4.6 Article

Comparing three morningness scales: Age and gender effects, structure and cut-off criteria

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 240-245

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2008.01.007

关键词

Circadian rhythm; Sleep; Chronotype; Morningness; Age; Gender; Factor analysis; Exploratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:: To add to the validity of the French version of the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) by comparing its structure with that of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), the most widely used scale to measure circadian typology. Second, to compare the cut-off criteria used to transform the continuous scores into categorical chronotypes. Third, to further test the effects of age and gender on morningness scores. The rMEQ, a shortened version of the MEQ, is also considered. Methods: Four hundred and fifty-six students served as volunteer subjects and filled the CSM and the MEQ. Results: There was no effect of gender, and the CSM and MEQ scores correlated above +0.90 in both genders. Regarding age, morningness was stable before age 35 and increased afterwards. We replicated the three-factor structure of the CSM previously reported in five different cultures. The MEQ is longer and counted a fourth factor while the first three factors were quite identical to those extracted from the CSM. This comparative study emphasizes the recurrent problem of cut-off scores: the available values for both instruments result in a very poor concordance of chronotypes. Conclusions: Belonging to the evening-type is regarded as a risk factor for sleep disorders and its positive predictive value should be correctly assessed. Hence, normative scores standardized in such a way they reflect the effects of age, gender and culture are needed for the total score and the factor scores. To this extent, T-scores (with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10) would be suitable, and normative tables for French subjects (N = 1598) are given as supplemental data. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据