Table 1.

Studies examining modes of sleep monitoring in athletes

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.