|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 38
| Issue : 1 | Page : 50-59 |
|
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the morningness – Eveningness questionnaire
Firat Ozdalyan1, Özkan Tütüncü2, Hikmet Gümüş3, Osman Açıkgöz4
1 Department of Physiology, Dokuz Eylul University Medical School; Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching, Izmir, Turkey
2 Recreation, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
3 Coaching Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
4 Department of Physiology, Dokuz Eylul University Medical School, Izmir, Turkey
| Date of Submission | 06-Jul-2020 |
| Date of Decision | 25-Sep-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 02-Oct-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 26-Mar-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Firat Ozdalyan
Faculty of Sport Sciences, Dokuz Eylul University, 91/3 Street No: 2, Colak Ibrahim Bey, Seferihisar, Izmir 35460
Turkey
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 1 |
DOI: 10.4103/NSN.NSN_110_20
Background: People are divided into different chronotypes in relation to their circadian rhythm features. The Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), developed by Horne and Östberg, was the first and is the most used questionnaire for determining the chronotype of people. The reliability and validity of MEQ were tested in this study due to some deficiencies and inconsistencies in previous reliability and validity studies for the Turkish versions of MEQ and deficiencies regarding the validity and reliability of other versions of MEQ. Subjects and Methods: MEQ was translated into Turkish based on the opinions of five academics who were experts in their respective fields and the suitability and content validity of the questionnaire were ensured. The Turkish MEQ was administered to 419 undergraduate students aged 18–34 years. Robust minimum rank factor analysis (MRFA) was used to reveal the construct validity of the questionnaire. Results: As a result of the analyses, the questionnaire was examined in three factors. None of the items were excluded from the study and all items were collected under three factors. The explained total variance value was 42.7%, and the factors explained 64% of common (shared) variance in MRFA. According to the reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha value for the MEQ Turkish version was satisfactory for the overall questionnaire (0.765). Conclusions: The MEQ version developed in this study is more valid and reliable compared with other versions. However, these results support that a more detailed instrument for morningness and eveningness can be developed.
Keywords: Chronotype, circadian rhythm, diurnal rhythm, minimum rank factor analysis, morningness–eveningness, Turkish Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire
How to cite this article:
Ozdalyan F, Tütüncü &, Gümüş H, Açıkgöz O. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the morningness – Eveningness questionnaire. Neurol Sci Neurophysiol 2021;38:50-9 |
How to cite this URL:
Ozdalyan F, Tütüncü &, Gümüş H, Açıkgöz O. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the morningness – Eveningness questionnaire. Neurol Sci Neurophysiol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2023 May 29];38:50-9. Available from: http://www.nsnjournal.org/text.asp?2021/38/1/50/311963 |
| Introduction | |  |
Body temperature change, hormone oscillation change, and similar biologic changes that occur rhythmically in human beings over 24 h are called the circadian rhythm. Circadian rhythm characteristics vary from person to person. These circadian rhythm differences affect personal characteristics, such as preferred activity times, sleeping patterns, and mental and physical performance. Some people prefer to stay up late and wake up late, whereas others prefer to sleep early and wake up early.[1],[2],[3] These differences were defined in 1900 as “morningness” and “eveningness” human characteristics.[4] Later, self-evaluation questionnaires were developed to determine the circadian types (chronotypes) of individuals and these questionnaires were used in scientific studies in many different disciplines.[5],[6],[7]
Many studies have been conducted on the circadian rhythm.[1],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] The chronotypes of participants are determined in some of these studies.[1],[6],[7],[8],[9] Although multiple questionnaires have been developed to determine chronotypes, the most frequently used questionnaire is the Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), which was developed by Horne and Östberg.[1],[6],[7],[8],[9] MEQ has been translated into several languages including French,[10],[11] Italian,[12] Dutch,[13] Japanese,[14] Hebrew,[15] Portuguese,[16] Spanish,[17] Chinese,[18] German,[19] and Korean[2] and has been used in scientific studies.
