Time Orientation Scale

1. Abstract

The Time Orientation Scale (TOS), developed by Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey (1995), is a self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s diurnal preference, circadian typology, and chronemic behavioral orientation within instructional, organizational, and interpersonal communication environments. Grounded in the broader study of chronemics—the nonverbal communication code addressing how time influences human interaction, psychological functioning, and performance—the TOS evaluates the morningness versus eveningness continuum. The instrument consists of 16 self-report statements evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Items capture affective, behavioral, and academic/cognitive functioning across morning and afternoon periods, identifying whether an individual exhibits a morning chronotype (commonly termed “larks”), an evening chronotype (“owls”), or an intermediate/flexible diurnal profile.

Psychometrically, the Time Orientation Scale demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across university and adult cohorts, with published Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging between .82 and .88. The scoring architecture utilizes a balanced compensatory formula that computes an overall score spanning from 16 to 80, where scores below 40 reflect a morning orientation, scores between 40 and 50 denote a flexible or intermediate circadian adaptation, and scores exceeding 50 signify an evening orientation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic investigations substantiate a dominant two-pole circadian dimension or a two-factor diurnal preference structure (Morning Alertness/Preference vs. Afternoon/Evening Functioning). The TOS has played a foundational role in communication studies, educational psychology, instructional communication, and organizational research, elucidating how time mismatch (diurnal dysynchrony) between students and course scheduling, or workers and shift demands, impacts academic achievement, cognitive fatigue, interpersonal affect, and perceived nonverbal immediacy.

2. Keywords

Time Orientation Scale, Chronemics, Circadian Typology, Morningness-Eveningness, Nonverbal Communication, Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey, Diurnal Preference, Instructional Communication, Psychometrics, Chronotype, Academic Performance

3. Authors

The Time Orientation Scale was conceptualized and authored by two prominent scholars in the fields of communication studies, interpersonal relations, and instructional communication:

• Virginia P. Richmond, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and former Professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Richmond is a renowned communication scholar whose research program centers on nonverbal communication, instructional communication, communication apprehension, and interpersonal dynamics in educational and organizational contexts. She served as President of the Eastern Communication Association and the International Communication Association (ICA).
• James C. McCroskey, Ed.D. (1938–2012): Widely regarded as one of the most prolific and cited scholars in the discipline of communication. Dr. McCroskey served as Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and later at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He pioneered measurement methodologies in communication apprehension, willingness to communicate, source credibility, and teacher nonverbal immediacy.

The instrument was initially detailed in their seminal textbook and measurement compendiums, notably Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (Richmond & McCroskey, 1995; Richmond, McCroskey, & Cole, 2001), and has been maintained in the public academic domain via Dr. McCroskey's scholarly repository at West Virginia University.

4. Purpose

The central purpose of the Time Orientation Scale is to operationalize and quantify individual differences in chronemic orientation—specifically, an individual's subjective diurnal alertness, physiological vitality, and psychological competence across different phases of the solar day. In human communication and educational ecosystems, time is not merely an objective, mechanical backdrop; it functions as a pervasive, subtle nonverbal code that regulates social interaction, attention, cognitive bandwidth, and emotional self-regulation.

Theoretical Rationale and Instructional Context

Richmond and McCroskey developed the TOS to address a critical omission in instructional and communication research: the systematic neglect of biological and chronemic mismatches between instructors, students, and institutional timetables. Traditional pedagogical paradigms assumed that students were uniform cognitive agents capable of processing instructional stimuli with equal efficiency regardless of whether classes met at 8:00 AM or 3:00 PM. Richmond and McCroskey posited that temporal discordance—the misalignment between an individual's endogenous biological chronotype and external social/institutional schedules—produces noticeable decrements in performance, student satisfaction, and emotional resilience.

Research and Practical Applications

The TOS is applied across several theoretical and applied paradigms:

• Educational Chronobiology and Classroom Scheduling: The TOS allows educational researchers to investigate how morning versus afternoon scheduling affects course performance, cognitive absorption, examination scores, and class attendance. It enables academic advisors and students to identify optimal scheduling windows that align with personal chronotypes to mitigate the cognitive drag of social jetlag.
• Instructional Communication and Teacher-Student Dynamics: Researchers utilize the scale to evaluate how matches or mismatches between instructor diurnal energy levels and student energy levels influence perceptions of teacher immediacy, clarity, and socio-emotional warmth.
• Organizational Communication and Shift Work: In organizational management, the instrument facilitates investigations into employee alertness, burnout, interpersonal irritability, and occupational accidents by clarifying the interaction between assigned work shifts and endogenous diurnal preferences.
• Interpersonal Chronemics: In relational contexts, differences in time orientation explain systematic conflicts regarding daily scheduling, leisure timing, domestic coordination, and perceived partner responsiveness.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Time Orientation Scale is diurnal preference (frequently referred to in biological and psychological literature as morningness-eveningness or circadian typology), operationalized within a behavioral and affective framework. Diurnal preference reflects the subjective and behavioral manifestation of endogenous circadian rhythms that govern physiological cycles, including core body temperature, melatonin secretion, cortisol peaks, and neuropsychological alertness.

The Tripartite Continuum of Diurnal Orientation

Rather than conceptualizing time orientation as a rigid, dichotomous classification, the TOS conceptualizes chronemic preference as an anchored continuum comprised of three distinctive psychological categories:

• Morning Orientation (“Larks”): Individuals with a morning orientation (TOS scores below 40) exhibit early circadian phase acrophases (peaks). They demonstrate elevated physiological activation, cognitive clarity, and positive affect upon awakening. Behaviorally, morning-oriented individuals prefer early wake times, schedule demanding cognitive tasks and academic courses in the early hours, and experience a marked decline in physical and cognitive stamina by late afternoon and evening. On the TOS, these individuals endorse items reflecting morning alertness and high morning test performance while rejecting afternoon preference items.
• Flexible / Intermediate Orientation: Individuals scoring between 40 and 50 demonstrate diurnal adaptability. Their endogenous circadian phase does not enforce severe constraints on behavioral or cognitive execution. They possess the capacity to maintain adequate attention and emotional equilibrium in both morning and afternoon environments without enduring extreme cognitive strain or irritability.
• Evening Orientation (“Owls”): Individuals scoring above 50 demonstrate delayed circadian phase timing. Their endogenous cortisol awakening response, core body temperature rise, and cerebral activation occur significantly later in the solar day. In early morning settings, evening-oriented individuals experience severe sleep inertia, heightened irritability, and compromised executive functioning. Conversely, their cognitive acuity, motivation, and subjective vitality peak during late afternoon and nocturnal intervals.

Behavioral and Affective Dimensions Within the TOS

The TOS items tap into three interrelated domains of daily living:

1. Affective Diurnal State: Subjective emotional valence upon waking versus during the afternoon. Items capture states of morning dysphoria/irritability (e.g., “I am very irritable in the morning”) versus afternoon distress (e.g., “I am very irritable in the afternoons”).
2. Perceived Cognitive Competence: Self-efficacy regarding intellectual and academic tasks under varying temporal conditions. The scale directly evaluates test-taking performance in morning versus afternoon courses (e.g., “I usually do very well on tests in morning classes” vs. “I usually do very well on tests in afternoon classes”).
3. Chronemic Habitual Preferences: Intentional behavioral selections regarding academic course scheduling, study habits, and sleep-wake routines (e.g., “I like to do my studying late at night” vs. “I like to do my studying early in the day”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture supporting the Time Orientation Scale integrates chronemics from nonverbal communication theory with the psychobiological foundations of circadian chronobiology and the educational paradigms of person-environment fit theory.

Chronemics and Nonverbal Communication

In nonverbal communication theory (Richmond & McCroskey, 1995; Richmond, McCroskey, & Cole, 2001), chronemics is conceptualized alongside kinesics, proxemics, and vocalics as a fundamental nonverbal sign system. Richmond and McCroskey categorized time into three broad systems: technical time (scientific measurement of precise units), formal time (cultural ordering of days, months, and standard institutional schedules), and informal time (psychological and cultural perceptions of duration, punctuality, and diurnal cycles).

The TOS is positioned squarely within the domain of informal/psychological time orientation. According to McCroskey and Richmond, how individuals subjectively inhabit the biological day deeply informs their communicative style. Chronemic misalignment induces subtle nonverbal manifestations of stress—such as flattened vocal affect, decreased eye contact, increased interpersonal distance, and elevated nonverbal leakage of irritability—which can be misinterpreted by relational partners or instructors as disinterest, defiance, or incompetence.

