Discrimination between extreme chronotypes using the full and reduced version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to carry out a comparison of the ability to discriminate between extreme chronotypes, i.e., morning- and evening-types, among the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and its reduced version (rMEQ). To this end a secondary analysis of cohort studies, using two different approaches, was carried out. The first, subjective, relied on the computing of overlap between extreme chronotypes according to their hourly ideal bedtime, get-up time and midpoint of sleep reported at the MEQ and rMEQ, while the second, objective, on the corresponding actual-actigraphic times. At the subjective approach, 2706 participants filled in the MEQ, while 940 the rMEQ (age range of both groups: 18–30 years). The overlap was significantly lower among those who filled the rMEQ than MEQ when considering ideal midpoint of sleep (13.70% and 46.28%, respectively) and get-up time (47.04% and 62.34%, respectively). At the objective approach, 51 participants filled in the MEQ while 52 the rMEQ (age range: 19–30 years in both groups) at the end of one week of actigraphic recording. No significantly different overlap across those who filled the MEQ or rMEQ was observed with reference to the examined actigraphic times. Results of subjective assessment showed as rMEQ more clearly discriminated between extreme chronotypes than MEQ. The attempt to find an objective confirmation did not provide the same results, probably as a consequence of a masking effect by social rhythms.

KEYWORDS:

• Chronotype
• eveningness
• MEQ
• rMEQ
• actigraphy
• discriminant ability

Disclosure Statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. This study was not supported by any funding.

Notes

1. Montaruli and colleagues (2017) used the same database of Roveda and colleagues (2017) but just considering the scores of the five items belonging to the rMEQ.

2. No participants filled in both questionnaires.

3. This result was not significant because the significance level was set to p < .01 due to the large sample size.