Journal of American college health : J of ACH · 2025
From well-rested to wrecked: identifying college sleep patterns with latent profile analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peltz Jack S, Rogge Ronald
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to classify the myriad profiles that might exist of undergraduate sleepers by examining diverse sleep and sleep-related indicators.
METHODS: A total of 642 undergraduates (77.3% female; Mage=21.3 years; SD = 2.4) completed measures of sleep disturbance and sleep-related behaviors, in addition to critical sleep correlates (e.g., problematic smartphone use, chronotype) during the Spring 2023 semester.
RESULTS: Based on latent profile analysis of 19 indicator variables, five unique profiles of undergraduate sleepers were identified: 1) "great" (i.e., high sleep self-efficacy, low sleep disturbance; 22.6%), 2) "average" (34.7%), 3) "poor" (i.e., poor sleep hygiene, high sleep disturbance; 20.1%), 4) "poor, but conscientious" (i.e., moderate sleep hygiene, multiple barriers to quality sleep; 19.2%), and 5) "high-risk behavior" (i.e., poor sleep quality/hygiene, notable substance use; 3.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies critical differences amongst types of undergraduate sleepers. These efforts may support more targeted interventions to support their sleep and functioning.
METHODS: A total of 642 undergraduates (77.3% female; Mage=21.3 years; SD = 2.4) completed measures of sleep disturbance and sleep-related behaviors, in addition to critical sleep correlates (e.g., problematic smartphone use, chronotype) during the Spring 2023 semester.
RESULTS: Based on latent profile analysis of 19 indicator variables, five unique profiles of undergraduate sleepers were identified: 1) "great" (i.e., high sleep self-efficacy, low sleep disturbance; 22.6%), 2) "average" (34.7%), 3) "poor" (i.e., poor sleep hygiene, high sleep disturbance; 20.1%), 4) "poor, but conscientious" (i.e., moderate sleep hygiene, multiple barriers to quality sleep; 19.2%), and 5) "high-risk behavior" (i.e., poor sleep quality/hygiene, notable substance use; 3.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies critical differences amongst types of undergraduate sleepers. These efforts may support more targeted interventions to support their sleep and functioning.