Sleep quality is an important clinical construct since it is increasingly common for people to complain about poor sleep quality and its impact on daytime functioning. Moreover, poor sleep quality can be an important symptom of many sleep and medical disorders. However, objective measures of sleep quality, such as polysomnography, are not readily available to most clinicians in their daily routine, and are expensive, time-consuming, and impractical for epidemiological and research studies., Several self-report questionnaires have, however, been developed. The present review aims to address their psychometric properties, construct validity, and factorial structure while presenting, comparing, and discussing the measurement properties of these sleep quality questionnaires. A systematic literature search, from 2008 to 2020, was performed using the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus, with predefined search terms. In total, 49 articles were analyzed from the 5734 articles found. The psychometric properties and factor structure of the following are reported: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Mini-Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ), Jenkins Sleep Scale (JSS), Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ), SLEEP-50 Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). As the most frequently used subjective measurement of sleep quality, the PSQI reported good internal reliability and validity; however, different factorial structures were found in a variety of samples, casting doubt on the usefulness of total score in detecting poor and good sleepers. The sleep disorder scales (AIS, ISI, MSQ, JSS, LSEQ and SLEEP-50) reported good psychometric properties; nevertheless, AIS and ISI reported a variety of factorial models whereas LSEQ and SLEEP-50 appeared to be less useful for epidemiological and research settings due to the length of the questionnaires and their scoring. The MSQ and JSS seemed to be inexpensive and easy to administer, complete, and score, but further validation studies are needed. Finally, the ESS had good internal consistency and construct validity, while the main challenges were in its factorial structure, known-group difference and estimation of reliable cut-offs. Overall, the self-report questionnaires assessing sleep quality from different perspectives have good psychometric properties, with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent/divergent validity with sleep, psychological, and socio-demographic variables. However, a clear definition of the factor model underlying the tools is recommended and reliable cut-off values should be indicated in order for clinicians to discriminate poor and good sleepers.

The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in sleep-time preference by age among Italian pre-adolescents, adolescents, and adults. The final sample consisted of 8,972 participants (5,367 females and 3,605 males) from 10 to 87 yrs of age. To assess preferred sleep habits, we considered the answers to the open-ended questions of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ). In agreement with previous studies, we found that sleep-time preference started to shift toward eveningness from the age of 13 yrs. Females reached their peak in eveningness earlier (about 17 yrs of age) than males (about 21 yrs of age). Thereafter, the ideal sleep-time preference advanced in men and women with increasing age. Females presented a more significant advanced sleep phase than males only during the years when sexual hormones are typically active. Moreover, females reported a longer ideal sleep duration than males across all age groups examined, except in over 55 yrs one.

We explored the relationship between personality, based on the five-factor model, and circadian preference. To this end, 503 participants (280 females, 223 males) were administered the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) and the self-report version of the Big Five Observer (BFO) to determine circadian preference and personality features, respectively. Morning types scored significantly higher than evening and intermediate types on the conscientiousness factor. Evening types were found to be more neurotic than morning types. With reference to the big five personality model, our data, together with those of all the previous studies, indicate that the conscientiousness domain is the one that best discriminates among the three circadian types. Results are discussed with reference to neurobiological models of personality.

(2015). Association between circadian preference and academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronobiology International: Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 792-801. doi: 10.3109/07420528.2015.1049271

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between circadian preference and sensation seeking. To this aim 1041 university students (408 males and 633 females), ranging in age between 18 and 30 years, filled the reduced version of the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQr) and the Sensation Seeking Scale-Form V (SSS-V). Males scored higher than females in SSS-V total score and all subscales, except experience seeking (ES). As regards circadian preference, evening types scored higher than morning types in SSS-V total score and all subscales, except boredom susceptibility (BS) where they significantly differed only from intermediate types. On the whole our results highlight a significant relationship between circadian preference and sensation seeking.