Background and Objective Sleep disorders are common and frequently under-recognized in clinical practice. Existing screening instruments are often disorder-specific or require lengthy assessments. This study aimed to develop and validate the Seoul Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ), a brief screening instrument for common sleep disorders.Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from 1,726 adults who underwent polysomnography at a tertiary sleep clinic between November 2018 and February 2020. Participants completed the SSQ and established sleep questionnaires. Item reduction, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability testing, validity analyses, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. To address diagnostic imbalance, sensitivity analyses were conducted using a diagnosis-balanced subsample.Results Item reduction yielded a final 7-item questionnaire. EFA supported a three-factor structure representing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), insomnia, and parasomnia domains, with good model fit (comparative fit index=0.999, Tucker–Lewis index=0.997, root mean square error of approximation=0.013). Internal consistency was acceptable (McDonald’s ω=0.83). SSQ scores showed significant correlations with subjective and polysomnography-derived sleep measures. The OSA subscale was associated with apnea-hypopnea index (r=0.429, p<0.01), while the insomnia subscale correlated with sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset. ROC analyses demonstrated acceptable diagnostic performance for OSA (area under the curve [AUC]=0.787) and insomnia (AUC=0.741), and high discriminative ability for parasomnia (AUC=0.919). Comparable results were observed in the diagnosis-balanced subsample.Conclusions The SSQ demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and diagnostic performance as a brief screening questionnaire in an OSA-dominant tertiary sleep clinic population. Further validation in primary care, community-based, and independent external populations is warranted before broader implementation.
چکیده به فارسی
زمینه و هدف: اختلالات خواب شایع بوده و اغلب در عمل بالینی کمتر شناسایی میشوند. ابزارهای غربالگری موجود معمولاً ویژه یک اختلال خاص هستند یا به ارزیابیهای طولانی نیاز دارند. هدف این مطالعه، تدوین و اعتبارسنجی پرسشنامه خواب سئول (SSQ) به عنوان یک ابزار غربالگری کوتاه برای اختلالات شایع خواب بود. روشها: دادههای ۱۷۲۶ بزرگسال که بین نوامبر ۲۰۱۸ تا فوریه ۲۰۲۰ در یک درمانگاه تخصصی خواب تحت پلیسومنوگرافی قرار گرفتند، به صورت گذشتهنگر مرور شد. شرکتکنندگان SSQ و پرسشنامههای معتبر خواب را تکمیل کردند. کاهش گویهها، تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی (EFA)، آزمون پایایی، تحلیلهای روایی و تحلیلهای منحنی مشخصه عملکرد گیرنده (ROC) انجام شد. برای رفع عدم توازن تشخیصی، تحلیل حساسیت با استفاده از زیرنمونهای با توازن تشخیصی صورت گرفت. نتایج: کاهش گویهها به پرسشنامه نهایی ۷ گویهای منجر شد. EFA ساختار سهعاملی شامل حوزههای آپنه انسدادی خواب (OSA)، بیخوابی و پاراسومنیا را با برازش مناسب مدل (شاخص برازش تطبیقی=۰.۹۹۹، شاخص تاکر-لوییس=۰.۹۹۷، ریشه میانگین مربعات خطای تقریب=۰.۰۱۳) تأیید کرد. انسجام درونی قابل قبول بود (ω مکدونالد=۰.۸۳). نمرات SSQ با شاخصهای خواب ذهنی و مبتنی بر پلیسومنوگرافی همبستگی معنادار داشتند. زیرمقیاس OSA با شاخص آپنه-هیپوپنه (r=۰.۴۲۹، p<۰.۰۱) و زیرمقیاس بیخوابی با تأخیر شروع خواب و بیداری پس از شروع خواب همبستگی نشان داد. تحلیلهای ROC عملکرد تشخیصی قابل قبول برای OSA (سطح زیر منحنی [AUC]=۰.۷۸۷) و بیخوابی (AUC=۰.۷۴۱) و توان تمایز بالا برای پاراسومنیا (AUC=۰.۹۱۹) را نشان داد. نتایج مشابهی در زیرنمونه با توازن تشخیصی مشاهده شد. نتیجهگیری: SSQ ویژگیهای روانسنجی و عملکرد تشخیصی قابل قبولی به عنوان یک پرسشنامه غربالگری کوتاه در جمعیت درمانگاه تخصصی خواب با غلبه OSA نشان داد. اعتبارسنجی بیشتر در مراقبتهای اولیه، جمعیتهای مبتنی بر جامعه و نمونههای مستقل خارجی پیش از اجرای گستردهتر توصیه میشود.
