Development and Validation of the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ)

Stacie Hudgens, Andrea Phillips-Beyer, Louise Newton, Dalma Seboek Kinter, Heike Benes, Stacie Hudgens, Andrea Phillips-Beyer, Louise Newton, Dalma Seboek Kinter, Heike Benes

Abstract

Background and objective: Chronic insomnia has major consequences for daytime functioning, yet no fully validated patient-reported outcome instrument for once-daily assessments is available to measure these consequences. This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ).

Methods: The Daytime Insomnia Symptom Scale (DISS), an existing 20-item instrument for assessing daytime functioning, was modified to give an 18-item version of the IDSIQ (IDSIQ-18) based on iterative qualitative interviews with 54 subjects with insomnia and expert input. The construct validity and other psychometric properties of the IDSIQ-18 were analyzed based on an interventional study (NCT03056053) in which subjects with insomnia received zolpidem (5 or 10 mg) daily for 2 weeks and an observational study among subjects with no diagnosis of insomnia (good sleepers). Participants in both studies completed the IDSIQ-18 daily for 2 weeks. Exit interviews were conducted with a sample of subjects who completed the interventional study to elicit concepts defining the experience of insomnia, to assess understanding of the response scales, and to determine meaningful change thresholds. Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were conducted to further assess the structure and latent model for the scoring of the final IDSIQ instrument. Further psychometric evaluation of the final IDSIQ was then conducted.

Results: Subjects in both the interventional study (N = 114) and observational study (N = 103) were predominantly female (65% for subjects with insomnia and 60% for good sleepers). Mean age was 51 years for subjects with insomnia and 45 years for good sleepers. Subjects in the exit interviews (N = 41) demonstrated a good understanding of the IDSIQ-18 response scales. Day 1 mean scores were higher (worse) in subjects with insomnia compared with good sleepers. Based on inter-item correlation, exploratory factor, and Rasch analyses and review of the qualitative data, four items were removed. This yielded the final IDSIQ, with 14 items comprising three domains: Alert/Cognition, Mood, and Sleepiness. The domain structure was determined in a confirmatory factor analysis. Evidence of internal consistency reliability was strong: day 1 Cronbach's alpha was 0.917 for IDSIQ total score and 0.806-0.918 for the domains. Test-retest reliability, assessed for subjects with insomnia with no change on the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity scale between day 1 and day 8, was also good (intra-class correlation coefficient 0.856-0.911). Meaningful change thresholds derived for this sample using anchor-based approaches were 20 for IDSIQ total score, 9 for the Alert/Cognition domain, 4 for the Mood domain, and 4 for the Sleepiness domain.

Conclusions: These studies, which closely followed Food and Drug Administration Guidance for Industry on patient-reported outcome measures, support use of the IDSIQ as a fit-for-purpose measure for deriving valid and reliable endpoints in insomnia clinical research trials and real-world studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Stacie Hudgens and Louise Newton are employees of Clinical Outcomes Solutions; Clinical Outcomes Solutions was funded by Actelion and Idorsia to conduct the observational study, psychometric validation, and exit interviews. Andrea Phillips-Beyer is the director of Innovus Consulting Ltd., which provided consulting services for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and received payment for the work outlined in the manuscript. Dalma Seboek Kinter is an employee and shareholder of Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Heike Benes is an employee of Somni Bene Institut für Medizinische Forschung und Schlafmedizin Schwerin GmbH and University of Rostock Medical Center, Germany, which received financial support for conducting the interventional study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Development of the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ). DISS Daytime Insomnia Symptom Scale, mDISS modified Daytime Insomnia Symptom Scale, NRS numeric rating scale, PRO patient-reported outcome, VAS visual analog scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves for changes in weekly average Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts (IDSIQ)-14 total score and domain scores according to changes in Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity (PGA-S) score and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) category in subjects with insomnia (full analysis population). a Changes in IDSIQ-14 total score and domain scores stratified by change in PGA-S score. b Changes in IDSIQ-14 total score and domain scores stratified by PGI-C category. Changes in IDSIQ-14 and PGA-S scores and PGI-C categories are for day 1 to day 14/15
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves for changes in weekly average Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts (IDSIQ)-14 total score and domain scores according to changes in Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity (PGA-S) score and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) category in subjects with insomnia (full analysis population). a Changes in IDSIQ-14 total score and domain scores stratified by change in PGA-S score. b Changes in IDSIQ-14 total score and domain scores stratified by PGI-C category. Changes in IDSIQ-14 and PGA-S scores and PGI-C categories are for day 1 to day 14/15