The original MEQ consists of 19 items. However, in the original study, the researchers did not include their analyses on the construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Instead, a validity statement was made based on physiologic markers.[1] Later, Caci et al. addressed this shortcoming and used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with four variables to perform the validity analysis of MEQ.[10] These variables were determined as “Peak Time,” “Morning Affect,” “Retiring,” and “Rising” factors. Then, Lee et al. completed another missing part of the study and validated the scale using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).[2] MEQ has also been translated into Turkish; however, no similar analysis was found for the translated scale.[3],[8]
In a literature review, only two studies on the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of MEQ were conducted.[3],[8] In one of these adaptations, only the reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated, but the validity of the study was not examined.[3] In the other study, even though MEQ was used as a measure, it was determined by experts that the Turkish translation was not consistent with the original scale in English, and construct validity and reliability analyses were not performed.[8] Inappropriate Turkish versions of MEQ[3],[8] are still being used in scientific studies conducted in Turkey.[7],[20],[21],[22],[23] Thus, there is a gap in the Turkish literature regarding the translation and validation of this scale. To correct this, the current study aimed to make a proper translation into Turkish and conduct the validity and reliability analyses of the translated MEQ.
| Subjects and Methods | | |
MEQ, developed by Horne and Östberg, was translated into Turkish according to expert opinions.[1] Five academics who were experts in their fields were consulted. First, each expert was interviewed one by one and their suggestions about the translation were received. Then, a 90-min focus group study was conducted with four experts and joint decisions were made about the translation. A final meeting was held with the expert who could not attend the focus group meeting and the decisions taken at the meeting were evaluated. The translation was finalized after there was consensus among the experts and the suitability–content validity of the questionnaire was ensured [Appendix 1].
MEQ consists of 19 items. In 14 of these items, participants are asked to mark one of the four options that are most suitable for them. For 11 of these 14 items, participants receive one, two, three, or four points according to their response. For two of the remaining multiple-choice items, participants receive zero, two, four, or six points according to their choices. For one item, participants receive zero, two, three, or five points according to their response. The remaining five items are not multiple-choice, participants are asked to mark the appropriate point for them on a time scale. Three of these five-time scales are 7-h long and are subdivided into 15-min periods. The remaining two time scales are 24-h long and are subdivided into 1-h periods. For these five items, the participants get one, two, three, four, or five points according to their responses. At the end of the questionnaire, total scores are obtained by adding up the scores of each item, and the chronotypes of the participants are determined according to their scores. Participants with a score of 16–30 are defined as “definitely evening type,” those with a score of 31–41 as “moderately evening type,” those with a score of 42–58 as “neither type,” those with a score of 59–69 as “moderately morning type,” and those with a score of 70–86 are defined as “definitely morning type.”[1]
Both male and female participants were included in the study because previous studies have shown that sex does not affect the scores of the questionnaire.[10] In addition, previous studies revealed that shifts occurred in the circadian rhythm of people as age progressed, and these studies found that a shift toward morning type began after the age of 35 years.[10],[23] Therefore, in the present study, the age range of the volunteers was determined as 18–34 years. Individuals with a psychiatric disorder, those using psychoactive drugs, alcohol or drug addicts, those with sleep disturbances, those working in shifts, those who recently made a long-distance plane journey sufficient to create jet lag, and those using medication that could affect sleep were not included in the study because these could create shifts in the chronotypes of the students.
The study was approved by the Dokuz Eylul University Noninvasive Research Ethics Board (2019/07-11). The minimum number of participants required was found as 384 according to Krejcie and Morgan[24] and Cohen.[25] To tolerate possible data loss, this number was exceeded, and the minimum number of participants was set as 400. A total of 419 undergraduate students from Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Sport Sciences and Faculty of Medicine participated in the study. In line with the permissions received from the related faculties, volunteers were reached during the lessons and 695 questionnaires were collected from the participants. One hundred seventy-two participants were excluded from the study according to the exclusion criteria and 104 were excluded due to missing/incorrect data; the final statistical analyses were performed on the remaining 419 questionnaires.
When the scales used in the survey were examined for validity analysis, it was seen that the structure of the scales was in the form of a polychoric scale rather than an interval scale. Analysis of Mardia's multivariate asymmetry skewness and kurtosis revealed significant kurtosis level at P < 0.001.[26] Polychoric correlation is suggested when the distributions of ordinal items are with an excess of kurtosis.[27],[28] In polychoric scales, minimum rank factor analysis (MRFA) is preferred because it gives consistent estimates of the explained proportion and better factor loadings when the sample size is sufficient.[29],[30],[31] In addition, principal component analysis (PCA) only provides total variance explained (TVE), whereas MRFA is an exceptional analysis type that provides common variance explained in addition to TVE. A robust MRFA method was chosen instead of PCA because the sample size in the present study was sufficiently large for MRFA. Cronbach's alpha value was measured for internal consistency reliability.