ترجمهی خودکار برای آشنایی سریع؛ برای نقل و ارجاع، متن اصلی ملاک است.
Lee, S., Bae, H., Choi, S. J., Chin, J., Joo, E. Y., & Suh, S. A. (2026). Development and Validation of the Seoul Sleep Questionnaire in a Tertiary Sleep Clinic Population. Sleep Medicine Research, 17(3), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.17241/smr.2026.03496
با احترام و بدون توهین، تحقیر، برچسبزنی یا حملهی شخصی با دیگران گفتگو کنید.
از نوشتن هرگونه اطلاعات هویتی یا قابلشناسایی مراجعان، بیماران یا اشخاص ثالث، از جمله نام، شمارهی تماس، تصویر، نشانی، محل کار یا جزئیات منحصربهفرد پرونده خودداری کنید.
اگر دربارهی یک تجربهی بالینی سؤال میکنید، اطلاعات را تا حد ممکن بینام و کلی بیان کنید تا امکان شناسایی فرد وجود نداشته باشد.
این بخش برای یادگیری و گفتوگوی علمی است و جایگزین ارزیابی، تشخیص، مشاوره یا رواندرمانی شخصی نیست.
در شرایط بحران یا خطر آسیب به خود یا دیگران، به این بخش اتکا نکنید و برای دریافت کمک فوری با اورژانس اجتماعی ۱۲۳ یا صدای مشاور بهزیستی ۱۴۸۰ تماس بگیرید.
انتشار تبلیغات، معرفی خدمات شخصی، شمارهی تلفن، شناسهی شبکههای اجتماعی، پیوند تبلیغاتی یا درخواست جذب مراجع در این بخش مجاز نیست.
در بیان ادعاهای علمی، بهویژه دربارهی اثربخشی درمانها، تشخیص یا یافتههای پژوهشی، تا حد امکان نام منبع معتبر، مقاله یا راهنمای علمی را ذکر کنید.
از ارائهی تشخیص قطعی، تجویز درمان یا دارو و توصیههای بالینی شخصی به سایر کاربران خودداری کنید.
پاسخهایی که کارشناسان فکر بنیان میدهند با برچسب «پاسخ فکر بنیان» یا «کارشناس فکر بنیان» نمایش داده میشوند و سایر نوشتهها بیانگر نظر کاربران هستند.
گزارش نوشتهی نامناسب: اگر نوشتهای حاوی نقض محرمانگی، محتوای آسیبزا، توهین، تبلیغ یا تخلف از این قوانین است، گزینهی «گزارش» را انتخاب کنید تا تیم سایت بررسی کند.
ABSTRACT Introduction Anxiety is central to the psychotherapy process, yet psychotherapists routinely infer a client's anxiety intensity from observable behaviour rather than from formal measurement, with no widely accepted framework to organise which observable markers indicate which levels of anxiety. This exploratory study examined how therapists make such classifications. Method Ninety‐one mental health professionals were randomly assigned to classify 41 text‐described behavioural and physiological markers using either a 5‐level or a simplified 3‐level category system, both derived from an integrated model of state anxiety in psychotherapy. Results Response distributions departed significantly from uniformity for nearly all markers in both formats, and the rank ordering of markers by intensity was highly consistent across formats, suggesting that therapists may share broad intuitions about relative marker intensity. Which markers elicited agreement, however, was far less reproducible, depending substantially on the response format. Convergence also depended on where the agreement criterion was set, declining from 90.2% to 51.2% of markers in the 3‐level format and from 63.4% to 22.0% in the 5‐level format as the criterion rose from > 0.50 to > 0.70. The 3‐level format yielded more classifiable markers at every criterion, although this advantage was not consistent across indices, whereas the 5‐level format elicited fewer ‘Insufficient to Determine’ responses. Markers placed at the highest intensity levels were classified most consistently. Discussion These findings offer preliminary groundwork for research on marker operationalisation, contextualised rating tasks and the development of training materials for psychotherapy process research.
