Over the last two centuries, researchers developed several assessments to evaluate the multidimensional construct of imagery. However, no comprehensive systematic review (SR) exists for imagery ability evaluation methods and an in-depth quality evaluation of their psychometric properties.
Methods
We performed a comprehensive systematic search in six databases in the disciplines of sport, psychology, medicine, education: SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles for selection. COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. All included assessments were evaluated for quality using criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence synthesis was summarised by using the GRADE approach.
Results
In total, 121 articles reporting 155 studies and describing 65 assessments were included. We categorised assessments based on their construct on: (1) motor imagery (n = 15), (2) mental imagery (n = 48) and (3) mental chronometry (n = 2). Methodological quality of studies was mainly doubtful or inadequate. The psychometric properties of most assessments were insufficient or indeterminate. The best rated assessments with sufficient psychometric properties were MIQ, MIQ-R, MIQ-3, and VMIQ-2 for evaluation of motor imagery ability. Regarding mental imagery evaluation, only SIAQ and VVIQ showed sufficient psychometric properties.
Conclusion
Various assessments exist to evaluate an individual’s imagery ability within different dimensions or modalities of imagery in different disciplines. However, the psychometric properties of most assessments are insufficient or indeterminate. Several assessments should be revised and further validated. Moreover, most studies were only evaluated with students. Further cross-disciplinary validation studies are needed including older populations with a larger age range. Our findings allow clinicians, coaches, teachers, and researchers to select a suitable imagery ability assessment for their setting and goals based on information about the focus and quality of the assessments.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
CFA
Confirmatory factor analysis
COSMIN
COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments
EFA
Explorative factor analysis
GRADE
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
PROM
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
SoF
Summary of Findings
Background
Imagery, defined as the representation and the accompanying experience of any sensory information without a direct external stimulus [1], or ‘seeing with the mind’s eye’, ‘hearing with the mind’s ear’ [2], is a fundamental cognitive process. For example, imagery can be helpful in decision-making or problem solving processes [3], in emotion regulation [4], for motor learning and performance [5]. In sports, a strong imagery ability in athletes is associated with more successful and better performance [6, 7]. At the same time, several psychological disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, or social phobia, are associated with dysfunctions in imagery ability [8, 9]. In this context, the application of different imagery techniques showed positive effects in the treatment of psychological disorders [8], for pain treatment (guided imagery) [10], and to enhance motor rehabilitation in patients with neurological and orthopaedic disorders [11‐18] as well as to enhance psychomotor skills or various aspects of performance in athletes (motor imagery) [19]. The benefits of imagery depend on the individual capability to imagine [20] and it is deemed essential to assess imagery abilities prior to interventions [21].
Imagery is a multidimensional construct [22] with wide individual differences regarding preference of imagery (verbal and visual style), imagery control or imagery vividness [23, 24]. The pioneering work from Betts in 1909 [25] already described and measured vividness of imagery in seven sensory modalities: visual, auditory, cutaneous, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory and organic (e.g. feeling or emotion). Further research focused on additional dimensions of imagery clarity [26, 27], controllability [28], the ease and accuracy with which an image can be manipulated mentally [29, 30] and imagery perspective [7, 31]. Moreover, studies in cognitive and neuroscience [32, 33] assert that imagery is not unitary, and distinguished two types: spatial imagery and object imagery [34]. Object imagery is defined as representations of the visual appearances of objects or scenes in terms of their precise form, size, shape and colour, whereas spatial imagery refers to rather abstract representations of the spatial relations among objects, parts of objects, locations of objects in space, movements of objects, object parts and other complex spatial transformations [34, 35].
