Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disagreement between subjective and actigraphic measures of sleep duration in a population‐based study of elderly persons*

Open access
VAN DEN BERG, JULIA F., VAN ROOIJ, FRANK J.A., VOS, HENK, TULEN, JOKE H.M., HOFMAN, ALBERT, MIEDEMA, HENK M.E., NEVEN, ARIE KNUISTINGH, TIEMEIER, HENNING·2008·Journal of Sleep Research

Abstract

Summary: Sleep duration is an important concept in epidemiological studies. It characterizes a night’s sleep or a person’s sleep pattern, and is associated with numerous health outcomes. In most large studies, sleep duration is assessed with questionnaires or sleep diaries. As an alternative, actigraphy may be used, as it objectively measures sleep parameters and is feasible in large studies. However, actigraphy and sleep diaries may not measure exactly the same phenomenon. Our study aims to determine disagreement between actigraphic and diary estimates of sleep duration, and to investigate possible determinants of this disagreement. This investigation was embedded in the population‐based Rotterdam Study. The study population consisted of 969 community‐dwelling participants aged 57–97 years. Participants wore an actigraph and kept a sleep diary for, on average, six consecutive nights. Both measures were used to determine total sleep time (TST). In 34% of the participants, the estimated TST in the sleep diaries deviated more than 1 h from actigraphically measured TST. The level of disagreement between diary and actigraphic measures decreased with subjective and actigraphic measures of sleep quality, and increased with male gender, poor cognitive function and functional disability. Actigraphically measured poor sleep was often accompanied by longer subjective estimates of TST, whereas subjectively poor sleepers tended to report shorter TST in their diaries than was measured with actigraphy. We recommend, whenever possible, to use multiple measures of sleep duration, to perform analyses with both, and to examine the consistency of the results over assessment methods.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00638.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 413

Metadata

Authors
VAN DEN BERG, J. F., VAN ROOIJ, F. J. A., VOS, H., TULEN, J. H. M., HOFMAN, A., MIEDEMA, H. M. E., NEVEN, A. K., & TIEMEIER, H.
Venue
Journal of Sleep Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-21
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
295-302
ISSN
  • 0962-1105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2869
OpenAlex
W2146268820
Cited by
413
References
13
FWCI
16.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disagreement between subjective and actigraphic measures of sleep duration in a population‐based study of elderly persons*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00638.x
The paper
VAN DEN BERG, J. F., VAN ROOIJ, F. J. A., VOS, H., TULEN, J. H. M., HOFMAN, A., MIEDEMA, H. M. E., NEVEN, A. K., & TIEMEIER, H. (2008). Disagreement between subjective and actigraphic measures of sleep duration in a population‐based study of elderly persons*. Journal of Sleep Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00638.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.