Experiences of bullying can have significant psychological consequences, including an increased risk of social anxiety. This study aimed to examine changes in social anxiety following Virtual Reality Social Exposure (VRSE) among bullying victims. A one-group pretest–posttest design without a control group was employed with 12 participants. The intervention consisted of three gradual exposure sessions in virtual environments representing social situations. Social anxiety was measured before and after the intervention, and the data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The results indicated a statistically significant decrease in social anxiety scores following the intervention (p = 0.002), with a reported effect size of 0.974. These findings suggest that VRSE may be a promising approach for reducing social anxiety among bullying victims. However, the absence of a control group and the small sample size limit conclusions regarding its effectiveness and safety. Further studies with larger samples, control groups, and systematic safety assessments are needed.
Stress arising from academic, professional and financial demands is common among students and young professionals, and the coping methods within easiest reach, such as listening to music, do not always suffice. This paper presents a survey-driven design for a virtual reality (VR) gadget that combines selectable immersive natural environments, environment-matched sound therapy and heart-rate biofeedback for short relaxation sessions. An online questionnaire completed by 24 respondents, mostly college students, supplies the user requirements. Among those who answer the relevant items, 65.2% report daily stress, 73.9% name academic or job pressure as the main cause, and 47.8% state that a busy schedule prevents regular yoga or meditation. Music is the most common coping method (63.6%). Asked about a 10–15 minute VR relaxation session described as free of side effects, 83.3% answer “yes, definitely” and 8.3% answer “maybe” if the price is under Rs. 5000. The findings yield design requirements, a system architecture, a session workflow and a protocol for comparing the gadget with guided breathing, meditation and relaxing music. That comparison is planned, not yet carried out: the prototype has not been tested with users, and the paper makes no claim of clinical effectiveness.
Student engagement positively influences academic achievement, yet instruments suited to the Indonesian cultural context remain limited. This study aimed to develop a valid, reliable, and user-friendly student engagement scale for high school students. Using a quantitative descriptive design, the study involved 295 male and female students aged 15–18 years recruited through convenience sampling. The scale comprised three dimensions: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The results showed that the scale demonstrated a good model fit based on the goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df = 1.60; CFI = 0.966; TLI = 0.962; SRMR = 0.074; RMSEA = 0.045) and good reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.844 for emotional engagement, 0.753 for behavioral engagement, and 0.782 for cognitive engagement. The developed scale can be used by teachers, counselors, and educational researchers to identify students’ levels of engagement and inform the development of programs to improve student engagement.
Mental health services are constantly evolving with the gradual introduction of functionalized care, which means medical intervention has become more focused on a particular clinical area or stage of the illness. This has progressed to having designated teams for inpatient psychiatry. Usually, psychiatrists manage their patients both in outpatient and inpatient settings while working in a particular geographical area or sector. Moving away from this model to a functionalized inpatient setting, where other psychiatrists take care of their patients, is seen as a breach in continuity of care. In this context, it was intended to review the current literature for the experience of clinicians and patients in these sectorized (medical continuity) or functionalized models of psychiatric inpatient care. A narrative review of the current literature from multiple databases was conducted. The results suggested that there are positive and negative observations in both models. It appeared that neither met the expectations of patients nor clinicians. Patients preferred to be seen by the same consultant in community and inpatient settings, but clinical outcomes were not significantly different in the two models. The functionalized care was mostly medical continuity rather than multidisciplinary. Any changes in the care models may be driven by local facilities and issues. There is a need to improve the quality of care through existing models before any changes. More studies are needed to improve the evidence on the effectiveness of these service models.