IBM SPSS for Windows (version 22.0; Chicago, IL, USA) was used for all analyses except MRFA analysis. The Factor program was used for MRFA analysis.[32]
| Results | | |
One hundred seventy-eight (42.5%) of the participants were female and 241 (57.5%) were male. Of the participants, 197 (47%) were faculty of sport sciences students, 222 (53%) were faculty of medicine students, and the mean age was 20.53 ± 2.024 years. When the MEQ Turkish version scores were evaluated, it was observed that 66.1% of the 419 participants were defined as neither type [Table 1]. | Table 1: Chronotype distributions of participants according to the Morningness–Eveningness Questionnaire Turkish version scores (n=419)
Click here to view |
When previous studies on MEQ scales were examined, it was seen that TVE was only reported in the study of Rhee et al.[33] PCA[10] and principal-axis factoring (PAF)[33] were used, but it was not explained why these methods had been selected in other studies. Moreover, the authors of the Turkish version of the scale did not conduct the factor analysis. In this study, it was decided to conduct explanatory factor analysis to evaluate the validity of the MEQ and to address the lack of previous research.
Before the MRFA analysis, Cattell's[34] scree plot test, the parallel analysis of Horn,[35] and the Hull method of Lorenzo-Seva et al.[36] were used on the data set to determine the number of factors. All three methods suggested that the study should be conducted with three factors; hence, robust MRFA was performed with three factors. The first results of MRFA showed that factor correlations were higher than 0.30 and lower than 0.43. The promin oblique solution was used for maximization of factor simplicity in rotation because of nonorthogonal factors.[37] Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (171) = 1385, P < 0.001) and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy value was 0.81 and above the suggested value of 0.60.[38] As a result of MRFA, the factor consisting of items 11, 15, 17, 18, and 19 was defined as “Peak Time,” the factor consisting of items 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 was defined as “Evening Affect,” and the factor consisting of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 13 was defined as “Morning Affect” [Table 2]. No items were excluded from the study. The minimum factor loading was calculated using the formula of Norman and Streiner and found as 0.25.[39] The minimum factor loading in rotation was 0.283 and this was above the value recommended by Norman and Streiner. Factor determinacy index values were above 0.90 (minimum = 91; maximum = 100), marginal reliabilities were above 0.80 (minimum = 82; maximum = 99), the sensitivity ratio was above 2 (minimum = 2; maximum = 10), and the expected percentage of true differences was above 90% (minimum = 90; maximum = 99) of the advised values. The root mean square of residuals (RMSR) was 0.0519, slightly over an acceptable model value of 0.0489.[40],[41] Furthermore, weighted RMSR (WRMSR) was 0.0450; values under 1.0 are recommended for good fit.[42] The TVE value was 42.7%, and factors explained 64% of common (shared) variance in MRFA. | Table 2: Rotated loading matrix and factor loadings of minimum rank factor analysis (n=419)
Click here to view |
The Cronbach's alpha value calculated for the internal consistency reliability analysis was determined as 0.765 for all items. In cases where Cronbach's alpha value is 0.70 and above, the scale is considered to be reliable.[43] According to the reliability analysis performed, Cronbach's alpha values for the Turkish version of MEQ were 0.765 for the entire questionnaire. Correlation analysis results showed that the highest correlation was between the peak time factor and evening affect factor (0.459, P < 0.001) [Table 3].
According to the scores of the Turkish version of MEQ, only one participant had a definitely morning type chronotype. For this reason, “definitely morning type” and “definitely evening type” groups were not compared with each other as part of the morningness–eveningness comparison. Instead, consistent with previous studies, “moderately morning type” and “definitely morning type” groups were addressed as the “morning type” (n = 50) and “moderately evening type” and “definitely evening type” groups were addressed as the “evening type” (n = 92), and the participants were divided into three types (morning type, neither type, and evening type) instead of five, and the analyses were performed.[1],[2],[8],[10] There was a statistically significant difference between the answers given to all questions and the total MEQ scores of morning- and evening-type participants [Table 4]. When the mean scores of the participants obtained from the Turkish version of MEQ and the factors of the questionnaire were evaluated, a statistically significant difference was found between male and female participants for all variables except the morning affect factor [Table 5]. | Table 4: Comparison of the scores obtained from each item and total scores obtained from the questionnaire between morningness and eveningness types (n=142)
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
MEQ appears to be the most frequently used self-evaluation questionnaire to determine chronotypes.[6],[7],[8],[9] Thus, MEQ has been translated into several languages,[2],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19] including Turkish.[3],[8] Previous Turkish versions of MEQ, which are still being used in scientific studies, have some shortcomings.[3],[8] Hence, in the current study, it aimed to make an appropriate translation into Turkish and conduct validity and reliability analyses of the translated MEQ.
As part of the validity analysis, Caci et al. used the PCA method with parallel analysis and scree plot tests to determine the number of factors in their study.[10] As a result of this analysis, they examined the questionnaire in four dimensions. On the other hand, Rhee et al. used the PAF method with Kaiser's eigenvalue rule, Cattell's scree plot test, and interpretability criteria to examine the questionnaire in five dimensions.[33] While working on the Hungarian version of MEQ, Zavecz et al. examined the questionnaire in two dimensions.[44] There are contradicting views on the number of factors in MEQ in these studies and the literature; therefore, three different methods such as the scree plot test,[34] parallel analysis,[35] and the Hull method[36] were used in our study to obtain more precise results while determining the number of factors to examine the questionnaire. All three methods gave similar results, recommending that the questionnaire be evaluated in three dimensions. Although various studies performed their analyses on MEQ with different numbers of factors (two, four, and five), all analyses were performed with three factors in our study.[2],[10],[33],[44] There is no study in the literature where the number of factors for MEQ was determined with more than one method. Furthermore, the number of factors has not been determined in any of the studies investigating the Turkish versions of MEQ.
EFA and CFA were used in previous studies for factor analysis of the MEQ.[2],[10],[33] However, in polychoric scales such as MEQ, MRFA is preferred because it provides shared variance explained alongside TVE and gives more realistic factor loadings.[29],[31] In MRFA, the results are very strong if the data size is sufficient.[30] Our sample size was sufficient for MRFA because there were 419 participants. Therefore, a robust MRFA method was used in this study instead of PCA. In Turkish versions of MEQ, no studies performed factor analysis with TVE and loadings.[3],[8]
The minimum factor loading calculated by Norman and Streiner's formula[39] was found as 0.25. In the present study, the minimum factor loading in rotation was found as 0.283. Factor loading was calculated as above 0.25 for all items, and unlike other studies, no items were excluded for not falling into a factor. In the study of Caci et al., two items could not be loaded into a factor, and in the studies of Rhee et al. and Zavecz et al., four items could not be loaded into a factor and were excluded as a result of factor analysis.[10],[33],[44] Three factors determined using MRFA were termed “Peak Time,” “Evening Affect,” and “Morning Affect” [Table 2]. Items in the questionnaire that were related to morning hours were collected within the “Morning Affect” factor, whereas items related to evening hours were collected within the “Evening Affect” factor. Items that were not related to a specific time of the day were collected within the “Peak Time” factor.
Since TVE was not mentioned in the study of Caci et al., our study could not be compared with that study in terms of TVE. In the study of Rhee et al., the TVE value was 42.4%. In our analyses, TVE was 42.7%.[10],[33] On the other hand, this research revealed that the factors explained 64% of common (shared) variance in MRFA. Hair et al. suggest that TVE should be over 60%.[38] Although TVE was below the recommended value, it was still higher than in other studies in the literature.[33]
The high Cronbach's alpha value (0.765) indicates that the items contained in the questionnaire are well correlated with each other. Internal consistency reliability analysis was performed for the factors, and the obtained values were below 0.70 (peak time = 0.678, evening affect = 0.581, and morning affect = 0.638). When we look at other studies in the literature, it is seen that the overall reliability is good.[10],[33],[44] However, reliability analysis was not performed for factors in other studies. According to the results of the correlation analysis, a significant positive correlation was found between all factors, with a maximum of 0.459 and a minimum of 0.356 [Table 3]. Caci et al. also found correlations between factors with coefficients less than 0.3.[10] When these data are interpreted, it can be concluded that it is more appropriate to examine the questionnaire with three factors.
When the literature was reviewed, it was found that only a validity analysis of the Turkish version of MEQ was performed by Agargun et al.[8] In the study of Agargun et al., the mean scores of “morningness” and “eveningness” participants obtained from the items were compared using the t-test.[8] According to this analysis, statistically significant differences were found in 17 of the 19 items (except for items 10 and 13). When the same analysis was performed in the present study, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups for all questions (P < 0.001) [Table 4]. It can be stated that the morningness and eveningness approaches in the original English scale are expressed more strongly in the current research.
