Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of the confirmatory factor analysis conditions used and reported by the studies investigating the factor structure of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

From: Dimensionality of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a systematic review

Author and year of publication Software Extraction method Types of Modification index used Correlation between factors Standardized Factor loadings Factors in final model; same/different from EFA Number of models used in comparative CFA Reason for the selection of models in comparative CFA Model fit indices
Aloba et al. 2007 [31] NO CFA
Babson et al. 2012 [30] NO CFA
Burkhalter et al. 2010 [29] Mplus version 5.21 Not reported Path diagram change 0.532, 0.773, 0.801 F1
DURAT = 0.85, HSE = 0.98, SLPQUAL = − 0.51
F2
SLPQUAL = 1.09, LATEN = 0.68, MEDS = 0.92
F3
DISTB = 0.93, DAYDYS = 0.56
3, No EFA 3;
1F-1
3F-2
Not explained Non-significant p value of χ2; RMSEA< 0.08–0.05;
CFI > 0.95;
WRMR < 0.90.
Buysse et al. 2008 [28] NO CFA
Casement et al. 2012 [35] Mplus version 5.1 Mean and variance-adjusted weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimator Not reported 0.46, 0.77, 0.81 F1
DURAT = 0.87, HSE = 0.75
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.75, LATEN = 0.56, MEDS = 0.45
F3
DISTB = 0.74, DAYDYS = 0.43
3, No EFA 4;
1F-1
2F-2
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion χ2/ df < 3, RMSEA < 0.06, WRMR < 0.90, CFI ≥ 0.95, and TLI ≥ 0.96
Chong & Cheung 2012 [34] Mplus version 5 Not reported Not reported 0.522, 0.567, 0.641 F1
DURAT = 0.73/0.85/0.95, HSE = 0.76/0.84/0.78
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.81/0.59/0.63, LATEN = 0.64/0.64/0.70,
DISTB = 0.59/0.40/0.47, DAYDYS = 0.44/0.21/49, MEDS = 0.33/0.35/0.17
2, No EFA 9;
1F-1
2F-6
3F-2
Partially explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for their omission SRMR< 0.05;
RMSEA < 0.07; CFI > 0.95
Cole et al. 2006 [22] Not reported Maximum likelihood extraction on the covariance matrix, & multivariate non-normality smoothed by bootstrapping Lagrange Modification index with change in path diagram 0.42, 0.82, 0.75 F1
DURAT = 0.76, HSE = 0.91
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.89, LATEN = 0.67, MEDS = 0.43
F3
DISTB = 0.67, DAYDYS = 0.52
2, 3 2;
2F-1
3F-1
Comparison between originally proposed 1F model & outcome of EFA
Fit indices for 1F model not reported
RMSEA≤0.06; CFI ≥ 0.90; GFI ≥ 0.90; AGFI≥0.90; LOWER χ2, BIC (difference of at least 10 between two models)
Gelaye et al. 2014 [44] Stata version 12.0 software Maximum likelihood estimation Not reported 0.46, 0.26, 0.36, (0.53, 0.40, 0.10) F1
DURAT = 0.79/0.73/1.0/0.6, HSE = 0.43/0.78/0.21/0.57
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.81/0.58/0.61/0.67, LATEN = 0.47/0.35/0.34/0.53, DISTB = 0.47/0.51/0.54/0.38, DAYDYS = 0.49/0.51/0.5/0.39, MEDS = 0.25/0.25/0.14/0.28
2, 2, 2, 3, same Not performed Not explained SRMR ≤0.08; RMSEA ≤0.06; CFI ≥0.95
Hita-Contreras et al. 2014 [43] NO CFA
Ho et al. 2014 [42] Mplus version 7.11 Robust maximum likelihood estimator Error-term correlation Not applicable F1
DURAT = 0.59, HSE = 0.60, SLPQUAL = 0.84,
LATEN = 0.61, DISTB = 0.61, DAYDYS = 0.56, MEDS = 0.36
1, same 4;
1F-2
2F-1
3F-1
Partially explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for their omission Insignificant χ2-test;
CFI & TLI ≥0.95; RMSEA≤0.06;
SRMR≤0.08;
Lower BIC
Jiménez-Genchi et al. 2008 [27] NO CFA
Jomeen & Martin 2007 [26] Mplus version 3 Weighted least-square with mean and variance correction estimator (WLSMV) Not reported Not reported not reported 2, No EFA 7;
1F-1,
2F-6
Not clear CFI & TLI > 0.90, RMSEA< 0.08–0.05, WRMR< 0.90 & Insignificant χ2
Koh et al. 2015 [41] FactoMineR in R Not reported Not reported (0.27, 0.64, 0.89); (0.39, 0.72, 0.90) in 2 sample groups F1
DURAT = 0.68/0.60, HSE = 0.72/0.67
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.72/0.63, LATEN = 0.63/0.60
F3
DISTB = 0.37/0.52, DAYDYS = 0.51/0.42, MEDS = 0.40/0.26
3/3, 3/3, same 4;
1F-1
2F-1
3F-2
Not explained GFI > 0.90; AGFI> 0.90; CFI ≥ 0.95
RMSEA < 0.08–0.05;
LOWER χ2, BIC (difference of at least 10 between two models), CAIC
Kotronoulas et al. 2011 [25] NO CFA
Lequerica et al. 2014 [40] SPSS Statistics 21 with AMOS Not reported Not reported 0.87, 0.85 F1 DURAT = 0.68, HSE = 0.51,
LATEN = 0.68
F2
DISTB = 0.73, DAYDYS = 0.66,
MEDS = 0.25
2, same 5;
1F-1
2F-3
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion Non-significant p value of χ2; CFI ≥ 0.95; NNFI≥0.95
RMSEA < 0.06
Magee et al. 2008 [24] SPSS version 15 with AMOS version-7 Not reported Not reported 0.73 F1
DURAT = 0.68, HSE = 0.62
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.76, LATEN = 0.61, DISTB = 0.46, DAYDYS = 0.52, MEDS = 0.23
2, different 6;
1F-2
2F-2
3F-2
Partially explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for their omission χ2-test
lower, non-significant values;
RMSEA ≤0.05;
CFI, GFI, &
AGFI > 0.90
Manzar et al. 2016a [17] SPSS 16.0 with amos Maximum likelihood extraction with bootstrapping to smooth non-normality Not reported Not applicable F1 DURAT = 0.74, HSE = 0.32,
SLPQUAL = 0.74, LATEN = 0.63, DISTB = 0.43, DAYDYS = 0.41,
MEDS = 0.40
1, 2 different 2;
1F-1
2F-1
Comparison between outcome(s) of EFA Non-significant Bollen–Stine bootstrap χ2 p values, Non-significant p value of χ2; χ2/df < 2;
RMR ≤ 0.05; CFI ≥ 0.95;
RMSEA < 0.05; GFI & AGFI> 0.9; AIC = lesser value indicated a better fit
Manzar et al. 2016b [15] SPSS 16.0 with amos Maximum likelihood extraction Co-variance, Variance and regression weights Not applicable F1 DURAT = 0.363, HSE = 0.374,
SLPQUAL = 0.705, LATEN = 0.633, DISTB = 0.501, DAYDYS = 0.406,
MEDS = 0.30
1, No EFA 17;
1F-3
2F-8
3F-6
Most of models of the PSQI reported till 15–02-2015 Non-significant p value of χ2; χ2/df < 2;
RMR ≤ 0.05; CFI ≥ 0.95;
RMSEA < 0.05; GFI & AGFI> 0.9; AIC = lesser value indicated a better fit
Mariman et al. 2012 [33] SPSS (PASW 17.0) with AMOS module (5.0) Maximum Likelihood Algorithm Not reported 0.64, 0.53, 1.00 F1
DURAT = 0.9, HSE = 0.78
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.85, LATEN = 0.57, MEDS = 0.18
F3
DISTB = 0.79, DAYDYS = 0.29
But, 3 latent factors shown to load on 1 factor
Second order model, No EFA 3;
1F-1
2F-1
3F-1
Results for the 2F model not shown
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion Non-significant p value of χ2 (d.f.);
GFI > 0.90; AGFI> 0.85;
CFI > 0.90; RMSEA< 0.08–0.05;
Lower CAIC
Nazifi et al. 2014 [39] NO CFA
Nicassio et al. 2014 [38] EQS 6.1 Maximum likelihood (ML) method Not reported 0.65 F1
DURAT = 0.85, HSE = 0.64
