4.6 Article

The association between depressive symptoms and self-reported sleep difficulties among college students: Truth or reporting bias?

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246370

关键词

-

资金

  1. HEC Research Fund 2017 - University of Lausanne, Switzerland
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China under the project Quality of Life Research: Based on Capacity Approach: A Population Study in Southwestern China [71804151]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that unadjusted comparisons of self-reported sleep difficulties among college students are meaningful, even among individuals with severe depressive symptoms. Reporting heterogeneity plays only a marginal role in moderating the association between sleep difficulties and depression.
The strong association between self-reported sleep difficulties and depressive symptoms is well documented. However, individuals who suffer from depressive symptoms could potentially interpret the values attached to a subjective scale differently from others, making comparisons of sleep difficulties across individuals with different depressive symptoms problematic. The objective of this study is to determine the existence and magnitude of reporting heterogeneity in subjective assessment of sleep difficulties by those who have depressive symptoms. We implement an online survey using Visual Analogue Scales and anchoring vignettes to study the comparability of subjective assessments of sleep difficulties among college students in Switzerland (N = 1, 813). Using multivariate linear regressions and double-index models, our analysis shows that reporting heterogeneity plays only a marginal role in moderating the association between sleep difficulties and depression, irrespective of the severity of the depressive symptoms of the individuals. This suggests that unadjusted comparisons of self-reported sleep difficulties between college students are meaningful, even among individuals with depressive symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据