Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

• Published in: Health and quality of life outcomes Vol. 16; no. 1; p. 89
• Main Authors: Manzar, Md Dilshad, BaHammam, Ahmed S, Hameed, Unaise Abdul, Spence, David Warren, Pandi-Perumal, Seithikurippu R, Moscovitch, Adam, Streiner, David L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 09.05.2018; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Analysis; Confirmatory factor analysis; Dimensionality; Exploratory factor analysis; Health aspects; Model fit; Outcome and process assessment (Health Care); Review; Sleep; Systematic review; Pennsylvania; Confirmatory factor analysis; Model fit; Systematic review; Dimensionality; Exploratory factor analysis; Sleep
• ISSN: 1477-7525; 1477-7525
• DOI: 10.1186/s12955-018-0915-x

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.