Anzeige
Watt [36] and Cumming et al. [37] proposed a hierarchical model to explain the imagery process and components of imagery ability in sports. However, types of imagery are missing in their model. Now, we have revised this model and expanded it with the object and spatial type of imagery (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Proposed model for multidimensional and multimodal structure of imagery ability
×
The measurement of this multidimensional and multimodal construct has proven to be complex [38] and each type of assessments evaluates a different aspect of imagery ability [39]. Over the past century, various assessments have been developed to evaluate an individual’s imagery ability considering different dimensions, sensory modalities, different perspectives, image manipulation, or the temporal coupling between real and imagined movements [7, 26, 27, 34, 40‐44]. Most of those assessments are self-reported questionnaires (subjective assessments) and focus on object imagery. In contrast, the objective assessments focus more on spatial imagery [39]. However, the literature lacks a systematic literature review of imagery evaluation methods and the evaluation of their measurement properties. Two previous narrative [45, 46] and one systematic [47] reviews mainly focused on assessments of a single imagery technique: motor imagery. In addition, these reviews only included assessments of motor imagery in the field of neurology or sports. Further, only two reviews reported the assessments’ psychometric properties [45, 47]). White et al. [48] evaluated self-report assessments of imagery, but all other assessments, developed or modified after that are missing in his review.
The aim of the present extensive and comprehensive systematic literature review was therefore to evaluate all available imagery ability assessments across four disciplines, regardless of the imagery technique used to answer the question: What imagery ability assessments exist in the fields of sports, psychology, medicine, and education, and what are their psychometric properties? For the interested clinician, coach, teacher, and researcher, our review provides (1) a systematic classification of the imagery ability assessments based on its construct, (2) a summary of the current level of evidence for the psychometric properties of the selected imagery ability assessments, and (3) all specific characteristics of the imagery ability assessment: version, subscales, scoring, equipment needed, etc.
In order to provide a comprehensive overview, we included all assessments that cover any aspect of imagery process and ability to vividly generate, transform, inspect, and maintain a mental image. Moreover, we included also assessments, which evaluated the frequency of use of imagery, the preference to think in words or images, and the temporal coupling of mental and physical practice.
Anzeige
This systematic review provides interested readers with a quick overview to select an appropriate imagery ability assessment for their current setting and goals based on information provided regarding the focus and quality of the imagery ability assessments.
Methods
Study design and registration
The protocol for this review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registration number CRD42017077004) and published [49]. The present systematic review was written and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, the PRISMA checklist, and the PRISMA abstract checklist [50, 51]. Additionally, we followed the recommendations for systematic reviews on measurement properties [52, 53].
Search strategy
We searched in four fields of interest: sports, psychology, medicine, and education. One author (ZS) and a librarian from the medical library of the University of Zurich independently performed the electronic search between September and October, 2017, in SPORTDiscus (1892 to current date of search), PsycINFO (1887 to current date of search), Cochrane Library (current issue), Scopus (1996 to current date of search), Web of Science (1900 to current date of search) and ERIC (1966 to current date of search). The search strategy included (1) construct: motor imagery, mental imagery, mental rehearsal, movement imagery, mental practice, mental training; (2) instrument: measure, questionnaire, scale, assessment; and (3) the filter for measurement properties by Terwee et al. [54] adapted for each database (Additional file 1: AF_1_Example search strategy_ Web of Science). An update of the search in all databases was performed in January 2021.
Selection criteria
There was no limitation on a specific population (e.g. healthy individuals, adults, children, and patients). Additionally, there was no restriction on age, gender, or health status. We included all original articles published in English and German, which either developed mental or motor imagery assessments or validated their psychometric properties.
Articles were excluded if the authors only used neurophysiological methods to evaluate imagery ability (e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, or brain-computer interface technology).
Selection process
Figure 2 provides an overview of all databases and identified references. All citations were imported into the reference management software package EndNote (version X7; Thomson Reuters, New York, USA). De-duplication was performed by the librarian, who performed the original search. To examine the agreement and disagreement regarding studies’ eligibility between the two reviewers (ZS and CSA) in the preselection phase, 10% of all articles were randomly selected and screened by both reviewers. After preselection, titles, abstracts, and full texts from all identified articles were independently screened. Full texts were ordered if no decision could be made based on the available information. If no full text was available, the corresponding authors of the articles were contacted to obtain the missing papers. Disagreement of selected full texts was discussed by both reviewers, and if both reviewers were not able to agree on a decision a third reviewer would have been consulted to decide on in- or exclusion (which was not the case in this review). The Kappa statistic was calculated and interpreted in accordance with Landis and Koch’s benchmarks for assessing the inter-reviewer agreement: poor (0), slight (0.0 to 0.20), fair (0.21 to 0.40), moderate (0.41 to 0.60), substantial (0.61 to 0.80), and almost perfect (0.81 to 1.0) [55]. The percentage agreement between the raters was also calculated [56].