F2 SLPQUAL = 0.89, LATEN = 0.48, DISTB = 0.57, DAYDYS = 0.56
2, No EFA 3;
1F-1
2F-1
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion S-Bχ2; an S-Bχ2/df < 2.0; robust CFI ≥ 0.95; RMSEA≤0.05; Lower & negative AIC
Otte et al. 2013 [32] LISREL 8.8 Weighted least squares Error term correlation 0.37, 0.71 in 2 sample groups F1
DURAT = 0.64, HSE = 0.97
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.86, LATEN = 0.82/0.66, DISTB = 0.66, DAYDYS = 0.5, MEDS = 0.46
2, No EFA 4;
1F-1
2F-1
3F-2
Two 3F models differed with respect to use/non-use of error terms only
Not explained Non-significant p value of χ2; SRMR ≤0.08; RMSEA< 0.06; CFI ≥ 0.95
Otte et al. 2015 [37] LISREL version 8.8 Weighted least-squares, none of the indicators showed excessive skew or kurtosis Not reported 0.40, 0.73, 0.68 F1
DURAT = 0.92, HSE = 0.68
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.82, LATEN = 0.57, MEDS = 0.15
F3
DISTB = 0.61, DAYDYS = 0.61
3, No EFA 7;
1F-1
2F-2
3F-3
4F-1
Not explained Non-significant p value of χ2; RMSEA< 0.06; CFI ≥ 0.95;
Rener-Sitar et al. 2014 [46] STATA version 12 Diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) and a “robust” method using the Huber-White sandwich estimator Not reported Not applicable not reported 1; same in both Not applicable Not applicable SRMR: ≤0.08; RMSEA: ≤0.06; and CFI,
TLI: ≥0.95
Skouteris et al. 2009 [23] Structural equation modeling (SEM) Not reported Path diagram change 0.44, 0.59 F1
DURAT = 0.73/0.85, HSE = 0.91/0.94, LATEN = 0.36/0.39
F2
DISTB = 0.62/0.60, DAYDYS = 0.49/0.62
Second order model, No EFA 2;
2F-2
Compared with model reported in similar population, i.e., pregnant women CFI & GFI > 0.90–1.0; RMSEA< 0.10 - < 0.05; χ2/df of 2 to 3 (lower is better); lower ECVI
Tomfohr et al. 2013 [36] Mplus version 5.21 Maximum likelihood estimation Reported but detail is not clear Not reported, distinct model with age & gender as co-variates F1
DURAT = 0.71/0.82, HSE = 0.70/0.72
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.77/0.76, LATEN = 0.64/0.63
F3
DISTB = 0.64/0.70, DAYDYS = 0.56/0.61
3, No EFA 3;
1F-1
3F-2
Not explained CFI ≥ 0.90; SRMR ≤0.05;
χ2 test of difference (P ≤ 0.01)
Zhong et al. 2015 [45] SAS 9.4 Weighted least squares (WLS) estimation Not reported 0.07, 0.36 F1
DURAT = 0.66, HSE = 0.52
F2
SLPQUAL = 0.47, LATEN = 0.46, DISTB = 0.45, DAYDYS = 0.64
F3
MEDS = 0.48
SLPQUAL = 0.22, LATEN = 0.26
3, same 5;
1F-1
2F-3
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion CFI ≥ 0.90; SRMR< 0.08; RMSEA < 0.06
De la Vega et al. 2015 [59] Not reported maximum likelihood mean adjusted Not reported Not applicable SLPQUAL = 0.421
LATEN = 0.620
DURAT = 0.656
HSE = 0.567
DISTB = 0.606
DAYDYS = 0.485
1, No EFA 2;
1F-1
2F-1
Compared with model reported in similar population, i.e., adolescents S-Bχ2, CFI, RMSEA; cut-off for the indices not reported
Anandakumar et al. 2016 [67] No CFA  
Zheng et al. 2016 [51] Not reported Not reported Not reported 0.34 F1
DURAT = 0.69
HSE = 0.65
MEDS = 0.15
F2
DISTB = 0.43
DAYDYS = 0.51
SLPQUAL = 0.721
LATEN = 0.63
2, No EFA 4;
1F-1
2F-2
3F-1
explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion χ2, GFI, AGFI, RMR, RMSEA, CFI, NFI, NNFI, AIC, CAIC, SBC
Becker & Jesus 2017 [53] SPSS 21 and AMOS-29 Not reported F1
SLPQUAL = 0.59
LATEN = 0.76
F2
DURAT = 0.76
