4.7 Article

Morningness-Eveningness questionnaire in bipolar disorder

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 262, Issue -, Pages 102-107

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.02.004

Keywords

Chronotype; Morningness-Eveningness questionnaire; rMEQ; Eveningness; Morningness; Insomnia; Athens insomnia scale

Categories

Funding

  1. Mach-Gaensslen Foundation of Canada Student Grant
  2. Edward Beatty Research Award
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant
  4. Bristol-Myers-Squibb

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) is among the most commonly used scales to measure chronotype. We aimed to evaluate psychometric properties and clinical correlates of MEQ in bipolar disorder. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of bipolar disorder (n = 53) answered questionnaires for chronotype (MEQ), mood (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-16, Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale), insomnia (Athens Insomnia Scale, AIS), and sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale). Mood was evaluated using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and Young Mania Rating Scale. The MEQ showed high internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha of .85. Lower MEQ scores (eveningness) correlated with insomnia (AIS) (r=-.34, p=.013). The estimate for eveningness (13/53, 24.5%) in our study was higher than in comparable studies in the general population. Patients on lithium exhibited a higher mean MEQ score (56.0 on lithium vs 46.9 with no lithium, p = .007), whereas this score was lower for patients on an antidepressant (46.0 on antidepressants vs 52.6 with no antidepressants, p = .023). We conclude that the MEQ score is psychometrically reliable. However, future studies should further evaluate the association of medication with chronotype. Validation of categorical cut-offs for MEQ in a larger sample of bipolar patients is needed to increase clinical utility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available