Cited by 67Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Psychometric Performance and Responsiveness of the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire and Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index in a Randomized Trial: The HomePAP Study

Open access
Billings, Martha E., Rosen, Carol L., Auckley, Dennis, Benca, Ruth, Foldvary-Schaefer, Nancy, Iber, Conrad, Zee, Phyllis C., Redline, Susan +1 more·2014·Sleep

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQL) specific for sleep disorders have had limited psychometric evaluation in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated the psychometric properties of the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) and Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Instrument (SAQLI). We evaluated the FOSQ and SAQLI construct and criterion validity, determined a minimally important difference, and assessed for associations of responsiveness to baseline subject characteristics and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) adherence in a RCT population. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected in a multisite RCT of home versus laboratory-based diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (HomePAP trial). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals enrolled in the HomePAP trial (n = 335). INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: The FOSQ and SAQLI subscores demonstrated high reliability and criterion validity, correlating with Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Survey domains. Correlations were weaker with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Both the FOSQ and SAQLI scores improved after 3 mo with CPAP therapy. Averaging 4 h or more of CPAP use was associated with an increase in the FOSQ beyond the minimally important difference. Baseline depressive symptoms and sleepiness predicted FOSQ and SAQLI responsiveness; demographic, objective obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity and sleep habits were not predictive in linear regression. CONCLUSIONS: The FOSQ and SAQLI are responsive to CPAP intervention, with the FOSQ being more sensitive to differences in CPAP adherence than the SAQLI. These instruments provide unique information about health outcomes beyond that provided by changes in physiological measures of OSA severity (apnea-hypopnea index). CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Portable Monitoring for Diagnosis and Management of Sleep Apnea (HomePAP) URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00642486. NIH clinical trials registry number: NCT00642486.

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 · 10.5665/sleep.4262

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Validated functional status and quality-of-life measures most used in clinical and research settings include the ESS, SAQLI, FOSQ, and PSQI.

    “Validated functional status and QOL measures most used in the clinical and research settings include the ESS,436 Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI),437–441 Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ),437,441,442 and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).443”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [437]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) supports the validity of the FOSQ and SAQLI as patient-reported measures for obstructive sleep apnea, and the paper identifies both instruments. An introductory passage says the FOSQ is widely used in sleep research but the SAQLI is less widely used; it therefore does not establish that both are among the measures most used in clinical and research settings. This citation is attached to the SAQLI and FOSQ, not the ESS or PSQI. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SAQLI showed moderate correlations (0.3 ≤ r < 0.7) with related domains of general health-status questionnaires such as SF-36 and the Global QOL Scale.

    “The SAQLI showed moderate correlations (0.3 ≤ r < 0.7) with related domains of general health-status questionnaires such as the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) and the Global QOL Scale.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [437]

    The Criterion Validity section (page unavailable) reports moderate correlations between SAQLI subscales and the SF-36 social functioning and vitality domains (r = 0.40–0.58). Table 4 also reports some SF-36 correlations below 0.3, and our copy does not report a correlation with the Global QOL Scale (searched: “Global QOL Scale”). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SAQLI includes 35 questions across four domains: daily functioning, social interactions, emotional functioning, and symptoms, and can be combined with a fifth domain assessing negative treatment impacts.

    “The SAQLI includes 35 questions across four domains: daily functioning, social interactions, emotional functioning, and symptoms and can be combined with a fifth domain that assesses negative impacts of treatment.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [437]

    The Instruments section identifies the four claimed domains and says an additional subscale covers treatment-related symptoms for people receiving OSA treatment. But Internal Reliability reports 56 SAQLI items across the four domains, not 35; the first three domains alone account for 35 items, while symptoms accounts for 21. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The FOSQ showed moderate correlations with related domains of the SF-36 and the Sickness Impact Profile.

    “The FOSQ showed moderate correlations with related domains of the SF-36 and the Sickness Impact Profile.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [437]

    The Criterion Validity section reports moderate correlations between FOSQ activity level and SF-36 domains, except bodily pain; the Discussion also describes moderate correlations with SF-36 social and physical role domains. Our copy does not report a correlation between the FOSQ and the Sickness Impact Profile (searched: “Sickness Impact Profile” and “SIP”). Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PSG measures (AHI, minimum O2 saturation) were either poorly or not significantly correlated with any of the questionnaires.

    “PSG measures (AHI, minimum O2 saturation) were either poorly or not significantly correlated with any of the questionnaires.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [437]

    The Relation with AHI section reports no correlation between AHI and FOSQ or SAQLI scores, except a weak correlation with SAQLI emotional functioning (r = 0.134). Our copy does not report correlations between minimum O2 saturation and the questionnaires, or establish the claim for every questionnaire used in the study. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Billings, M. E., Rosen, C. L., Auckley, D., Benca, R., Foldvary-Schaefer, N., Iber, C., Zee, P. C., Redline, S., & Kapur, V. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (US)
  • MetroHealth Medical Center (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Billings, Martha E.
Venue
Sleep
Published
2014-12-01
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
2017-2024
ISSN
  • 0161-8105 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9109
OpenAlex
W2115289881
Cited by
67
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SLEEP (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Sleep Medicine Foundation
  • ResMed Foundation
  • Sanofi
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • Purdue University
  • Jazz Pharmaceuticals
  • ResMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, obstructive sleep apnea, health-related quality of life, psychometric properties, construct validity, criterion validity, minimally important difference, responsiveness, CPAP adherence, continuous positive airway pressure, home sleep monitoring, depressive symptoms, daytime sleepiness
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

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