Comparing the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire and Munich ChronoType Questionnaire to the Dim Light Melatonin Onset

Aug 6, 2015Journal of biological rhythms

Comparing Two Sleep Timing Questionnaires with Melatonin Start Time in Dim Light

AI simplified

Circadian Biology on OpenScience ↗PubMed ↗DOI ↗

Abstract

The largest sample to date (N = 60) shows that the dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) correlates significantly with both the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) score (r = -0.70) and the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MSFsc) (r = 0.68).

DLMO is a reliable measure of circadian timing but is difficult and expensive to measure directly.
The analysis included 36 healthy controls and 24 patients with delayed sleep phase disorder, aged 18 to 62.
Both MEQ and MSFsc scores significantly predict DLMO, explaining 60% of its variance.
MSFsc was identified as the strongest predictor of DLMO, followed by MEQ and age.
A significant variability of about 4 hours in DLMO was noted at specific MEQ and MSFsc scores, suggesting potential inaccuracies in timing treatments based on either questionnaire alone.

AI simplified

The dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) is the most reliable measure of central circadian timing in humans. However, it is not always possible to measure the DLMO because sample collection has to occur in the hours before usual sleep onset, it requires staff support and considerable participant effort, and it is relatively expensive. Questionnaires that ask people about the timing of their behavior, such as their sleep, may provide an easier and less expensive estimate of circadian timing. The objective of this analysis was to compare the MEQ score derived from the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and the MSFsc derived from the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) to the DLMO in the largest sample to date (N = 60). Our hypothesis was that MSFsc would correlate more highly with the DLMO than MEQ score. Our sample of 36 healthy controls and 24 patients with delayed sleep phase disorder ranged in age from 18 to 62 years. All participants slept at times of their own choosing for a week before the assessment of their DLMO. The DLMO correlated significantly with both the MEQ score (r = -0.70, p < 0.001) and MSFsc (r = 0.68, p < 0.001). A linear regression using MEQ, MSFsc, and age to predict the DLMO explained 60% of the DLMO variance. The strongest predictor of the DLMO was MSFsc (beta = 0.51, p = 0.001), followed by MEQ (beta = -0.41, p = 0.004), and age (beta = 0.26, p = 0.013). The beta values for MSFsc and MEQ score were not statistically different from each other. Nonetheless, around a 4-h range in the DLMO was observed at a given MEQ score and a given MSFsc, indicating that neither questionnaire should be exclusively used to time light or exogenous melatonin treatment, as this could result in the mistiming of these treatments relative to the DLMO, thereby potentially worsening circadian misalignment.

Full Text

Full text is available at the source.

View full text (PDF) ↗View full text (XML) ↗View full text ↗

Comparing the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire and Munich ChronoType Questionnaire to the Dim Light Melatonin Onset

Abstract

Full Text

You found one interesting study. We’ll send the next 7.

what lands in your inbox each week:

Recent issues from the circadian biology brief