Two such questionnaires include the Morningness- Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) (Horne and Ostberg 1976), and the Munich ChronoType Questionnaire (MCTQ) (Roenneberg et al. 2003). As we reviewed pre- viously (Kantermann et al. 2015), the MEQ includes 19 questions that ask people to consider their “ feeling best ” rhythms and indicate preferred clock time blocks for sleep and engagement in various hypothetical activities (e.g. physical exercise, tests, work), in addition to asses- sing morning alertness, morning appetite, evening tired- ness and alarm clock dependency. MEQ scores can range from 16 to 86, with lower scores indicating
According to a study Murcia in 2014, older adolescents reported to be more evening-oriented (Diaz-Morales & Escrbano, 2014). This showed a similar result to our study which was also mainly older adolescents. During adolescence, several changes not only physically but also psychologically appear. One of them is the preference for evening hours which has been related to three of the most important areas in this stage of life: school performance, personality styles, and health, which in turn, can affect psychological functioning. Nevertheless, other aspects such as sleep habits, health habits and personality styles can influence morningness- eveningness according to Fernández-Ríos and Buela- Casal in 2009 (Diaz-Morales & Escrbano, 2014).Hence, in our analysis, we excluded the neither either group, to avoid confusion.
In this study we aimed to evaluate the relation between eveningness, sleep variables, cognitive measures, and behavioral problems. Recent studies found that children showing an eveningness preference display more behavioral problems. However, to date it is still unknown which pathways are at the root of these relation. One of the hypotheses in this study was that sleep quantity and sleep quality might mediate the relation, since eveningness is associated with less sleep and increased sleep variability. Moreover, other studies have also indicated that cognitive functioning can be influenced by sleep quantity and/or quality. Therefore, several measures of cognitive functioning, especially attention, were also included as outcome measures here. This study is new in that it explores a variety of relations between these important areas and tries to provide insights into possible pathways by which these processes might take place. The results of the present study confirm the main hypothesis, i.e., that circadian preference (morningness- eveningness) partly predicts behavioral problems. Children with a preference towards eveningness showed more internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems than children showing a preference towards morningness, as reported by their parents. This is in line with recent study results that demonstrated that these children and adolescents are more often reported as showing behavioral problems (Gianotti et al., 2002; Gau et al., 2007; Goldstein et al., 2007; Paavonen et al., 2009; Lange & Randler, 2011). However, previously reported associations of eveningness with ADHD-related symptoms of inattentiveness could not be replicated (Caci, Bouchez, & Baylé, 2009; Paavonen et al., 2009). In the relation between chronotype and cognitive functioning we found a significant positive association only with verbal cognitive reasoning was found. This contradicts the hypothesis that eveningness is associated with lower cognitive functioning. How this might be explained will be discussed below.
To measure out the morningness-eveningness orientation among preschool children, Children’s ChronoType Questionnaire (CCTQ) was employed. The CCTQ is adapted from previous questionnaires by Werner, Molinari, Guyer and Jenni (2008) to assess the morningness- eveningness scale (such as Horne and Ostberg, 1976; Carskadon, Vieira and Acerbo , 1993; Roenneberg et al. 2003) and was prepared by Werner, Labvrgvys and Jenny (2009). The CCTQ is a parent-report questionnaire which includes three different parent-report measures of children’s chronotype. The Morningness/Eveningness (M/E) scale score is derived from responses to 10 questions about preferred timing of going to bed, getting up in the morning, taking a cognitive test, and completing physical activities, as well as the child’s most prevalent behavior in recent weeks (e.g., sleepiness after awakening in the morning and in the evening). Scoring of questions 1, 2, 8 and 9 are done in reverse. M/E scale-scores range from 10 (extreme morningness) to 49 (extreme eveningness). Morning types are classified by a M/E scale score of less than 23, intermediate types by a score of 24–32, and evening types by a score of more than 33. Werner et al. (2008) reported Cronbach's alpha of the scale 0.81 which was in line with the alpha reported by Carskadon et al (1993). The average corrected correlation with the total scale of each question was 0.31 ranging from 0.49 to 0.71, respectively. These indicators suggest that the validity and internal consistency of this scale is desirable. To use this scale in this study, at first scale questions were translated by English into Farsi translator and then translated back into English. After proofreading, the Persian questionnaire was revised again and handed to some psychology professors for checking its content validity.
METHODS: An online survey of 7th- to 12th-grade students in 19 schools in Fairfax County, Virginia Public Schools was conducted in 2015. Self-regulation was measured with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, 2nd edition, Screening Self-Report Form. Sleep measures included school night-sleep duration (hours between usual bedtime and wake time), daytime sleepiness (Sleepiness Scale in the Sleep Habits Survey, tertiles), and chronotype (Morningness–Eveningness Scale for Children, continuous score and tertiles). Sociodemographic factors and mental health conditions were analyzed as potential confounders.
The Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire is composed of 19 self-report items. Each item required the individuals to denote the degree to which they prefer definite morningness (or eveningness) activities. For example, “assuming adequate environmental conditions, how easy is it for you to get up in the morning?” (1, not at all easy; 2, not very easy; 3, fairly easy; 4, very easy). 25 This scale is continuous. Higher
The Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, Self-Assessment Version (MEQ – SA). Morning- ness-Eveningness Questionnaire consists of 19 multiple choice questions. It requires evaluating one’s sleep during the last few weeks. The survey was created by Horne and Östberg in 1976 (17). Different variations of this survey, which usually considers peak moment of a person being awake, are applied extensively in academic literature.
As the results of the present study showed, job stressors correlated to chronic fatigue both directly (P <0.05, β=0.194) and indirectly (P <0.05 and boot strap= -0.011) and to morningness/eveningness both directly (P <0.05, β=0.115) and indirectly (P <0.05 and boot strap= -0.046). In other words, whatever the job stressors in the workplace are more, more chronic fatigue can be experienced by nurses and vice versa. Also, whatever nurses are appointed to work opposite the circadian cycle, they will suffer more from chronic fatigue. But the quality of sleep was only found to be related to the chronic fatigue directly (P <0.05, β=0.321). However, sleep quality is only directly correlated to chronic fatigue. The results of structural equations modeling revealed that job stressors were both directly and indirectly correlated to chronic fatigue by the mediating role of organizational spirituality (4,7). In the explanation of this finding, it can be concluded that job stressor, as one of the most important characteristics of the work environment, is followed by physical or emotional burnout, which results from actual or mental problems, and nurses are more likely to experience more chronic fatigue due to a high volume of job stressors as compared to others (17). Therefore, we
Circadian rhythm (meaning ‘about day’) with a Latin root of circa dies is an basic biological process organizing the organism against predictable changes existing in almost all living organisms and occurring during the 24-hour process in the environment (Summa & Turek, 2014). Chronotype is the expression of circadian rhythmicity in an individual, and chronotype is categorized under three categories. These are morning types, evening types and intermediate types (Vitale & Weydahl, 2017). Morningness-Eveningness reflects personal differences in the circadian rhythms of various biological and psychological processes (Prieto et al., 2012). Morningness-Eveningness is the characteristic that indicates which time of the day the person prefers for rest and activity (Haraszti et al., 2014). Although circadian preference has a strong genetic and biological basis, it varies according to some sociodemographic characteristics, as sex and age (Tonetti et al., 2015). While morning types go to bed early, wake up early and show the best performance during the early hours of the day, evening types prefer to go to bed late and wake up late when compared to morning types. They mentally and physically show the best performance in the afternoon and during the evening hours (Tonetti et al., 2015). In general, there are intermediate types in the population. Definite morning or definite evening types are rare (Haraszti et al., 2014).
Before and after noise exposure, questionnaires were assessed: Besides demo- graphic information, German versions of the Weinstein Noise Sensitivity-Scale (WNS) [24, 25] and the Morningness-Eveningness-Questionnaires (D-MEQ)  were conducted in the beginning of the first session. Further, in both sessions, a sleep quality questionnaire (SF-A/R ), as well as questions on caffeine alcohol, and drug use were conducted. A visual scale was used to assess participants’ self- rated stress level and one for self-rated alertness. In both sessions, the task was followed by a questionnaire including perceived stress (0 “not at all stressful” to 100 “ very stressful ” ), performance, annoyance, and distraction (1 “ not at all ” to 4 “ strongly ” ) (see Table 3 for questions).
The physiological processes and the use of psychological resources of an organism vary throughout the day (Carrier & Monk, 2000). Many of these fluctuations follow two clearly differentiated patterns of change that reflect the morningness-eveningness tendency. Basically, the difference consists of the fact that the maximum (acrophase) of some circadian rhythms (i.e., body temperature, cortisol, or melatonin) occurs between 1 and 3 hours earlier for clearly morning-oriented people than for others who are more evening-oriented (Baehr, Revelle, & Eastman, 2000). Considering the interaction between a person’s own rhythms and those of the environment (e.g., light-darkness, social cues), morning and evening types show differences in their behavioral habits (Roenneberg, Wirz-Justice, & Merrow, 2003), as well as characteristic personality differences (DeYoung, Hasher, Djikic, Criger, & Peterson, 2007; Díaz- Morales, 2007). This variable of individual differentiation has received much attention in the work setting, as it is one of the best factors to predict the adaptation to shift work (Pisarski et al., 2006) and, with this purpose, diverse self- reports have been created that, once validated, have led to quicker and simpler assessment of circadian rhythm without having to resort to physiological measures or registers (Adan, Caci, & Prat, 2005; Díaz-Morales & Sánchez-López, 2004, 2005a, 2005b).
Although the outlined evidence paints a gloomy picture for evening types, it should be emphasized that eveningness alone is not likely to cause depression or other psychiatric disorders, and additional influences are likely to play a role. Research into the mechanisms underlying the chronotype-disorder link are also likely to provide targets for interventions that may help decrease the incidence of psychiatric disturbances among evening types; these might include sleep education, dietary advice, and cognitive-behavioral techniques. Such preventive efforts may be particularly relevant for adolescents and young adults who are more likely to be evening types, and especially since many mental disorders commonly first present during this developmental period. In conclusion, clinicians should be mindful that circadian preference may predispose individuals to psychopathology and influence disease course and treat- ment outcome among those already affected.