L Tonetti1, A Adan2, L Di Milia3, C Randler4, V Natale5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: lorenzo.tonetti2@unibo.it. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychobiology, School of Psychology, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior (IR3C), 08035 Barcelona, Spain. 3. School of Management and Institute for Health and Social Science Research, Central Queensland University, QLD 4702 Rockhampton, Australia. 4. Department of Biology, University of Education, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the psychometric properties of the questionnaires commonly filled in by children and adolescents to measure circadian preference. METHODS: We examined the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (MEQ-CA), the Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC) and the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM). We critically analyzed the reliability, in term of internal consistency (through the Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (through the correlation coefficient), and the type of validation against external criteria (objective assessment of the sleep/wake cycle, body temperature, hormones and other questionnaires). Fifty studies that reported these data were included in the review: 7 studies used the MEQ-CA, 28 used the MESC and 15 used the CSM. RESULTS: The percentage of studies reporting at least acceptable levels of internal consistency was high and similar between the three questionnaires. Evidence for test-retest reliability was scant, since only 3 studies were available; it was at least acceptable for the MESC (two studies with a time interval of 1 month), not acceptable for the MEQ-CA (one study with a time interval of 6 months), while no information was available for the CSM. As regards the validation evidence, the MEQ-CA has been validated by the highest number of external criteria (actigraphy, oral body temperature and other questionnaires), followed by the CSM (cortisol sampling and other questionnaires). The MESC has been validated only against self-report measures. CONCLUSIONS: The present state of the art would suggest the use of the MEQ-CA to assess circadian preference in children and adolescents.
PURPOSE: To review the psychometric properties of the questionnaires commonly filled in by children and adolescents to measure circadian preference. METHODS: We examined the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (MEQ-CA), the Morningness-Eveningness Scale for Children (MESC) and the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM). We critically analyzed the reliability, in term of internal consistency (through the Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (through the correlation coefficient), and the type of validation against external criteria (objective assessment of the sleep/wake cycle, body temperature, hormones and other questionnaires). Fifty studies that reported these data were included in the review: 7 studies used the MEQ-CA, 28 used the MESC and 15 used the CSM. RESULTS: The percentage of studies reporting at least acceptable levels of internal consistency was high and similar between the three questionnaires. Evidence for test-retest reliability was scant, since only 3 studies were available; it was at least acceptable for the MESC (two studies with a time interval of 1 month), not acceptable for the MEQ-CA (one study with a time interval of 6 months), while no information was available for the CSM. As regards the validation evidence, the MEQ-CA has been validated by the highest number of external criteria (actigraphy, oral body temperature and other questionnaires), followed by the CSM (cortisol sampling and other questionnaires). The MESC has been validated only against self-report measures. CONCLUSIONS: The present state of the art would suggest the use of the MEQ-CA to assess circadian preference in children and adolescents.
Authors: Marco Filardi; Fabio Pizza; Elena Antelmi; Paolo Pillastrini; Vincenzo Natale; Giuseppe Plazzi Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Anda Gershon; Christopher N Kaufmann; Colin A Depp; Shefali Miller; Dennis Do; Jamie M Zeitzer; Terence A Ketter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Christopher N Kaufmann; Anda Gershon; Colin A Depp; Shefali Miller; Jamie M Zeitzer; Terence A Ketter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Jan Scott; Bruno Etain; David Miklowitz; Jacob J Crouse; Joanne Carpenter; Steven Marwaha; Daniel Smith; Kathleen Merikangas; Ian Hickie Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Jessica R Lunsford-Avery; Ke Will Wang; Scott H Kollins; Richard J Chung; Casey Keller; Matthew M Engelhard Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Jessica C Levenson; David A Axelson; John Merranko; Melina Angulo; Tina R Goldstein; Benjamin C Mullin; Benjamin I Goldstein; David A Brent; Rasim Diler; Mary Beth Hickey; Kelly Monk; Dara Sakolsky; David J Kupfer; Boris Birmaher Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2015-11-07 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Prachi S Chakradeo; Ali Keshavarzian; Shubha Singh; Akram E Dera; James Philip G Esteban; Alice A Lee; Helen J Burgess; Louis Fogg; Garth R Swanson Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.492