What are we measuring with the morningness–eveningness questionnaire? Exploratory factor analysis across four samples from two countries

Abstract

Individual variability in diurnal preference or chronotype is commonly assessed with self-report scales such as the widely used morningness-eveningness questionnaire (MEQ). We sought to investigate the MEQ's internal consistency by applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the number of underlying latent factors in four different adult samples, two each from the United Kingdom and Brazil (total N = 3,457). We focused on factors that were apparent in all samples, irrespective of particular sociocultural diversity and geographical characteristics, so as to show a common core reproducible structure across samples. Results showed a three-factor solution with acceptable to good model fit indexes in all studied populations. Twelve of the 19 MEQ items in the three-correlated factor solution loaded onto the same factors across the four samples. This shows that the scale measures three distinguishable, yet correlated constructs: (1) items related to how people feel in the morning, which we termed efficiency of dissipation of sleep pressure (recovery process) (items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 19); (2) items related to how people feel before sleep, which we called sensitivity to buildup of sleep pressure (items 2, 10, and 12); and (3) peak time of cognitive arousal (item 11). Although the third factor was not regarded as consistent since only one item was common among all samples, it might represent subjective amplitude. These results suggested that the latent constructs of the MEQ reflect dissociable homeostatic processes in addition to a less consistent propensity for cognitive arousal at different times of the day. By analyzing answers to MEQ items that compose these latent factors, it may be possible to extract further knowledge of factors that affect morningness-eveningness.

Morningness–eveningness assessment from mobile phone communication analysis

“…Using the g chronotype we are able to demonstrate that the chronotypes identified by directly taking into account and combining several observables of human activity, instead of a derived quantity like the mid-sleep time, can also be used to distinguish between the morningness and the eveningness of individuals. Moreover, our results agree with the previous findings using traditional methods like the MCTQ and MEQ questionnaires 1 , 5 , 52 – 55 . Using a period of the users’ low calling activity as markers of their sleep duration 35 we find that on average all chronotypes sleep more on weekends than on weekdays 49 and in both cases larks are generally found to sleep more than owls.…”

Morningness-eveningness assessment from mobile phone communication analysis

“…Using the g chronotype we are able to demonstrate that the chronotypes identified by directly taking into account and combining several observables of human activity, instead of a derived quantity like the mid-sleep time, can also be used to distinguish between the morningness and the eveningness of individuals. Moreover, our results agree with the previous findings using traditional methods like the MCTQ and MEQ questionnaires [8,29,45–48]. Using a period of the users’ low calling activity as markers of their sleep duration [27] we find that on average all chronotypes sleep more on weekends than on weekdays [42] and in both cases larks are generally found to sleep more than owls.…”

Compared Heritability of Chronotype Instruments in a Single Population Sample

“…The endogenous nature of MEQ has been corroborated by controlled constant routine experiments ( Duffy et al, 1999 ; Kerkhof and Van Dongen, 1996 ). The dimensions of MEQ have recently been further explored through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) which reported that MEQ measures three correlated constructs: “Efficiency of the dissipation of sleep pressure,” “Sensitivity to the build-up of sleep pressure,” and a more inconsistent third factor, “Peak time of cognitive arousal” ( Panjeh et al, 2021 ), making it suitable to infer the mutual influences of the circadian and the homeostatic processes ( Borbély, 1982 ). An alternative way to explore chronotype is by assessing an actual entrainment phase (e.g., the half-way point between sleep onset and sleep offset), as used in the Munich chronotype questionnaire (MCTQ) ( Roenneberg et al, 2003 ).…”

“…We also scored from the answers to the MEQ the recently reported underlying factors ( Panjeh et al, 2021 ). The “sensitivity to the build-up of sleep pressure” factor was calculated from the sum of the scores for Questions 2, 10, and 12, theoretically ranging from 2 to 14 points.…”