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. 2013. . Accessed 11 Jun 2020.
    1. Carey TJ, Moul DE, Pilkonis P, Germain A, Buysse DJ. Focusing on the experience of insomnia. Behav Sleep Med. 2005;3(2):73–86. doi: 10.1207/s15402010bsm0302_2.
    1. Kyle SD, Espie CA, Morgan K. "Not just a minor thing, it is something major, which stops you from functioning daily": quality of life and daytime functioning in insomnia. Behav Sleep Med. 2010;8(3):123–140. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2010.487450.
    1. Shekleton JA, Flynn-Evans EE, Miller B, Epstein LJ, Kirsch D, Brogna LA, et al. Neurobehavioral performance impairment in insomnia: relationships with self-reported sleep and daytime functioning. Sleep. 2014;37(1):107–116. doi: 10.5665/sleep.3318.
    1. Schutte-Rodin S, Broch L, Buysse D, Dorsey C, Sateia M. Clinical guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic insomnia in adults. J Clin Sleep Med. 2008;4(5):487–504. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.27286.
    1. Sandlund C, Hetta J, Nilsson GH, Ekstedt M, Westman J. Impact of group treatment for insomnia on daytime symptomatology: analyses from a randomized controlled trial in primary care. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;85:126–135. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.05.002.
    1. US FDA. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. . Accessed 11 Jun 2020.
    1. EMA. Guideline on medicinal products for the treatment of insomnia. London: European Medicines Agency; 2009. . Accessed 7 Jul 2020.
    1. Bastien CH, Vallieres A, Morin CM. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001;2(4):297–307. doi: 10.1016/s1389-9457(00)00065-4.
    1. Buysse DJ, Thompson W, Scott J, Franzen PL, Germain A, Hall M, et al. Daytime symptoms in primary insomnia: a prospective analysis using ecological momentary assessment. Sleep Med. 2007;8(3):198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2006.10.006.
    1. Hays RD, Morlock RJ, Spritzer K, Drake C, Roth T. Psychometric properties of the Restorative Sleep Questionnaire and Daytime Consequences of Sleep Questionnaire. In: 19th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies (APSS); 22 June 2005; Denver (CO).
    1. Weaver TE, Laizner AM, Evans LK, Maislin G, Chugh DK, Lyon K, et al. An instrument to measure functional status outcomes for disorders of excessive sleepiness. Sleep. 1997;20(10):835–843.
    1. Moul DE, Pilkonis PA, Miewald JM, Carey TJ, Buysse DJ. Preliminary study of the test-retest reliability and concurrent validities of the Pittsburgh Insomnia Rating Scale (PIRS) Sleep. 2002;25:A246–A247. doi: 10.1093/sleep/25.5.548.
    1. McNair D, Lorr M, Doppleman L. Manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service; 1971.
    1. Yeun EJ, Shin-Park KK. Verification of the profile of mood states-brief: cross-cultural analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62(9):1173–1180. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20269.
    1. Bell C, McLeod LD, Nelson LM, Fehnel SE, Zografos LJ, Bowers B. Development and psychometric evaluation of a new patient-reported outcome instrument measuring the functional impact of insomnia. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1457–1468. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9885-8.
    1. Monk TH. A Visual Analogue Scale technique to measure global vigor and affect. Psychiatry Res. 1989;27(1):89–99. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90013-9.
    1. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974;19(1):1–15. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830190102.
    1. Thayer RE. Factor analytic and reliability studies on the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List. Psychol Rep. 1978;42(3 PT 1):747–756. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.747.
    1. Moul DE, Nofzinger EA, Pilkonis PA, Houck PR, Miewald JM, Buysse DJ. Symptom reports in severe chronic insomnia. Sleep. 2002;25(5):553–563. doi: 10.1093/sleep/25.5.548.
    1. Glaser B, Strauss A. The constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis: Discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
    1. Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In: Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L, editors. Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage; 1995. pp. 27–49.
    1. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage; 1998.
    1. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1087–1096. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    1. Gries K, Berry P, Harrington M, Crescioni M, Patel M, Rudell K, et al. Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2:41. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0056-3.
    1. Unpublished manual for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Version 1.1. PROMIS Cooperative Group; 2008.
    1. Janssen CA, Oude Voshaar MAH, Ten Klooster PM, Jansen T, Vonkeman HE, van de Laar M. A systematic literature review of patient-reported outcome measures used in gout: an evaluation of their content and measurement properties. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1125-x.
    1. Carmines E, Zeller R. Reliability and validity assessment. In: Carmines E, Zeller R, editors. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1979.
    1. Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2013.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.
    1. Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: what we are doing and how can we improve? Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2016;32(1):51–62. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664.
    1. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1993. pp. 136–162.
    1. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 2. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1992.
    1. Andrich D. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–573. doi: 10.1007/BF02293814.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
    1. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York, (NY): Guilford Press; 2010.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–453. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. In: Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1994. p. 248–92.
    1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
    1. Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health. 1999;2(2):113–127. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.1999.02210.x.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, McCoach DB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res. 2015;44(3):486–507. doi: 10.1177/0049124114543236.
    1. US FDA. Guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. Patient-focused drug development: methods to identify what is important to patients (draft guidance). 2019. . Accessed 17 Aug 2020.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner