Structural Validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in Chinese Undergraduate Students

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the structural validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in Chinese undergraduate students. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey with 631 Chinese undergraduate students was conducted, and the questionnaire package included a measure of demographic characteristics, PSQI, Chinese editions of Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression, State- Trait Anxiety Inventory, Rumination Response Scale, and Perceived Social Support Scale. Results showed that the item “use of sleep medicine” was not suitable for use with this population, that a two-factor model provided the best fit to the data as assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, and that other indices were consistently correlated with the sleep quality but not the sleep efficiency factor.

Evaluation of sleep quality in adolescent patients with osteosarcoma using Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

“…Comparably, in the study of Zhu, Xie, Park, and Kapella () who adapted the Chinese Version of PSQI in patients with type 2 diabetes, Cronbach's α was 0.78. Guo et al () evaluated the structural validity of the PSQI in Chinese undergraduate students and reported Cronbach's α of 0.91. In addition to construct validity, good convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlation between the PSQI global score and MAF fatigue score.…”

“…The best factor structure of PSQI varies among previous studies (Koh, Lim, Chia, & Lim, ; Qiu et al, ; Raniti, Waloszek, Schwartz, Allen, & Trinder, ; de la Vega et al, ), probably due to divergent diagnosis of the subjects, inconsistent statistical methodology and different country of origin. Many studies supported a two‐factor solution, which can be more representative of the PSQI's scale structure than other models (Guo et al, ; Qiu et al, ). Guo et al () investigated the factor structure of the PSQI in a cohort of 631 undergraduate students and reported that a two‐factor model could best fit the data.…”

“…Many studies supported a two-factor solution, which can be more representative of the PSQI's scale structure than other models (Guo et al, 2016;Qiu et al, 2016). Guo et al (2016) investigated the factor structure of the PSQI in a cohort of 631 undergraduate students and reported that a two-factor model could best fit the data. In this study, we confirmed that the two-factor model consisting of sleep efficiency and sleep quality could provide the most optimal solution in patients with OS based on the criteria of goodness of fit.…”

“…Sleep quality was assessed with the Chinese Version of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) as reported in previous studies (Guo, Sun, Liu, & Wu, 2016;Ho & Fong, 2014). Regarding the structure and scoring system, the Chinese version of PSQI was the same with the traditional PSQI proposed by Buysse et al (Buysse et al, 1989) It is composed of seven different components including subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, habitual sleep efficiency, night-time disturbances, sleep duration, use of sleep medications and daytime dysfunction.…”

“…The sum of these components generates a global score ranging from 0 to 21, with the higher score indicating the worse sleep quality. Poor sleep quality was defined as a global score of ≥ 8 (Guo et al, 2016;Ho & Fong, 2014). In addition to PSQI, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale (MAF) was also completed by the patient to evaluate the extent of fatigue.…”