Table 1.
Study | Subjects (n) | Fitness status | Sleep monitoring modes | Results# |
---|---|---|---|---|
Caia et al20 | 63 | Professional rugby league athletes | Perceived sleep duration vs actigraphy device | Very large, positive correlation (r=0.85) |
Driller et al15 | 11 | Recreational athletes | Inter-device reliability of an actigraph | NS High to very high ICC (0.80 to >0.90) |
Driller et al16 | 13 | Recreational athletes | Actigraphy device between dominant vs non-dominant wrist | NS High to very high correlations (r=0.76 to >0.90) |
Driller et al23 | 564 | Athletes (242) Non-athletes (322) |
Athlete Sleep Behavior Questionnaire vs Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, Sleep Hygiene Index, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale |
Moderate to large correlations (r=0.38–0.69) between Athlete Sleep Behavior Questionnaire and the three other questionnaires ICC retest 7 days (0.87) for the Athlete Sleep Behavior Questionnaire |
Samuels et al24 | 58 | Highly trained | Athlete Sleep Screening Questionnaire vs Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index |
High test–retest correlations (r=0.90) for Athlete Sleep Screening Questionnaire |
Sargent et al91 | 16 | Highly trained endurance cyclists | Polysomnography vs activity monitors | Good agreement (81%–90%) |
Notes:
Statistically significant (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: ICC, intraclass coefficient correlation; NS, non-significant.