↓ Skip to main content

Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
289 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0915-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Md Dilshad Manzar, Ahmed S. BaHammam, Unaise Abdul Hameed, David Warren Spence, Seithikurippu R. Pandi-Perumal, Adam Moscovitch, David L. Streiner

Abstract

The 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. MEDLINE, 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. The 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. We conclude that the various PSQI factor structures for standard sleep assessment in research and clinical settings may need further validation. Not applicable because this was a review of existing literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 289 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 289 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Researcher 15 5%
Lecturer 14 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 5%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 120 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 13%
Psychology 23 8%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Unspecified 7 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 133 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,402,575
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#296
of 2,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,445
of 328,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#26
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.