Browsing by Author "Hamilton, James C"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Appraisals of Insomnia Identity in a Clinical Sample
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2020) Emert, Sarah Elizabeth; Lichstein, Kenneth L.; Gunn, Heather E.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Difficulties falling asleep, staying asleep, waking too early, and daytime dysfunction are prevalent in insomnia disorder. Insomnia-related complaint crossed with sleep data yields complaining good sleepers (CG) and complaining poor sleepers (CP). Many theories relate to the development and maintenance of insomnia disorder. Little is known about factors influencing an insomnia identity, the self-ascribed belief that one has insomnia, or that differentiate these groups. We evaluated insomnia identity severity and differences between treatment-seeking groups on factors related to one’s sleep experience and sleep parameters. An insomnia complaint was considered evidence for an insomnia identity; however, the final sample yielded an unexpected group who did not endorse insomnia identity. Therefore, participants were also classified via insomnia identity yielding insomnia identifying good sleepers (IIG), insomnia identifying poor sleepers (IIP), and participants without insomnia identity (WOII). Participants provided demographic information, medical and psychiatric diagnoses, information related to their insomnia complaint, and two weeks of daily sleep diaries. CG and CP were evaluated on differences between perceived sleep comparisons, restorative sleep, daytime impairment, and insomnia-related catastrophizing. There were no significant differences on any factors for ? < .05. IIG, IIP, and WOII were evaluated on differences for the same four variables. A statistically significant difference emerged among groups on restorative sleep, F (2, 60) = 3.83, p = .03. Post hoc testing revealed that restorative sleep ratings were significantly higher in IIG compared to IIP, but not WOII (p = .02). Multiple linear regression tested the four sleep variables and self-reported sleep parameters as predictors of insomnia identity severity. The overall model was significant, F (1, 61) = 5.21, p = .03, R2 = .08. The analysis was conducted again substituting the three subfactors of catastrophic thinking to determine the effect of each subscale. The overall model was significant, F (1, 61) = 7.55, p = .008. R2 = .11. Negative sleep comparisons and increased helplessness predicted a stronger conviction of insomnia identity. Restorative sleep significantly differentiated IIG, IIP, and WOII, perhaps reflecting differences in sleep status rather than insomnia identity. Implications of results and further study directions on insomnia identity are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Differences in Weeknight Versus Weekend Self-Reported Sleep Parameters Across Sleep Subgroups
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2020) Molzof, Hylton Elisabeth; Lichstein, Kenneth L.; Gunn, Heather E.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Insomnia identity refers to the conviction that one has insomnia, which can occur independently of poor sleep. The present study explored weeknight-weekend differences in sleep as a commonly overlooked factor contributing to night-to-night sleep variability as well as the discordance often documented between sleep and sleep appraisal. Multilevel modeling was used to explore sources of variability (within-person/between-person) and weeknight-weekend differences in outcomes of sleep duration (total sleep time, TST), sleep disturbance (sleep onset latency, SOL; wake after sleep onset, WASO), and sleep timing (bedtime, BT; arising time, AT; mid-sleep time, MST) among four sleep subgroups: noncomplaining good sleepers (NG), complaining poor sleepers (CP), complaining good sleepers (CG), and noncomplaining poor sleepers (NP). Analyses were conducted using an archival dataset of 528 community-dwelling adults who completed 14 days of sleep diaries. Participants were classified according to the presence/absence of a sleep complaint and presence/absence of poor sleep. First, sources of variability (within-person/between-person) were characterized for each sleep parameter among the sleep subgroups, separately. Second, weeknight-weekend differences in sleep were examined among the sleep subgroups by crossing sleep complaint with quantitative sleep status and day-type. Pervasive differences in weeknight versus weekend sleep were not observed among the sleep subgroups; nonetheless, findings did identify a few notable subgroup differences in certain sleep parameters that may contribute to sleep complaint and poor sleep. Specifically, CG exhibited significantly greater WASO than NG on weeknights only. WASO and SOL were each greater among CP than NP across weeknights and weekends. Earlier AT and MST – but not BT– were observed among good sleepers relative to poor sleepers on weeknights only. Within-person differences were greater than between-person differences for TST, SOL, and WASO across sleep subgroups; however, between-person differences exceeded within-person differences for sleep timing outcomes (BT, AT, MST). Findings from this study suggest that (1) differences in certain sleep parameters (WASO, SOL) may contribute to sleep complaint among good and poor sleepers, (2) delayed weekday sleep timing may be an important factor distinguishing between poor and good sleep subgroups, and (3) sources of variability (within-person/between-person) vary depending on both the sleep subgroup and sleep parameter being examined.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Gratitude and Well-Being in Older Adults with Chronic Pain: a Brief Gratitude Intervention Feasibility Study
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2022) Condon, Shelley E.; Parmelee, Patricia A.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Chronic pain is a health problem that disproportionately affects older adults and negatively impacts quality of life. Gratitude interventions have emerged as a promising approach to ameliorate the negative impact of pain and enhance well-being. Despite the high prevalence of older adults with chronic pain, there are no gratitude interventions among older adults with chronic pain. The current study utilized a two-week gratitude daily diary intervention in a sample of 38 older adults (M = 67.53 years) with chronic knee or hip pain to evaluate the effects of gratitude on well-being (Aim 1) and the effects of the intervention on changes in well-being (Aim 2) across the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the gratitude group (n = 21) or the attention-matched control group (n = 17). Participants in the gratitude group wrote three things they were grateful for each day, while the attention-matched control did not journal. All participants completed pre- and post-intervention interviews and received 14 nightly phone calls, which allowed for "global" analyses using pre-and post-intervention data and "daily" analyses using nightly phone call data. The results of Aim 1 revealed that trait and state gratitude were significantly related to physical and mental well-being, controlling for age and income level. In Aim 2, no significant effects emerged for treatment group on global or daily changes in well-being in Aim 2. However, significant main effects emerged for time on global and daily well-being outcomes, indicating improvements in well-being across time, regardless of treatment condition. The impact of small sample size, COVID-19, and methodological limitations are discussed, and clinical implications and future directions for gratitude interventions focused on improving the well-being of older adults with chronic pain are provided.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pscyologists Substantially (But Insufficiently) Update Their Beleifs After Replication Evidence
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2021) McDiarmid, Alexander David; Tullett, Alexa M.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    The present research assessed if 1,096 psychologist participants sufficiently updated their beliefs in psychological effects when presented the results of multi-lab replication studies. In Phase I, participants read summaries of results from studies scheduled for replication attempts. For each study, participants made estimates of the population effect size and probability that the population effect was greater than d = .1 (i.e., non-trivial). During Phase I, participants were randomly assigned to a control or prediction condition with the only substantial difference being that those in the prediction condition were informed of the methodology for replication studies (not the results) of the original effects they evaluated and asked to predict how their confidence in the effect would change given various hypothetical replication study results. Approximately 1 to 1.5 years later, participants completed Phase II—the questions were the same for participants in the control and prediction conditions—in which they read summaries of replication results and provided revised effect size estimates and revised probability estimates. Participants’ prior beliefs in original effects and replication evidence were quantified with Bayesian models which allowed us to model how a perfectly rational Bayesian agent would update their beliefs in original effects after incorporating replication evidence. While participants did update their beliefs substantially in the direction consistent with the replication evidence, as predicted, participants’ confidence updates were insufficient for the weight of new evidence regardless of if confidence in psychological effects should have increased or decreased. Results suggest an impediment to scientific self-correction as it seems that psychologists underutilize replication evidence when updating their beliefs.