Fig. 2
The literature search and study selection process. n = number of references. Numbers in brackets indicate references retrieved from the search in January 2021
×
Data extraction
Four researchers (ZS, SG, LM, and VZ) performed the data extraction into Microsoft Excel (Version 14.0, 2010, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, California, USA). ZS checked all data for accuracy. The following data were extracted: (1) characteristics of included articles: first author, year of publication, country of origin, study design, and number and main characteristics of participants (e.g. age, gender, and target population); (2) general characteristics of the assessment instrument: name, language, version, construct of evaluation, number of items, subscales, scoring, assessment format, time and equipment needed, examiner qualifications, and costs; and (3) data on the psychometric properties of the assessments: validity, reliability, and responsiveness.
Studies’ methodological quality: risk of bias rating
Two researches (ZS and CSA) carried out the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) evaluation independently. One study was evaluated by ZS and FB, because CSA was the first author. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was applied to assess the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties [57]. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist contains ten boxes with standards for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) development, and for nine measurement properties: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity and responsiveness. A 4-point rating system as ‘very good’, ‘adequate’, ‘doubtful’ and ‘inadequate’ was used for study evaluation (Additional file 2: AF_2_COSMIN_RoB_checklist). The overall rating of quality of each study was determined according to the lowest rating of any standard in the box (‘the worst score counts’ principle) [58].
Anzeige
Quality assessment of included instruments and GRADE approach
Based on the quality criteria for measurement properties proposed by Terwee et al. [59] and updated by Prinsen et al. [60] (Table 1), the measurement properties reported in the included studies were rated as positive, negative, or indeterminate. However, no criteria are defined to assess the quality of structural validity when authors only performed an explorative factor analysis (EFA). In this case, we followed the recommendation of de Vet et al. [52], Izquierdo et al. [61] and Watkins [62] and considered (1) number of extracted factors; (2) factor loading, that should be > 0.40; (3) items with loading ≥ 0.30 on at least two factors should be candidates for deletion; (4) correlation between factors and (5) the variance explained by the factors which should be > 50%. Guidelines for judging psychometric properties of imagery instruments by McKelvie [63] were also taken into account if there were any uncertainties.
Table 1
Updated criteria for good measurement properties by Prinsen et al. [60]
Measurement property
Rating
Criteria
Structural validity
+
CTT
CFA: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06 OR SRMR < 0.08a
IRT/Rasch
No violation of unidimensionalityb: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06
OR SRMR < 0.08
AND
No violation of local independence: residual correlations among the items after controlling for the dominant factor < 0.20 OR Q3’s < 0.37
AND
No violation of monotonicity: adequate looking graphs OR item scalability > 0.30
AND
Adequate model fit
IRT: χ2 > 0.001
Rasch: infit and outfit mean squares ≥ 0.5 and ≤ 1.5 OR Z-standardised values > -2 and < 2
?
CTT: not all information for ‘+’ reported
IRT/Rasch: model fit not reported
−
Criteria for ‘+’ not met
Internal consistency
+
At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd
AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) ≥ 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee
?
Criteria for “At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd” not met
−
At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) < 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee
Reliability
+
ICC or weighted Kappa ≥ 0.70
?
ICC or weighted Kappa not reported
−
ICC or weighted Kappa < 0.70
Measurement error
+
SDC or LoA < MICd
?
MIC not defined
−
SDC or LoA > MICd
Hypotheses testing for construct validity
+
The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf
?
No hypothesis defined (by the review team)
−
The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf
Cross-cultural validity\measurement invariance
+
No important differences found between group factors (such as age, gender, language) in multiple group factor analysis OR no important DIF for group factors (McFadden’s R2 < 0.02)
?
