Suppr超能文献

使用 Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire 的完整版和简化版区分极端的昼夜类型。

Discrimination between extreme chronotypes using the full and reduced version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire.

机构信息

a Department of Psychology , University of Bologna , Bologna , Italy.

出版信息

Chronobiol Int. 2019 Feb;36(2):181-187. doi: 10.1080/07420528.2018.1525392. Epub 2018 Oct 9.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to carry out a comparison of the ability to discriminate between extreme chronotypes, i.e., morning- and evening-types, among the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and its reduced version (rMEQ). To this end a secondary analysis of cohort studies, using two different approaches, was carried out. The first, subjective, relied on the computing of overlap between extreme chronotypes according to their hourly ideal bedtime, get-up time and midpoint of sleep reported at the MEQ and rMEQ, while the second, objective, on the corresponding actual-actigraphic times. At the subjective approach, 2706 participants filled in the MEQ, while 940 the rMEQ (age range of both groups: 18-30 years). The overlap was significantly lower among those who filled the rMEQ than MEQ when considering ideal midpoint of sleep (13.70% and 46.28%, respectively) and get-up time (47.04% and 62.34%, respectively). At the objective approach, 51 participants filled in the MEQ while 52 the rMEQ (age range: 19-30 years in both groups) at the end of one week of actigraphic recording. No significantly different overlap across those who filled the MEQ or rMEQ was observed with reference to the examined actigraphic times. Results of subjective assessment showed as rMEQ more clearly discriminated between extreme chronotypes than MEQ. The attempt to find an objective confirmation did not provide the same results, probably as a consequence of a masking effect by social rhythms.

摘要

本研究旨在比较 Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire(MEQ)及其简化版(rMEQ)区分极端时型(即早起型和晚睡型)的能力。为此,采用两种不同方法对队列研究进行了二次分析。第一种是主观方法,依赖于根据 MEQ 和 rMEQ 报告的理想就寝时间、起床时间和睡眠中点的小时数来计算极端时型之间的重叠;第二种是客观方法,基于相应的实际活动记录仪时间。在主观方法中,2706 名参与者填写了 MEQ,940 名参与者填写了 rMEQ(两组年龄范围:18-30 岁)。当考虑理想的睡眠中点和起床时间时,填写 rMEQ 的参与者之间的重叠明显低于填写 MEQ 的参与者(分别为 13.70%和 46.28%,47.04%和 62.34%)。在客观方法中,51 名参与者在一周的活动记录仪记录结束时填写了 MEQ,52 名参与者填写了 rMEQ(两组年龄范围均为 19-30 岁)。参考检查的活动记录仪时间,未观察到填写 MEQ 或 rMEQ 的参与者之间存在显著不同的重叠。主观评估结果表明,rMEQ 比 MEQ 更能清晰地区分极端时型。尝试寻找客观确认结果并未提供相同的结果,这可能是由于社会节律的掩蔽效应所致。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验