In this study, a statistically significant difference was found between scores of the Turkish version of MEQ of female and male participants. In the literature, however, conflicting results have been reported regarding the effect of sex on MEQ scores. Caci et al. reported that sex had no effect on MEQ, and Zimmermann found that there was no difference between the sexes.[10],[45] It may be advisable to plan new studies investigating the effect of sex on MEQ.
| Conclusion | | |
All items from the factor analysis resulted in three factor groupings and explained 42.7% of the TVE, below the suggested value of 0.60.[38] According to the TVE value, there is a poor fit for construct validity. On the other hand, these factors explained 64% of common (shared) variance in MRFA. Even though WRMSR indicates a good fit, RMSR is not as good as WRMSR. The reliability of all items is 0.77, but dimension reliabilities are lower than the suggested value of 0.70. Nonetheless, the current study addressed the gap in the Turkish literature by conducting an appropriate validity analysis on the translated MEQ. One of the main limitations of this study was that the respondents were chosen from among undergraduate students. Even though this version is better than the existing Turkish version of the MEQ, the results of this study demonstrate the fact that more research is needed to examine the chronotypes of individuals.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| Appendix | | |
| Appendix 1. Turkish version of the MEQ | | |
Değerli katılımcı,
İnsanlar uyku düzenleri, yaşam şekilleri, çeşitli performanslarının gün içi değişimleri ve benzer özelliklerine göre “sabah tipi” ve “akşam tipi” gibi farklı kronotip gruplarında değerlendirilebilirler. Gönüllü olarak doldurmanız istenen ankette kronotipinizi belirlemeye yönelik sorular bulunmaktadır. İstediğiniz anda araştırmadan çekilebilirsiniz. Anket 19 sorudan oluşmakta ve yaklaşık 6-7 dakika içerisinde tamamlanmaktadır.
Açıklamalar:
- Lütfen her bir soruyu cevaplandırmadan önce dikkatli bir şekilde okuyun.
- BÜTÜN soruları cevaplandırın.
- Soruları numara sırasına göre cevaplayın.
- Her bir soru diğer sorulardan bağımsız olarak cevaplanmalıdır. Geri DÖNMEYİN ve cevaplarınızı kontrol ETMEYİN.
- BÜTÜN sorular çoktan seçmelidir. Her bir soru için sadece BİR tek cevap işaretleyin. Bazı sorularda çoktan seçmeli şık yerine cetvel bulunmaktadır. Bu sorularda cetvel üzerinde uygun noktaya bir çarpı koyun.
- Lütfen her soruyu mümkün olduğunca dürüstçe cevaplayın. Cevaplarınız ve sonuçlar tam bir gizlilik içerisinde tutulacaktır.
- Günün saatlerini belirtmek için 24'lük sistem kullanılmıştır.
1. Eğer gününüzü planlama konusunda tamamen özgür olsaydınız, sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi dikkate alarak saat kaçta yataktan kalkardınız?
2. Eğer akşamınızı planlama konusunda tamamen özgür olsaydınız, sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi dikkate alarak saat kaçta yatardınız?
3. Sabahları belli bir saatte kalkmak zorunda olduğunuzda saat kurup alarm sesiyle uyanmaya ne derece gereksinim duyarsınız?
Hiç gereksinim duymam ( )
Biraz gereksinim duyarım ( )
Oldukça gereksinim duyarım ( )
Çok fazla gereksinim duyarım ( )
4. Çevresel koşullar uygun olduğunda, sabahları yataktan kalkmak size ne kadar kolay gelir?
