Abstract
Self-report tools that measure circadian rhythms have focused primarily on phase. We add to the sparse literature on assessing amplitude and stability. We randomly recruited 1,163 participants who completed several measures. The correlation between the LV scale (amplitude) and FR scale (stability) was −0.12 (p < 0.01). As expected, amplitude was negatively associated with phase (r = −0.64, p < 0.01) while stability showed a weak link with phase (r = 0.07, p < 0.05). Structural equation modeling suggested a close model-fit of the factor structure in the sample (RMSEA = 0.033). The LV scale explained 22% of the variance, while the FR scale explained 23%. Scale reliability was satisfactory for the LV scale (0.68) and good for the FR scale (0.73). Participants with low amplitude or flexible rhythms reported significantly better resilience, coping, and required less daily sleep. We constructed a composite circadian categorical variable to combine the best attributes from the LV and FR scales; participants with both low amplitude and flexible rhythms, reported significantly better resilience, coping, and less sleep need. We found rhythm amplitude decreased with age, while stability remained constant.
Highlights
Interest in developing self-report survey tools to assess the human circadian rhythm appears vibrant given recent developments in this field
Circadian rhythms can be understood in terms of three key characteristics; (a) phase, the timing of the rhythms’ peak and trough across the 24 h; (b) amplitude, the difference between the rhythms peak and trough, and (c) stability refers to the predictive constancy of the amplitude
The literature on self-reported circadian rhythm is dominated by studies on rhythm phase (Adan et al, 2012)
Summary
Interest in developing self-report survey tools to assess the human circadian rhythm appears vibrant given recent developments in this field. The last decade has seen several new scales purporting to assess amplitude. These include the Chronotype Questionnaire (Oginska et al, 2017), the Circadian Amplitude and Phase Scale (Di Milia et al, 2011), and the “distinctiveness” scale from the Morningness-Eveningess Stability Scale (Randler et al, 2016). These scales are yet to report detailed relationships with tolerance to shift work. In this article we assess the utility of the two-factor rCTI beyond studies of shift workers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