No multiple group factor analysis OR DIF analysis performed
−
Important differences between group factors OR DIF was found
Criterion validity
+
Correlation with gold standard ≥ 0.70 OR AUC ≥ 0.70
?
Not all information for ‘+’ reported
−
Correlation with gold standard < 0.70 OR AUC < 0.70
Responsiveness
+
The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC ≥ 0.70
?
No hypothesis defined (by the review team)
−
The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC < 0.70
AUC Area under the curve, CFA Confirmatory factor analysis, CFI Comparative fit index, CTT Classical test theory, DIF Differential item functioning, ICC Intraclass correlation coefficient, IRT Item response theory, LoA Limits of agreement, MIC Minimal important change, RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation, SDC Smallest detectable change, SRMR Standardised root mean residuals, TLI Tucker–Lewis index
aTo rate the quality of the summary score, the factor structures should be equal across studies
bUnidimensionality refers to a factor analysis per subscale, while structural validity refers to a factor analysis of a (multidimensional) Patient-Reported Outcome Measure
cAs defined by grading the evidence according to the GRADE approach
dThis evidence may come from different studies
eThe criteria ‘Cronbach alpha < 0.95’ was deleted, as this is relevant in the development phase of a PROM and not when evaluating an existing PROM
fThe results of all studies should be taken together and it should then be decided if 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses
Regarding the testing for construct validity, some hypotheses about expected differences between instruments were formulated by the reviewer team:
1.
Strong correlation (at least 0.50) was expected if a related construct was measured with the comparator instrument.
2.
Correlation between different modalities or dimensions of imagery, e.g. between vividness and auditory imagery, should be very low (< 0.30).
3.
Correlation between subjective and objective assessments of imagery ability should be very low (< 0.30).
4.
Regarding known-group validity based on previous evidence, no any sex differences regarding imagery ability were expected.
Just recently, a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs was introduced [53]. Four of the five GRADE factors have been adopted for evaluating measurement properties in systematic reviews of PROMs: risk of bias (e.g. the methodological quality of the studies), inconsistency (e.g. unexplained inconsistency of results across studies), imprecision (e.g. total sample size of the available studies) and indirectness (e.g. evidence from different populations than the population of interest in the review). The GRADE approach was applied if studies evaluated the same instrument regarding language and version and the same population. Studies reporting psychometric properties of assessments tested with athletes and students were not pooled. Using the modified GRADE approach, the quality of the evidence is graded as high, moderate, low or very low (Table 2) [53, 64].
Table 2
Modified GRADE
Quality of evidence
Lower if
High
Risk of bias
Moderate
− 1 Serious
Low
− 2 Very serious
Very low
− 3 Extremely serious
Inconsistency
− 1 Serious
− 2 Very serious
Imprecision
− 1 total n = 50–100
− 2 total n < 50
Indirectness
− 1 Serious
− 2 Very serious
The starting point is the assumption that the evidence is of high quality. The quality of evidence is subsequently downgraded with one or two levels for each factor (e.g. risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness) to moderate, low or very low when there is risk of bias (low study quality), (unexplained) inconsistency in results, or indirect results. N sample size
Results
In total, 3922 references were retrieved in October, 2017. The search update in January 2021 resulted in 1616 additional references. We identified 78 additional references through reference list screening. The kappa statistic after screening of titles and abstracts was 0.83 (almost perfect), and the percentage agreement between the raters was 98%. After selecting the full texts, the kappa was 0.76 (substantial) and 85% percentage agreement was established. All distinguish between reviews have been discussed and the reviews agree on a decision.
Anzeige
Finally, 121 articles reporting 155 studies and describing 65 assessments from four disciplines were included in the present review. We categorised assessments based on their construct:
1.
Motor imagery = movement imagery without engaging in its physical execution
2.
Mental imagery in four sub-categories:
(a)
General mental imagery in any sensorial modality,
(b)
Spatial imagery or mental rotation = ability to rotate or manipulate mental images),
(c)
Distinguish between use of different cognitive style (e.g. verbal versus visual), and
(d)
Use of mental imagery (frequency of use in daily life).
