Levandovski Rosa, Sasso Etianne, Hidalgo Maria Paz
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas, Laboratório de Cronobiologia, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas, Laboratório de Cronobiologia, HCPA, UFRGS.
Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2013;35(1):3-11. doi: 10.1590/s2237-60892013000100002.
The study of circadian typology differences has increased in the last few years. As a result, new instruments have been developed to estimate the individual circadian phase of temporal human behavior, also referred as chronotype. The current review was conducted to evaluate the differences among the questionnaires most frequently used to assess chronotype: the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM), and the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ). Each instrument evaluates a different aspect of chronotype. MEQ is considered to evaluate the phase preferences of individual behavior over a 24-hour day, while MCTQ measures the phase of sleep positions for both free and work days. CSM is similar to MEQ, but is more sensitive to measure shift work. The concept of chronotype has been used to refer to phase positions or phase preferences in the literature reviewed. Most of the time this is a consequence of different interpretations: it is not clear whether phase preferences are a direct manifestation of the individual's internal clock or a result of external cues, e.g., social interaction (including the alarm clock). Also, phase preferences are not uniform throughout life. Therefore, a single assessment, not taking age into consideration, will not accurately describe the sample. We suggest that MCTQ is the best instrument for investigators dealing with desynchronization and as an instrument for sleep phase. Conversely, if the goal is to assess characteristics that change under specific situations - chronotype -, the MEQ should be used.
在过去几年中，对昼夜节律类型差异的研究有所增加。因此，已经开发出了新的工具来估计人类时间行为的个体昼夜节律阶段，也称为昼夜节律类型。本次综述旨在评估最常用于评估昼夜节律类型的问卷之间的差异：晨型-夜型问卷（MEQ）、晨型综合量表（CSM）和慕尼黑昼夜节律类型问卷（MCTQ）。每种工具评估昼夜节律类型的不同方面。MEQ被认为是评估个体在24小时内行为的阶段偏好，而MCTQ测量工作日和休息日的睡眠阶段。CSM与MEQ相似，但在测量轮班工作方面更敏感。在综述的文献中，昼夜节律类型的概念被用来指代阶段位置或阶段偏好。大多数情况下，这是不同解释的结果：尚不清楚阶段偏好是个体内部时钟的直接表现还是外部线索的结果，例如社交互动（包括闹钟）。此外，阶段偏好在一生中并非一成不变。因此，不考虑年龄的单一评估将无法准确描述样本。我们建议，对于处理不同步问题的研究人员来说，MCTQ是评估睡眠阶段的最佳工具。相反，如果目标是评估在特定情况下变化的特征——昼夜节律类型——则应使用MEQ。