HSE = 0.69
F3
DISTB = 0.52
DAYDYS = 0.57
3, 2 different 6;
1F-2
2F-2
3F-2
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion non-significant χ2, RMSEA ≤0.08, CFi, GFI & AGFI > 0.97
Benhayon et al. 2013 [61] No CFA
DeGutis et al. 2016 [62] R maximum likelihood estimation Not reported 0.76, 0.75, 0.45 F1
HSE = 0.68
DURAT = 0.78
F2
LATEN = 0.70
SLPQUAL = 0.52
MEDS = 0.77
F3
DISTB = 0.56
DAYDYS = 0.78
No EFA 4;
1F-1
2F-2
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion χ2/df < 3, SRMR & RMSEA≤0.06, CFI & TLI > 0 .95
Yunus et al. 2016 [48] SPSS 20 weighted least squares method Not reported Not applicable LATEN = 0.65
SLPQUAL = 0.65
DISTB = 0.49
1, No EFA 4;
1F-2
2F-1
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR cut-off for the indices not reported
Qiu et al. 2016 [58] SAS 9.4 weighted least squares (WLS) estimation Error term correlation 0.68 F1
HSE = 0.48
DURAT = 0.45
LATEN = 0.44
SLPQUAL = 0.83
F2
DISTB = 0.62
DAYDYS = 0.49
2, same 6;
2F-6
None CFI ≥ 0.90, SRMR≤0.08, RMSEA ≤0.06
Dudysova et al. 2017 [66] Not reported diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimator Not reported 0.80, 0.30, 0.16 F1
HSE = 0.68
DURAT = 0.88
F2
LATEN = 0.70
SLPQUAL = 0.79
MEDS = 0.89
F3
DISTB = 0.32
DAYDYS = − 0.29
No EFA 11;
1F-1
2F-6
3F-4
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion non-significant & lower, GFI > 0.90, CFI & TLI ≥0.95, RMSEA ≤0.05 (≤0.08 adequate fit), SRMR ≤0.08
Salahuddin et al. 2017 [16] SPSS -16.0 maximum likelihood Error term correlation Not applicable Not reported 1, 1–3 5;
1F-4
2F-1
All based on EFA RMR & RMSEA ≤0.05, GFI, AGFI ≥0.90,
Lesser ECVI, CFI ≥ 0.95, χ2/df ≤ 3
João et al. 2017 [57] SPSS-21.0 No CFA
Chen et al. 2017 [63] R 3.1.1 and its package lavaan Not reported Used modification indices but details not mentioned Not reported Unstandardized loadings Reported None, No EFA 1;
3F-1
Not applicable CFI & TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08
Khosravifar et al. 2015 [51] Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 2 3;
1F-1
2F-1
3F-1
Based on EFA Not reported
Fontes et al. 2017 [49] STATA version, R, version 3.0.1 Not reported Correlation between the PSQI components Not applicable HSE = 0.44
DURAT = 0.53
LATEN = 0.54
SLPQUAL = 0.88
MEDS = 0.22
DISTB = 0.42
DAYDYS = − 0.37
1, 2 2;
1F-1
2F-1
Based on EFA non-significant χ2, χ2/df = 2–3,
SRMR ≤0.08, RMSEA≤0.07, CFI & TLI ≥ 0.95
Guo et al. 2016 [60] SPSS-22.0 with AMOS18.0 Not reported Error term correlation Not reported HSE = 0.47
DURAT = 0.52
LATEN = 0.41
SLPQUAL = 0.83
DISTB = 0.35
DAYDYS = − 0.60
2, No EFA 6;
1F-2
2F-2
3F-2
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion χ2/df = 2–5, 0.05 < RMSEA < 0.08,
CFI > 0.95, SRMR< 0.05
Morris et al. 2017 [65] SPSS-22.0 No CFA
Passos et al. 2016 [52] SPSS-20.0 with AMOS 23.0 Not reported Error term correlation 0.17 Unstandardized loadings Reported 2–3, 2 3;
2F-2
3F-1
Based on EFA SRMR≤0.08, CFI > 0.95, 0.5 < RMSEA> 0.8
Zhu et al. 2018 [64] Stata 13.1 Maximum Likelihood Algorithm Not reported Not applicable HSE = 0.81
DURAT = 0.75
LATEN = 0.61
SLPQUAL = 0.63
DISTB = 0.46
DAYDYS = − 0.43
1, No EFA 3;
1F-2
3F-1
Not explained, some of the documented models not used, no reasons given for selection and/or inclusion non-significant χ2, RMSEA < 0.05, CFI > 0.95, lower BIC, SRMR< 0.06