3.
Mental chronometry as temporal coupling between real and imagined movements.
Most studies were carried out in the fields of psychology and sport. We identified many assessments, which have been evaluated only with psychology students. Therefore, it was unclear whether those assessments should accordingly only be applied in the field of psychology. We defined such assessments as ‘not discipline specific’. Moreover, most studies evaluated different psychometric properties and according to COSMIN, each evaluation of a measurement property was separately assessed on its methodological quality. The overall rating of the quality of each study should be determined by taking the lowest rating of any standard in the box (e.g. ‘the worst score counts’ principle) [58]. Furthermore, it was difficult to define a reasonable ‘gold standard’ for assessing criterion validity. If the authors correlated the score of a new instrument with an already established, widely used and well-known instrument, we considered the comparison as test for construct validity. Only if a shortened version was compared with the original version, we considered the comparison as test for criterion validity (proposed by COSMIN [64]).
Motor imagery assessments
In total, 33 out of the 121 articles focused on 15 motor imagery assessments: Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire (FPIQ), Imaprax, Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ-20) and short version KVIQ-10, Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ), Revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R), Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised second version (MIQ-RS), Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3), Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children (MIQ-C), Test of Ability in Movement Imagery (TAMI), Test of Ability in Movement Imagery with Hands (TAMI-H), Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ), Vividness of Haptic Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VHMIQ), Revised Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2 (VMIQ-2) and the Wheelchair Imagery Ability Questionnaire (WIAQ). The characteristics of the included studies, their ‘risk of bias assessment/rating’, and their psychometric properties are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The general characteristics of included instruments are presented in the Additional file 3: Table 1S.
Table 3
Motor imagery assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Reliability
Doubtful sample size and no information if patients were “stable”.
Healthyb
23
51.0
11♀, 12♂
Internal consistency
Kinaesthetic
T1 α=0.97; T2 α=0.98 both groups
Visual
T1 α=0.95a/ α=0.98b; T2 α=0.95a/ 0.98b
Doubtful
?
Sample size calculation mentioned based on date from healthy participants, but may be inadequate for this analysis. Lack of evidence for sufficient structural velidity.
MIQ-C was developed through adaptions of the MIQ-3. The MIQ-C measures as MIQ-3 external visual, internal visual and kinaesthetic imagery. Cognitive interviews were carried out with children. The interviews were transcribed, reviewed and systematically coded. 12-item MIQ-C was further evaluated.
Madan & Singhal reported in their article the results of two separate studies. #, Small sample size. ICC no calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding.
Vividness of Haptic Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VHMIQ)
All participants (6 athletes and 3 experts) were transcribed verbatim and reviewed and analysed for themes and ideas. 24-item WIAQ was generated by the elite athletes and experts.
Adequate
NA
Results of several studies in this article reported. 20171=study 1.
Focus group performed, appropriate data collection method used, data analysis by two authors independently carried out.
Experts
3
NR
NR
Legend: The superscript numbers were used to distinguish the results per group
Disciplines in which field the tool was evaluated: Edu Education, Med Medicine, Psy Psychology, n.d.s. not discipline-specific healthy participants/students
Country abbreviations: AT Austria, BR Brazil, CA Canada, CH Switzerland, ES Spain, FR France, JO Jordan, IR Iran, JP Japan, IL Israel, SI Slovenia, TR Turkey, NZ New Zealand, PL Poland, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
Language of the tool: E English, F French, G German, P Portuguese, J Japanese, PO Polish, SL Slovenian, HE Hebrew, Tu Turkish, S Spanish, AR Arabic
Cronbach’s alpha, AVE average variance extracted, CI confidence interval, corr. correlation, CR composite reliability, COSMIN Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist, external external perspective, ICC interclass correlation coefficient, internal internal perspective, kinaesthetic kinaesthetic subscale, KVIQ-20 original Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire, KVIQ-10 short version of the KVIQ, LL lower limb, MDC minimal detectable change, MS Multiple Sclerosis, N Sample size, NA Not applicable, NR Not reported, PD Parkinson disease, SEM standard error of measurement, visual visual subscale
# methods could be doubtful, students received a course credits for participation. It could be interpreted that there was a certain dependency/necessity to participate, but it was not taken into account by the COSMIN evaluation
Quality Criteria: ‘+’ = sufficient, ‘−’ = insufficient, ‘?’ = indeterminate, *See Table 1 and Legend for explanation of quality criteria
Table 4
Motor imagery assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Validity
Tool
Disciplines
Study
Country
Language
Study population
Validity
COSMIN
Quality criteria
Comments
Participants
N
Age mean (years)
Sex
Design
Results
Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ)
PCA and oblique rotation extracted two factors for both versions.
