%0 Journal Article
%T Chronotype: a review of the advances, limits and applicability of the main instruments used in the literature to assess human phenotype Cronotipo: uma revis o dos avan os, limites e aplicabilidade dos principais instrumentos utilizados na literatura para avaliar o fen¨®tipo humano
%A Rosa Levandovski
%A Etianne Sasso
%A Maria Paz Hidalgo
%J Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
%D 2013
%I Associa??o de Psiquiatria do Rio Grande do Sul
%X The study of circadian typology differences has increased in the last few years. As a result, new instruments have been developed to estimate the individual circadian phase of temporal human behavior, also referred as chronotype. The current review was conducted to evaluate the differences among the questionnaires most frequently used to assess chronotype: the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ), the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM), and the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ). Each instrument evaluates a different aspect of chronotype. MEQ is considered to evaluate the phase preferences of individual behavior over a 24-hour day, while MCTQ measures the phase of sleep positions for both free and work days. CSM is similar to MEQ, but is more sensitive to measure shift work. The concept of chronotype has been used to refer to phase positions or phase preferences in the literature reviewed. Most of the time this is a consequence of different interpretations: it is not clear whether phase preferences are a direct manifestation of the individual¡¯s internal clock or a result of external cues, e.g., social interaction (including the alarm clock). Also, phase preferences are not uniform throughout life. Therefore, a single assessment, not taking age into consideration, will not accurately describe the sample. We suggest that MCTQ is the best instrument for investigators dealing with desynchronization and as an instrument for sleep phase. Conversely, if the goal is to assess characteristics that change under specific situations - chronotype -, the MEQ should be used. O estudo das diferen as de tipologia circadiana tem aumentado nos ¨²ltimos anos. Como resultado, novos instrumentos t¨ºm sido desenvolvidos para estimar as prefer¨ºncias interindividuais de fase circadiana, denominada de cronotipo, respons¨¢vel pela organiza  o temporal do processo de regula  o do organismo. O objetivo desta revis o foi avaliar as diferen as dos principais question¨¢rios utilizados para avaliar cronotipos: o Question¨¢rio de Matutinidade e Vespertinidade (Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, MEQ), o Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) e o Question¨¢rio de Cronotipo de Munique (Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, MCTQ). Cada instrumento avalia um aspecto diferente dos cronotipos. Considera-se que o MEQ avalia as prefer¨ºncias de fase do comportamento individual ao longo de um dia de 24 horas, ao passo que o MCTQ mede a posi  o da fase de sono tanto em dias livres como em dias de trabalho. O CSM ¨¦ semelhante ao MEQ, mas ¨¦ mais sens¨ªvel para ser utilizado em indiv¨ªduos que realiz
%K Fen menos cronobiol¨®gicos
%K ritmo circadiano
%K matutino
%K vespertino
%K revis o
%K Chronobiology phenomena
%K circadian rhythm
%K morningness
%K eveningness
%K review
%U http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-60892013000100002