Asla kolay gelmez ( )
Çok kolay gelmez ( )
Oldukça kolay gelir ( )
Çok kolay gelir ( )
5. Sabahları uyandıktan sonraki ilk yarım saat süresince kendinizi ne kadar canlı ve uyanık hissedersiniz?
Hiç canlı hissetmem ( )
Biraz canlı hissederim ( )
Oldukça canlı hissederim ( )
Çok canlı hissederim ( )
6. Sabahları uyandıktan sonraki ilk yarım saat süresince iştahınız nasıldır?
Çok az ( )
Oldukça az ( )
Oldukça fazla ( )
Çok fazla ( )
7. Sabah uyandıktan sonraki ilk yarım saat süresince kendinizi ne kadar yorgun hissedersiniz?
Çok yorgun hissederim ( )
Oldukça yorgun hissederim ( )
Biraz yorgun hissederim ( )
Hiç yorgun hissetmem ( )
8. Ertesi güne ait bir randevu ya da işiniz olmadığında, her zamanki yatma vaktinize göre kaçta yatarsınız?
Çok az geç yatarım veya hiç geç yatmam ( )
1 saatten daha az geç yatarım ( )
1 – 2 saat daha geç yatarım ( )
2 saatten daha fazla geç yatarım ( )
9. Fiziksel egzersiz yapmaya karar verdiniz. Arkadaşınız bunu birer saatten haftada iki kez yapmanızı önerdi ve en iyi zamanın sabah 07:00 ile 08:00 arası olduğunu belirtti. Sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi göz önünde tuttuğunuzda nasıl performans gösterirdiniz?
İyi performans gösterirdim ( )
Kabul edilebilir performans gösterirdim ( )
Kötü performans gösterirdim ( )
Çok kötü performans gösterirdim ( )
10. Akşam saat kaçta yorgun hissedip, bunun sonucu olarak uykuya gereksinim duyarsınız?
11. Zihinsel olarak tüketici olacağını ve iki saat süreceğini bildiğiniz bir testte en yüksek performansınızı sergilemek istiyorsunuz. Gününüzü planlama konusunda tamamen özgürsünüz ve sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi dikkate aldığınızda dört test zamanından HANGİSİNİ seçerdiniz?
08:00 – 10:00 ( )
11:00 – 13:00 ( )
15:00 – 17:00 ( )
19:00 – 21:00 ( )
12. Gece 23:00'da yatağa gittiğinizde kendinizi ne seviyede yorgun hissedersiniz?
Hiç yorgun hissetmem ( )
Az yorgun hissederim ( )
Oldukça yorgun hissederim ( )
Çok yorgun hissederim ( )
13. Bazı nedenlerden dolayı her zamankinden birkaç saat daha geç yattığınızı, ama ertesi sabah belli bir saatte kalkmanız gerekmediğini düşünün. Aşağıdakilerden HANGİSİ ertesi gününüzü en iyi şekilde tanımlar?
Her zamanki saatte uyanırım ve KESİNLİKLE tekrar uyumam ( )
Her zamanki saatte uyanırım ama daha sonra uyuklarım ( )
Her zamanki saatte uyanırım ama tekrar uyurum ( )
KESİNLİKLE her zamankinden daha geç uyanırım ( )
14. Gece nöbeti tutmak için sabah 04:00 ile 06:00 arasında uyanık kalmanız gerekli ve ertesi güne ait bir randevu ya da işiniz yok. Aşağıdaki alternatiflerden HANGİSİ sizin için en uygunudur?
Nöbet bitene kadar YATMAZDIM ( )
Nöbet öncesinde şekerleme yapar ve sonrasında uyurdum ( )
Nöbet öncesinde iyi bir uyku çeker ve sonrasında şekerleme yapardım ( )
Nöbet öncesinde iyice uyuyarak BÜTÜN uykumu alırdım ( )
15. İki saat boyunca şiddetli fiziksel bir iş yapmak zorundasınız. Gününüzü planlama konusunda tamamen özgürsünüz ve sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi dikkate aldığınızda, bu işi yapmak için aşağıdaki zamanlardan HANGİSİNİ seçerdiniz?
08:00 – 10:00 ( )
11:00 – 13:00 ( )
15:00 – 17:00 ( )
19:00 – 21:00 ( )
16. Şiddetli fiziksel egzersiz yapmaya karar verdiniz. Arkadaşınız bunu birer saatten haftada iki kez yapmanızı önerdi ve en iyi zamanın akşam 22:00 ile 23:00 arası olduğunu belirtti. Sadece kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” ritmi göz önünde tuttuğunuzda nasıl performans gösterirdiniz?
İyi performans gösterirdim ( )
Kabul edilebilir performans gösterirdim ( )
Kötü performans gösterirdim ( )
Çok kötü performans gösterirdim ( )
17. Çalışma saatlerinizi kendiniz seçebildiğinizi düşünün. Günde BEŞ saat (yemek araları dahil) çalıştığınızı, mesleğinizin ilginç olduğunu ve performansınıza göre ücret aldığınızı farz edin. Çalışmak için hangi ARDIŞIK BEŞ SAATİ seçerdiniz? (Lütfen ardışık 5 kutu işaretleyiniz.)
