Validation of the English version of the Mood Rhythm Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Disruption of biological rhythms has been linked to the pathophysiology of mental disorders. However, little is known regarding the rhythmicity of mood symptoms due to the lack of validated clinical questionnaires. A better understanding of the rhythmicity of mood symptoms can help identifying individuals whose severity of mood symptoms follows an altered circadian rhythm. The objective of this study was to validate the English version of the Mood Rhythm Instrument (MRhI), a self-reported measure of self-perceived rhythmicity of mood symptoms and behaviours, in a sample of the general population from Canada. Methods After the translation process, the final English version of the Mood Rhythm Instrument (MRhI-English) was applied on participants recruited at McMaster University and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton campuses. Individuals were also asked to answer the Reduced Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (rMEQ). Results Four hundred one individuals completed the English version of the MRhI and the rMEQ. The MRhI-English presented a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75. The factorial analysis grouped the MRhI-15 items in 3 factors (cognitive, affective and somatic), with affective items having a lower frequency of self-reported 24-h peaks. Comparison between sexes showed that women reported a higher frequency of daily peaks in irritability, anxiety, sadness and talking to friends, while men exhibited peaks more frequently in problem-solving, sexual arousal and motivation to exercise. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the English version of the MRhI displayed good internal consistency. Future directions will include the use of the MRhI instrument in individuals with mood disorders, aiming to provide a better understanding of the relationship between daily patterns of mood variability and mental health outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".