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

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