18. Gün içinde kendinizi “en iyi hissettiğiniz” saat hangisidir?
19. Birisinden insanların “sabah” ve “akşam” tipleri olduğunu duydunuz. Kendinizi bu tiplerden HANGİSİNE yakın bulursunuz?
Kesinlikle “sabah” tipi ( )
“Sabah” tipine daha yakın ( )
“Akşam” tipine daha yakın ( )
Kesinlikle “akşam” tipi ( )
PROFİL SORULARI
1-Yaşınız: ….. 2-Cinsiyetiniz: E( ) K( ) 3-Tarih: …/…/…… 4-Sınıfınız: ….
5-Okuduğunuz fakülte/yüksekokul/meslek yüksekokulu seçiniz:
( ) DEÜ Spor Bilimleri Fakültesi ( ) DEÜ Tıp Fakültesi
6-Aşağıdaki seçeneklerden varsa size uygun olanı/olanları işaretleyiniz:
( ) Bir psikiyatrik rahatsızlığım var. ( ) Psiko-aktif ilaç kullanıyorum.
( ) Alkol/uyuşturucu bağımlısıyım. ( ) Uyku bozukluğu problemi yaşıyorum.
( ) Vardiyalı çalışıyorum. ( ) Uykumu etkileyebilecek bir ilaç kullanıyorum.
( ) Yakın zamanda saat farkı yaratan uzun bir uçak yolculuğu yaptım.
Teşekkürler!!!
| References | | |
| 1. | Horne JA, Ostberg O. A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. Int J Chronobiol 1976;4:97-110.  |
| 2. | Lee JH, Kim SJ, Lee SY, Jang KH, Kim IS, Duffy JF. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire in adults aged 20-39 years. Chronobiol Int 2014;31:479-86. |
| 3. | Punduk Z, Gur H, Ercan I. A reliability study of the Turkish version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (in Turkish). Turk J Psychiatry 2005;16:40-5. |
| 4. | O'Shea MV. Aspects of mental economy. In: Ely RT, Hobbs WH, Johnson JB, Smith CF, Turner FJ, editors. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin science series Volume 2. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, Madison; 1900. p. 33-198. |
| 5. | Chang J, Hou YP, Wu JL, Fang XY, Li SL, Liu MB, et al. Blood pressure circadian rhythms and adverse outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients diagnosed with orthostatic hypotension. J Diabetes Investig 2018;9:383-8. |
| 6. | Cipollone G, Paolilli FL, Novi M, Masci I, Caruso D, Moretto U, et al. 0959 Evening chronotypes mediate the association between early life stress and emotion dysregulation ın bipolar disorder: A pilot study. Sleep 2018;41 Suppl 1:A356. |
| 7. | Toktas N, Erman KA, Yetik O. Healthy lifestyle behaviors and physical activity levels of male university students according to human chronotype (in Turkish). Abant İzzet Baysal Univ J Fac Educ 2018;18:507-20. |
| 8. | Agargun MY, Cilli AS, Boysan M, Selvi Y, Gulec M, Kara H. Turkish version of morningness-eveningness questionnaire (MEQ). Sleep Hypn 2007;9:16-23. |
| 9. | Tonetti L. Validity of the morningness-eveningness questionnaire for adolescents (MEQ-A). Sleep Hypn 2007;9:47-51. |
| 10. | Caci H, Deschaux O, Adan A, Natale V. Comparing three morningness scales: Age and gender effects, structure and cut-off criteria. Sleep Med 2009;10:240-5. |
| 11. | Foret BJ, Benoit O, Royant-Parola S. Sleep schedules and peak times of oral temperature and alertness in morning and evening 'types'. Ergonomics 1982;25:821-7. |
| 12. | Mecacci L, Zani A. Morningness-eveningness preferences and sleep-waking diary data of morning and evening types in student and worker samples. Ergonomics 1983;26:1147-53. |
| 13. | Kerkhof GA. A Dutch questionnaire for the selection of morning- and evening-type persons (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Psychol 1984;39:281-94. |
| 14. | Ishihara K, Miyashita A, Inugami M, Fukuda K, Yamazaki K, Miyata Y. The results of investigation by the Japanese version of Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. Shinrigaku Kenkyu 1986;57:87-91. |
| 15. | Lavie P, Segal S. Twenty-four-hour structure of sleepiness in morning and evening persons investigated by ultrashort sleep-wake cycle. Sleep 1989;12:522-8. |
| 16. | Benedito-Silva AA, Menna-Barreto L, Marques N, Tenreiro S. A self-assessment questionnaire for the determination of morningness-eveningness types in Brazil. Prog Clin Biol Res 1990;341B:89-98. |
| 17. | Adan A, Almirall H. Adaptation and standardization of a Spanish version of the morningness-eveningness questionnaire: Individual differences. Pers Individ Dif 1990;11:1123-30. |
