The interest in the systematic study of the circadian typology (CT) is relatively recent and has developed rapidly in the two last decades. All the existing data suggest that this individual difference affects our biological and psychological functioning, not only in health, but also in disease. In the present study, we review the current literature concerning the psychometric properties and validity of CT measures as well as individual, environmental and genetic factors that influence the CT. We present a brief overview of the biological markers that are used to define differences between CT groups (sleep-wake cycle, body temperature, cortisol, and melatonin), and we assess the implications for CT and adjustment to shift work and jet-lag. We also review the differences between CT in terms of cognitive abilities, personality traits and the incidence of psychiatric disorders. When necessary, we have emphasized the methodological limitations that exist today and suggested some future avenues of work in order to overcome these. This is a new field of interest to professionals in many different areas (research, labor, academic, and clinical) and this review provides a state of the art discussion to allow professionals to integrate chronobiological aspects of human behavior into their daily practice.

Morningness-eveningness preference (morning-, intermediate-, evening-type) or circadian typology is the individual difference that most clearly explains the variations in the rhythmic expression of biological or behavioral patterns. The aim of this study was to analyze gender difference in morningness-eveningness preference using the Horne and Ostberg questionnaire in the largest university student population selected so far (N = 2135), with an age range 18-30 yr. Morningness-eveningness questionnaire (MEQ) score distribution closely correlated to the normal curve (range 17-78, mean = 48.25; SD = 10.11), with 338 (15.84%) morning-types, 1273 (59.62%) intermediate-types, and 524 (24.54%) evening-types. The men and women differed significantly in their mean scores (p < 0.0001) and distribution per circadian typology (p < 0.00001), with the men presenting a more pronounced eveningness preference. Three factors were identified by factor analysis: time of greatest efficiency (I), sleep time/sleep phase (II), awakening time/sleep inertia (III). The MEQ items sensitive to gender differences were essentially those included in factor I and factor II. The results are discussed in relation to recent models of circadian regulation of the sleep-wake cycle.

The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in sleep-time preference by age among Italian pre-adolescents, adolescents, and adults. The final sample consisted of 8,972 participants (5,367 females and 3,605 males) from 10 to 87 yrs of age. To assess preferred sleep habits, we considered the answers to the open-ended questions of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). In agreement with previous studies, we found that sleep-time preference started to shift toward eveningness from the age of 13 yrs. Females reached their peak in eveningness earlier (about 17 yrs of age) than males (about 21 yrs of age). Thereafter, the ideal sleep-time preference advanced in men and women with increasing age. Females presented a more significant advanced sleep phase than males only during the years when sexual hormones are typically active. Moreover, females reported a longer ideal sleep duration than males across all age groups examined, except in over 55 yrs one.

The accurate measurement of circadian typology (CT) is critical because the construct has implications for a number of health disorders. In this review, we focus on the evidence to support the reliability and validity of the more commonly used CT scales: the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), reduced Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ), the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM), and the Preferences Scale (PS). In addition, we also consider the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ). In terms of reliability, the MEQ, CSM, and PS consistently report high levels of reliability (>0.80), whereas the reliability of the rMEQ is satisfactory. The stability of these scales is sound at follow-up periods up to 13 mos. The MCTQ is not a scale; therefore, its reliability cannot be assessed. Although it is possible to determine the stability of the MCTQ, these data are yet to be reported. Validity must be given equal weight in assessing the measurement properties of CT instruments. Most commonly reported is convergent and construct validity. The MEQ, rMEQ, and CSM are highly correlated and this is to be expected, given that these scales share common items. The level of agreement between the MCTQ and the MEQ is satisfactory, but the correlation between these two constructs decreases in line with the number of "corrections" applied to the MCTQ. The interesting question is whether CT is best represented by a psychological preference for behavior or by using a biomarker such as sleep midpoint. Good-quality subjective and objective data suggest adequate construct validity for each of the CT instruments, but a major limitation of this literature is studies that assess the predictive validity of these instruments. We make a number of recommendations with the aim of advancing science. Future studies need to (1) focus on collecting data from representative samples that consider a number of environmental factors; (2) employ longitudinal designs to allow the predictive validity of CT measures to be assessed and preferably make use of objective data; (3) employ contemporary statistical approaches, including structural equation modeling and item-response models; and (4) provide better information concerning sample selection and a rationale for choosing cutoff points.

Sleep quality is an important clinical construct since it is increasingly common for people to complain about poor sleep quality and its impact on daytime functioning. Moreover, poor sleep quality can be an important symptom of many sleep and medical disorders. However, objective measures of sleep quality, such as polysomnography, are not readily available to most clinicians in their daily routine, and are expensive, time-consuming, and impractical for epidemiological and research studies., Several self-report questionnaires have, however, been developed. The present review aims to address their psychometric properties, construct validity, and factorial structure while presenting, comparing, and discussing the measurement properties of these sleep quality questionnaires. A systematic literature search, from 2008 to 2020, was performed using the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus, with predefined search terms. In total, 49 articles were analyzed from the 5734 articles found. The psychometric properties and factor structure of the following are reported: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Mini-Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ), Jenkins Sleep Scale (JSS), Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ), SLEEP-50 Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). As the most frequently used subjective measurement of sleep quality, the PSQI reported good internal reliability and validity; however, different factorial structures were found in a variety of samples, casting doubt on the usefulness of total score in detecting poor and good sleepers. The sleep disorder scales (AIS, ISI, MSQ, JSS, LSEQ and SLEEP-50) reported good psychometric properties; nevertheless, AIS and ISI reported a variety of factorial models whereas LSEQ and SLEEP-50 appeared to be less useful for epidemiological and research settings due to the length of the questionnaires and their scoring. The MSQ and JSS seemed to be inexpensive and easy to administer, complete, and score, but further validation studies are needed. Finally, the ESS had good internal consistency and construct validity, while the main challenges were in its factorial structure, known-group difference and estimation of reliable cut-offs. Overall, the self-report questionnaires assessing sleep quality from different perspectives have good psychometric properties, with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent/divergent validity with sleep, psychological, and socio-demographic variables. However, a clear definition of the factor model underlying the tools is recommended and reliable cut-off values should be indicated in order for clinicians to discriminate poor and good sleepers.

No abstract

We explored the relationship between personality, based on the five-factor model, and circadian preference. To this end, 503 participants (280 females, 223 males) were administered the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and the self-report version of the Big Five Observer (BFO) to determine circadian preference and personality features, respectively. Morning types scored significantly higher than evening and intermediate types on the conscientiousness factor. Evening types were found to be more neurotic than morning types. With reference to the big five personality model, our data, together with those of all the previous studies, indicate that the conscientiousness domain is the one that best discriminates among the three circadian types. Results are discussed with reference to neurobiological models of personality.

No abstract