2023
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13871
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children: psychometric properties and prevalence of sleep disorders in Spanish children aged 6–16 years

Abstract: Summary The present research aimed to investigate, for the first time, the validity and reliability of the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC) in a sample of 2733 Spanish children aged 6–16 years. We also described the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of sleep disorder symptoms among young people, which had never been studied in Spain. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original six‐factor model and Cronbach's alpha for the total questionnaire was 0.82, which indicated good reliabilit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lastly, to reach the third objective and compare the proportion of the participants with sleep problems, as a function of the clinical groups created from the scores of the CDS and ADHD of the parents, the scores of the subscales and the total score of SDSC of both parents were dichotomised. Thus, the presence/absence of sleep problems was determined based on the cut-off points applied in the validation work conducted with a Spanish population [27], using the formula (T-score = 50 + [value − mean]/SD × 10), considering (T-score > 70) as the pathological threshold. The scores of the scales of ADHD (IN and HI) and CDS of the parents were also dichotomised, considering the 90th percentile that was originally established [35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Lastly, to reach the third objective and compare the proportion of the participants with sleep problems, as a function of the clinical groups created from the scores of the CDS and ADHD of the parents, the scores of the subscales and the total score of SDSC of both parents were dichotomised. Thus, the presence/absence of sleep problems was determined based on the cut-off points applied in the validation work conducted with a Spanish population [27], using the formula (T-score = 50 + [value − mean]/SD × 10), considering (T-score > 70) as the pathological threshold. The scores of the scales of ADHD (IN and HI) and CDS of the parents were also dichotomised, considering the 90th percentile that was originally established [35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We expected to obtain at least a stronger correlation between CDS, sleep problems and internalising symptoms, with sleep problems being established as an independent factor from the rest of the constructs [15]. Proceeding in a similar way to the work developed by Pagerols et al [27], through the third objective, we compared the proportion of participants with sleep problems as a function of the clinical subgroups created from the scores obtained in the measures of CDS and ADHD in the parents, with the expectation of detecting more problems in the group of children with higher scores of ADHD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The measure consists of six subscales corresponding to symptoms of six domains of sleep disorders, including disorders of initiating and maintaining sleep, sleep breathing disorders, disorders of arousal, sleep–wake transition disorders, disorders of excessive somnolence, and sleep hyperhydrosis. This well-established evidence-based assessment of multidimensional sleep problems [ 43 ] has been utilized in community and clinical settings, translated for use in multiple languages [ 44–46 ], and demonstrates adequate to good reliability [ 32 , 47 ] and validity [ 32 , 43 , 45 ]. Additionally, the sleep breathing disorder subscale has shown significant discriminant validity with polysomnographic-confirmed sleep-related breathing disorders [ 46 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The internal consistency was α = 0.79 and test–retest reliability r = 0.71 over a 6‐month interval (Bruni et al, 1996). For this study we use the Spanish version form Pagerols et al (2023) with good psychometric properties ( α = 0.82).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%