| 18. | Gau SF, Soong WT, Lee WY, Chiu YN. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Morningness/Eveningness Scale (in Chinese). Taiwanese J Psychiatry 1998;12:98-109. |
| 19. | Griefahn B, Künemund C, Bröde P, Mehnert P. The validity of a German version of the Morningness-Eveningness-Questionnaire developed by Horne and Östberg (in German). Somnologie (Berl) 2001;5:71-80. |
| 20. | Baykara S, Alban K. Evaluation of morningness-eveningness in heroin–dependent patients (in Turkish). Firat Med J 2017;22:86-91. |
| 21. | Gunduz S. A comparison of the effect of the treatment with only venlafaksin and the joint venlafaksin and partial sleep deprivation treatment to the depressive mood, sleep quality, mood profile and the treatment course of the patients with major depressive disorder [thesis of medical specialty] (in Turkish). Konya (Turkey): Selcuk University Department of Psychiatry; 2016. |
| 22. | Ozdemir PG, Yilmaz E, Selvi Y, Boysan M. Bright light treatment in psychiatry (in Turkish). Curr Approaches Psychiatry 2017;9:177-88. |
| 23. | Senol V, Soyuer F, Senol PN. Assessment of sleep quality with Pittsburgh, Epworth and Morningness- Eveningness Questionnaire scales in the elderly at nursing home (in Turkish). Turkish J Geriatr 2013;16:60-8. |
| 24. | Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas 1970;30:607-10. |
| 25. | Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 1969. |
| 26. | Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 1970;57:519-30. |
| 27. | Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1985;38:171-89. |
| 28. | Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1992;45:19-30. |
| 29. | Shapiro A, ten Berge JM. Statistical inference of minimum rank factor analysis. Psychometrika 2002;67:79-94. |
| 30. | Socan G. The Incremental Value of Minimum Rank Factor Analysis [thesis of doctorate]. Groningen (Netherlands): Psychological, Educational and Sociological Sciences of the University of Groningen; 2003. |
| 31. | ten Berge JM, Kiers HA. A numerical approach to the approximate and the exact minimum rank of a covariance matrix. Psychometrika 1991;56:309-15. |
| 32. | Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. Factor. Ver. 10.9.02. [Windows]. Tarragona (Spain): Rovira i Virgili University; 2019. |
| 33. | Rhee MK, Lee HJ, Rex KM, Kripke DF. Evaluation of two circadian rhythm questionnaires for screening for the delayed sleep phase disorder. Psychiatry Investig 2012;9:236-44. |
| 34. | Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966;1:245-76. |
| 35. | Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1965;30:179-85. |
| 36. | Lorenzo-Seva U, Timmerman ME, Kiers HA. The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:340-64. |
| 37. | Lorenzo-Seva U. Why Rotate my Data Using Promin? Tarragona (Spain): Department of Psychology, Universitat Rovira i Virgili; 2013. |
| 38. | Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2007. |
| 39. | Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. St. Louis (MO): Mosby-Year Book; 1994. |
| 40. | Harman HH. Modern factor analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press. 1962. |
| 41. | Kelley TL, editor. Essential Traits of Mental Life. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. (Harvard studies in education; vol. 26); 1935. |
| 42. | Yu C, Muthen B. Evaluation of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Categorical and Continuous Outcomes. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2002. |
| 43. | Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1967. |
| 44. | Zavecz Z, Török C, Köteles F, Pálosi V, Simor P. The psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ-H): The separate factors of morning freshness and circadian rhythmicity (in Hungarian). Psychiatr Hung 2015;30:318-31. |
| 45. | Zimmermann LK. Chronotype and the transition to college life. Chronobiol Int 2011;28:904-10. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]
|
Search Pubmed for