, van der Zee & van Rens, ; Sikkes, Klerk, Pijnenburg, Scheltens & Uitdehaag, ; Vergauwen et al ., ; Wales, Clemson, Lannin & Cameron, ) used standardised quality checklists such as the COSMIN and Terwee's Checklist to evaluate the quality of the psychometric reporting. Fifteen reviews (Bartula & Sherman, ; de Baets et al ., ; Gouttebarge, Wind, Kuijer & Frings‐Dresen, ; Harvey, Robin, Morris, Graham & Baker, ; Holden, Jones, Baker, Boersma & Kluger, ; Innes, ; Innes & Straker, ,b; Lewandowski, Toliver‐Sokol & Palermo, ; Lotzin et al ., ; Monod et al ., ; Peer & Tenhula, ; Swinkels, Dijkstra & Bouter, ; Tse, Douglas, Lentin & Carey, ; Williams et al ., ) used a non‐standardised checklist (i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Romli

Yunus

Mackenzie

2019

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Using standardised instruments is one approach to support evidence-based practice. Referring to systematic reviews is an option to identify suitable instruments. However, with an abundance of systematic reviews available, therapists are challenged to identify an appropriate instrument to use. Therefore, this overview of reviews aimed to summarise relevant systematic review findings about standardised occupation-based instruments relevant for occupational therapy practice. Methods: An overview of reviews was conducted. A systematic search was performed on four databases up to March 2018. Included systematic reviews were analysed for quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Results: A total of 2187 articles were identified after removing duplicates. Ultimately, 58 systematic reviews were identified that yielded 641 instruments. From those, 45 instruments were selected for appraisal as they met the inclusion criteria of being developed mainly by occupational therapists and were recommended in the summarised findings from the systematic reviews. The instruments were classified according to the following occupation domains: (i) multidimensional, (ii) activities of daily living, (iii) productivity, (iv) social, (v) sleep/rest, (vi) sexuality and (vii) spirituality. No systematic review was identified that specifically focussed on occupations related to school/education, leisure and play. Discussion: Certain occupation domains such as activities of daily living, social and sleep/rest received high attention amongst researchers. There is a need for systematic reviews of instruments to measure education/school, play and leisure. Limited numbers of instruments were developed by occupational therapists outside the occupation domain of activities of daily living, and in areas of practice other than children and older people. Nevertheless, this overview can give some guidance for occupational therapists in selecting a suitable occupational therapy instrument for practice.

show abstract

“…The CSWS provided five subscale scores and an overall sleep quality score. The SDSC is a 26‐item rating scale developed to categorize sleep disorders that has been validated in children with disability as well as typically developing children aged 5 to 15 years . It is categorized into six subscales that are scored on a 5‐point Likert scale with higher scores indicating more acute sleep disturbances .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SDSC is a 26-item rating scale developed to categorize sleep disorders that has been validated in children with disability as well as typically developing children aged 5 to 15 years. [11][12][13][14] It is categorized into six subscales that are scored on a 5-point Likert scale with higher scores indicating more acute sleep disturbances. 12 A table, based on normative data, converts the raw scores of the individual factors and the total scores into Tscores.…”

Section: Sleep Disorder Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral phenotype and sleep problems in SATB2‐associated syndrome

Cotton

Gokarakonda

Caffrey

et al. 2019

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To determine the nature and frequency of behavioral phenotypes and sleep disturbances in individuals with SATB2‐associated syndrome (SAS). Method The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and an age‐appropriate sleep questionnaire were distributed to the parents of individuals with SAS. All scores were compared to available normative data. Results Thirty‐one individuals completed the assessment (18 females, 13 males; mean age 7y 4mo [SD 4y 1mo], range 2–16y). Individuals with SAS had significantly higher Total Difficulty scores than the normative sample (14.9 [SD 5.8] vs 7.1 [SD 5.7], p<0.001). A high frequency of emotional problems (22.6% vs 8%, p=0.01), peer problems (48.4% vs 10%, p<0.001), hyperactivity (48.4% vs 9%, p<0.001), and low prosocial behaviors (45.2% vs 9%, p<0.001) contribute to the behavioral profile in SAS. Concurrent sleeping difficulties were also frequently identified. Ten individuals in the 5 to 15 years age range had at least one sleep disorder (mean Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children total score 40.9 [SD 8.4] vs 35.1 [SD 7.7], p<0.001). Interpretation With previous limited available objective neurobehavioral data on the SAS population, we reported evidence of high‐risk for a broad spectrum of burdensome behavioral phenotype and concurrent sleeping difficulties, the latter being particularly prevalent during early childhood. Routine assessment and treatment for behavioral issues and sleep problems is recommended. What this paper adds Emotional and peer problems, hyperactivity, and low prosocial behavior are common in SATB2‐associated syndrome. The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire Total Difficulty scores are atypical in nearly half of individuals. Behavioral difficulties are perceived as burdensome to over half of the parents. Nearly half of individuals have at least one sleep disorder. Sleep–wake transition disorders were most common.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of parent and child reported sleep assessment tools in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review

Cited by 22 publications

References 41 publications

Pediatric Sleep Tools: An Updated Literature Review

Pediatric Sleep Tools: An Updated Literature Review

Overview of reviews of standardised occupation‐based instruments for use in occupational therapy practice

Behavioral phenotype and sleep problems in SATB2‐associated syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About