ArticleBMC psychology2025
The simplified Chinese version of the Nonrestorative Sleep Scale in Chinese young adults and measurement invariance across language and age.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the Nonrestorative Sleep Scale (NRSS) in Chinese young adults and examine measurement invariance across language and age.
methodsAfter cognitive debriefing, the simplified Chinese NRSS was administered to university students in mainland China in this cross-sectional survey (Study 1). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and sociodemographic characteristics were also self-reported. The sample was randomly split into two halves to examine the scale structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and asses the psychometric properties of the identified structure by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), respectively. Incorporating data from two additional studies (Study 2: a survey of Hong Kong Chinese adults; Study 3: a survey of mainland Chinese adolescents), multigroup CFA models were conducted to examine the measurement invariance across language and age, followed by a t-test to determine group differences once invariance was established.
resultsIn the 570 participants of Study 1 (28.8% male, age 20.2 ± 1.5 years), the EFA revealed a four-factor structure. The root mean square error of approximation, comparative fit index, and standardized root mean square residual in the CFA model were 0.053, 0.995, and 0.054, respectively. The statistically significant correlations of NRSS with PSQI (r = - 0.61) and PHQ-4 (r = - 0.53) demonstrated the convergent validity of NRSS. The internal consistency of the whole scale was 0.84. Measurement invariance was concluded between traditional and simplified Chinese NRSS and between young adults and adolescents with the change of comparative fit index and root mean square error of approximation smaller than 0.010. The effect size (Cohen's d) of difference between mainland Chinese adults and Hong Kong Chinese adults ranged from 0.193 to 0.771, while that between mainland Chinese adults and adolescents ranged from 0.027 to 0.345.
conclusionThe simplified Chinese 12-item NRSS is valid and reliable for assessing NRS among Chinese young adults, and it can be used to measure and compare NRS between individuals using simplified Chinese and traditional Chinese, as well as across different age groups within the simplified Chinese user population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.