Behavioral treatments were evaluated for their effect on the subjective and objective sleep of older adult insomniacs (N = 53) aged 47 to 76 years. Conditions were support and sleep hygiene, support and sleep hygiene plus progressive relaxation, support and sleep hygiene plus stimulus control, or a measurement control group. The results indicated that all groups, including the measurement control group, were effective in improving the sleep diary assessed awakenings, naptime, and feeling refreshed upon awakening. Subjects at 3 weeks felt less depressed and felt that they had more control over their sleep. Stimulus control was most effective in improving sleep at the posttherapy period. A 2‐year follow‐up showed that the stimulus control subjects most frequently used the treatment instructions and had shorter sleep latencies and highest sleep quality. Behavioral treatments were found to be effective in improving the perception of sleep among older adult insomniacs.

The Millon Behavioral Health Inventory (MBHI) is one of only a few diagnostic instruments designed specifically for psychological evaluations of medical patients. However, despite being available for clinical use for several years, there are virtually no published research evaluations of this inventory. The present study evaluated the MBHI in light of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores and treatment outcomes of 52 chronic pain patients. MBHI scales were highly correlated with admission and denial of psychopathology, as well as emotional distress, but had little relationship to Hs and Hy of the MMPI. The Pain Treatment Responsivity scale (PP), Allergic Inclination scale (MM), and MMPI D scale predicted the outcome of pain treatment at comparable levels. The specificity of the MBHI scales seems questionable in that 10 of 19 intercorrelations between PP and other MBHI scales were between 0.70 and 0.86. A stepwise regression procedure did not select PP among MBHI variables used to predict treatment outcomes. Results were interpreted as supporting cautious clinical use with pain patients until further research has been carried out.