Circadian Chronobiology

The biological grounding of the TOS aligns with the circadian models pioneered by Franz Halberg, Colin Pittendrigh, and later psychometric chronobiologists such as Horne and Östberg (1976). The master pacemaker located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the anterior hypothalamus synchronizes endogenous oscillations to the 24-hour light-dark cycle. These rhythms drive fluctuations in alertness and cognitive efficiency. Richmond and McCroskey translated these chronobiological realities into an accessible, ecologically valid communication instrument tailored for educational and social settings, focusing on how diurnal phenotypes shape communicative choices and academic behaviors.

Person-Environment Fit and the “Synchrony Effect”

In cognitive and educational psychology, the synchrony effect (May & Hasher, 1998) posits that optimal cognitive functioning—encompassing inhibitory control, working memory capacity, and sustained attention—occurs when the temporal demands of a task align with an individual's peak circadian period. When an evening-oriented individual is forced into an early morning testing scenario, cognitive resources are compromised, resulting in suboptimal retrieval and elevated anxiety. The TOS provides an empirical tool to test person-environment fit models within classroom and institutional schedules.

7. Validity

The Time Orientation Scale has undergone empirical validation within communication studies and educational research, demonstrating strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant correlations between TOS scores and established chronobiological instruments, such as the Horne-Östberg Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ; Horne & Östberg, 1976) and the Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM; Smith et al., 1989). When converted to comparable directional scales, the TOS shares substantial common variance with these established measures (convergent correlation coefficients consistently observed in the range of r = .68 to .78, p < .001).

Furthermore, convergent validity has been established against objective physiological and behavioral markers:

• Sleep-Wake Timing: Self-reported bedtimes and wake times systematically correlate with TOS classifications; evening-oriented individuals report statistically significant delays in sleep onset and wake times compared to morning-oriented counterparts.
• Course Enrollment Behavior: High evening scores on the TOS reliably predict student avoidance of early morning (8:00 AM) lecture sections and an elective preference for afternoon and evening class times (odds ratios typically exceeding 2.5).

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion validity has been documented through studies examining the synchrony effect on academic testing:

• Academic Test Performance: Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in university courses confirm that TOS scores interact significantly with examination timing. Morning-oriented students achieve higher standardized examination scores during morning sections than evening-oriented students, whereas evening students demonstrate superior relative performance when assessments are administered in afternoon or evening blocks.
• Classroom Affect and Apprehension: TOS scores correlate significantly with situational communication apprehension and negative classroom affect during non-optimal times of day. Evening students forced into early morning seminars display reduced voluntary oral participation and self-report elevated stress and communication anxiety.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the TOS measures diurnal chronemic preference rather than general intellectual ability, stable neuroticism, or trait communication apprehension. Correlations between TOS scores and generalized measures of trait communication apprehension (such as the PRCA-24) or standardized intelligence metrics hover near zero (typically r < .10, non-significant), indicating that diurnal orientation operates independently of fundamental cognitive capacity or generalized social anxiety.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the Time Orientation Scale indicates that it maintains high internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse participant samples, particularly within high school, collegiate, and young adult populations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In early validation samples conducted by Richmond and McCroskey, the instrument exhibited internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) regularly exceeding .80. Subsequent independent investigations across instructional communication environments have reported alpha estimates ranging between .82 and .88:

• Undergraduate Student Cohorts: Typical published alpha values average approximately α = .85, demonstrating that the 16 items consistently measure the underlying diurnal continuum.
• Subscale Reliability: When researchers decompose the scale into its constituent morning-functioning and afternoon-functioning components, both subscales retain acceptable internal consistency, with alphas generally exceeding .78 for Morning Orientation items and .76 for Afternoon/Evening Orientation items.

Test-Retest Stability

Because circadian typology is heavily constrained by biological pacemakers, genetic polymorphisms (such as variants in the PER and CLOCK genes), and stable neuroendocrine cycles, test-retest reliability for the TOS is robust over intermediate durations. In non-interventional stability trials over intervals of 4 to 8 weeks, Pearson test-retest correlation coefficients have been observed between r = .83 and .89, demonstrating that the TOS captures an enduring behavioral trait rather than fluctuating state-dependent mood.

9. Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the Time Orientation Scale using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have yielded insights into its latent multidimensionality while supporting the use of a single unidimensional composite index.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

When subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) or principal axis factoring with oblique rotation (e.g., Promax), the 16 items of the TOS generally resolve into a two-factor solution corresponding to diurnal time frames:

• Factor 1: Morning Preference and Efficacy: Encompasses items measuring morning enthusiasm, alertness, preference for morning classes, and morning test performance (e.g., Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16). Factor loadings for these items typically range from .52 to .81.
• Factor 2: Afternoon/Evening Preference and Efficacy: Encompasses items measuring afternoon course enjoyment, afternoon alertness, afternoon test performance, and late-night studying (e.g., Items 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15). Factor loadings typically range from .48 to .77.

