Comparing the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire and Munich ChronoType Questionnaire to the Dim Light Melatonin Onset

Abstract

The dim light melatonin onset (DLMO) is the most reliable measure of central circadian timing in humans. However, it is not always possible to measure the DLMO because sample collection has to occur in the hours before usual sleep onset, it requires staff support and considerable participant effort, and it is relatively expensive. Questionnaires that ask people about the timing of their behavior, such as their sleep, may provide an easier and less expensive estimate of circadian timing. The objective of this analysis was to compare the MEQ score derived from the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and the MSFsc derived from the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) to the DLMO in the largest sample to date (N = 60). Our hypothesis was that MSFsc would correlate more highly with the DLMO than MEQ score. Our sample of 36 healthy controls and 24 patients with delayed sleep phase disorder ranged in age from 18 to 62 years. All participants slept at times of their own choosing for a week before the assessment of their DLMO. The DLMO correlated significantly with both the MEQ score (r = –0.70, p < 0.001) and MSFsc (r = 0.68, p < 0.001). A linear regression using MEQ, MSFsc, and age to predict the DLMO explained 60% of the DLMO variance. The strongest predictor of the DLMO was MSFsc (beta = 0.51, p = 0.001), followed by MEQ (beta = –0.41, p = 0.004), and age (beta = 0.26, p = 0.013). The beta values for MSFsc and MEQ score were not statistically different from each other. Nonetheless, around a 4-h range in the DLMO was observed at a given MEQ score and a given MSFsc, indicating that neither questionnaire should be exclusively used to time light or exogenous melatonin treatment, as this could result in the mistiming of these treatments relative to the DLMO, thereby potentially worsening circadian misalignment.

Chronotype and environmental light exposure in a student population

“…However, longitudinal studies are needed to determine precisely how an individual’s chronotype changes with environmental light levels and age. Although based on self-reported sleep timings, the MCTQ is a validated measure of chronotype (Kantermann et al 2015). The reliability of self-reported time spent outside as a proxy for light dose is less certain.…”

Average mid‐sleep time as a proxy for circadian phase

“…The Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) are easier tools for estimating diurnal preference (morning-or evening-orientated behaviors) and chronotype (mid-sleep on work-free days corrected for sleep debt on workdays [MSF sc ]), respectively. One previous study in 44 participants (30 women; aged 34-68 years) on the correlations among MCTQ, MEQ, and DLMO (Kitamura et al, 2014) found a non-significant correlation between MEQ and DLMO (r = −.40, p = .055; 20% fit) and a significant correlation between MSF sc and DLMO (r = .54, p < .001; 30% fit).We recently also analyzed correlations among DLMO, MEQ, and chronotype in the largest sample to date of 60 participants (31 women; aged 18-62 years; Kantermann, Sung, & Burgess, 2015). We found that DLMO correlated with the MEQ score (r = −.70, p < .001; explaining 49% [fit] of the DLMO variance as derived from the r-squared value) and with MSF sc (r = .68, p < .001; 46% fit).…”

“…Previous studies assessing the relation between DLMO and sleep diary data reported correlation coefficients between r = .68 (46% fit; Burgess et al, 2003) and r = .89 (79% fit; Burgess & Eastman, 2005). However, whether a single subjective sleep-time assessment (such as those from the MEQ or MCTQ) can account for a similar amount of the DLMO variance remains unclear.Therefore, we performed a post-hoc analysis on the same data (Kantermann et al, 2015), analyzing correlations between DLMO and other subjective MCTQ-derived midsleep markers. In all subjects, the best correlation with DLMO was found for the weekly average (aMS) of the mid-sleep on workdays (MSW) and on work-free days (MSF).…”

“…Therefore, we performed a post-hoc analysis on the same data (Kantermann et al, 2015), analyzing correlations between DLMO and other subjective MCTQ-derived midsleep markers. In all subjects, the best correlation with DLMO was found for the weekly average (aMS) of the mid-sleep on workdays (MSW) and on work-free days (MSF).…”

“…We recently also analyzed correlations among DLMO, MEQ, and chronotype in the largest sample to date of 60 participants (31 women; aged 18-62 years; Kantermann, Sung, & Burgess, 2015). We found that DLMO correlated with the MEQ score (r = −.70, p < .001; explaining 49% [fit] of the DLMO variance as derived from the r-squared value) and with MSF sc (r = .68, p < .001; 46% fit).…”