The correlation between these two factors is moderate and inverse (generally ranging from r = -.35 to -.50), confirming that while morning preference and afternoon preference are contrasting behavioral poles, they do not operate in total mutual exclusivity (accounting for the presence of “flexible” chronotypes).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a bifactor model (a general Diurnal/Time Orientation factor alongside two group factors: Morning Orientation and Afternoon Orientation) or a correlated two-factor model yield favorable goodness-of-fit indices across educational samples:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently range between .92 and .96.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values regularly exceed .91.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically fall between .045 and .065 (with 90% confidence intervals within the acceptable boundary of < .08).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values observed below .06.

These structural findings justify Richmond and McCroskey's unified scoring algorithm, which combines the items into a single, highly interpretable index of eveningness versus morningness.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Time Orientation Scale is structured as a brief, pencil-and-paper or digital self-report inventory. Its operational parameters are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Time Orientation Scale (TOS)
• Authors: Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey (1995)
• Construct Assessed: Diurnal preference, chronemics, morningness-eveningness orientation
• Number of Items: 16 statements
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents, university students, and adult populations
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral of undecided
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Procedure:
  • Step 1: Sum the numerical responses for the following 8 items: 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16. Let this sum be Total of Step 1.
  • Step 2: Sum the numerical responses for the following 8 items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15. Let this sum be Total of Step 2.
  • Step 3: Apply the balanced scoring formula:
    
    Time Orientation Score = 48 - (Total of Step 1) + (Total of Step 2)
  • Theoretical Score Range: 16 to 80 points.
• Score Interpretation:
  • Scores > 50 (Evening Orientation): Indicates a strong evening chronotype (“owl”). Individuals experience peak cognitive, academic, and affective performance in the late afternoon or evening hours and marked deficits in early morning settings.
  • Scores < 40 (Morning Orientation): Indicates a pronounced morning chronotype (“lark”). Individuals experience optimal physiological alertness and academic efficacy during early morning periods and notable declines by the late afternoon.
  • Scores between 40 and 50 (Flexible Orientation): Indicates an intermediate chronotype. Individuals demonstrate temporal adaptability, capable of functioning adequately across both morning and afternoon schedules without severe circadian friction.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Time Orientation Scale was first published in 1995 in Virginia P. Richmond and James C. McCroskey's textbook Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (Allyn & Bacon; 3rd Edition) and subsequent editions (Richmond, McCroskey, & Cole, 2001). In accordance with Dr. James C. McCroskey's longstanding open-access scholarly philosophy, the scale was placed on his academic website hosted through West Virginia University for unrestricted scholarly, clinical, and pedagogical use.

• Test Year: 1995 (revised and republished in 2001).
• User Permissions: The TOS is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, academic research, and personal self-assessment purposes. Researchers and educators are granted permission to reproduce, digitize, and administer the instrument without written royalty payments, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is cited.
• Commercial Use: Any commercial reproduction, inclusion in fee-for-service testing platforms, or publication within for-profit software requires explicit licensing permission from the copyright holders or their estates.
• Original Repository: The instrument and its official scoring rubric remain archived at James C. McCroskey's Academic Measurement Repository.

12. References

Below are primary and contextual academic references formatted according to APA 7th edition:

• Horne, J. A., & Östberg, O. (1976). A self-assessment questionnaire to determine morningness-eveningness in human circadian rhythms. International Journal of Chronobiology, 4(2), 97–110. PubMed: 1027738
• May, C. P., & Hasher, L. (1998). Synchrony effects in inhibitory control over thought and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.363
• McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1996). Fundamentals of Human Communication: An Interpersonal Perspective. Waveland Press.
• Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1995). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
• Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Cole, J. G. (2001). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (4th ed.). Pearson Custom Publications.
• Roenneberg, T., Wirz-Justice, A., & Merrow, M. (2003). Life between clocks: Daily temporal patterns of human chronotypes. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 18(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730402239679
• Smith, C. S., Reilly, C., & Midkiff, K. (1989). Evaluation of three circadian rhythm questionnaires with suggestions for an improved measure of morningness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.728
• Wittmann, M., Dinich, J., Merrow, M., & Roenneberg, T. (2006). Social jetlag: Misalignment of biological and social time. Chronobiology International, 23(1–2), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420520500545979

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)