Correlation between the two factors for both versions was 0.46. Factor loadings for KVIQ-20 ranged from 0.70 to 0.88 (visual) and 0.68 to 0.80 (kinaesthetic); for KVIQ-10 ranged from 0.73 to 0.86 (visual) and 0.68 to 0.80 (kinaesthetic). Total variance explained by 63.4% for KVIQ-20 and 67.7% for KVIQ-10
Adequate
+
EFA applied, factors loading >0.40, variance explained less than 50%, corr. among factors reported.
Only patients, who chose the internal perspective, were analysed.
Low corr. with instruments measuring the same construct.
73
62.8
28♀, 45♂
Construct validity- structural validity
KVIQ-G-20
PCA and promax rotation identified bifactorial structure of the KVIQ-G-20. Factor loadings for kinaesthetic subscale 0.79–0.93 and 0.68–0.91 for visual. Total variance of both factors explained by 69.7%
Inadequate
?
EFA applied, factors loading >0.40, variance explained less than 50%, corr. among factors reported but very low sample size.
Common factor analysis using maximum likelihood and oblique rotation confirmed extracted two factors. Factor loadings for visual ranged from 0.58 to 0.82 and for kinaesthetic 0.46 to 0.81. Total variance explained by 47.8%.
adequate
?
Explained variance <50%, but all factors loaded >0.40. Corr. among factors not reported.
#, Insufficient information on measurement properties of the comparator measures. The results in accordance with hypothesis: sign. corr. among subjective measures of mental imagery.
No corr. between subjective and objective measures of mental imagery ability providing the evidence for the multidimensional nature of imagery.
MTMM approach to CFA and two models CT and CTCU were tested. Factor loadings for both models ranged from 0.70- 0.84. Corr. between the two factors (kinaesthetic and visual) for the CT was 0.25 and for the CTCU 0.23. CTCU model provided a significantly better fit to the data compared with the CT model. χ2=25.99, df=15, CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, SRMR=0.03, RMSEA=0.05. The kinaesthetic and visual imagery are separate but related constructs.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
Movement Imagery Questionnaire- Revised second version (MIQ-RS)
PCA and varimax rotation extracted two factors: kinaesthetic and visual. Communalities ranged from 0.72 to 0.95 in the stroke and 0.72 to 0.96 in the healthy group. Corr. between the two factors (kinaesthetic and visual) in the stroke was 0.61 and in the healthy 0.69. Total variance in the stroke group was explained by 83.4% and in the healthy group by 88.6%.
Inadequate
?
All criteria for EFA fulfilled but very low sample size.
Healthyb
23
51
11♀, 12♂
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. MIQ-RS and KVIQ-10
kinaesthetic r=0.84a/ r=0.86b
visual r=0.62a/ 0.77b
Very good
+
Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct.
CFA confirmed the bifactorial (kinaesthetic and visual) structure of MIQ-RS French version. Corr. between items were strong, for the kinesthetic 0.74–0.85 and for visual 0.65–0.79. Total variance explained by 55–73% for kinesthetic and 42–62% for visual. χ2//df=2.23, CFI=0.93, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.09.
Very good
−
Accepted model fit: CFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
MTMM approach to CFA and two models CT and CTCU were tested. Factor loadings for the CT model ranged from 0.70 to 0.81 and for the CTCU model ranged from 0.64 to 0.81. Corr. between the factors (external, internal and kinesthetic) for the CT was 0.33 to 0.68 and for the CTCU 0.32 to 0.60. The three-factor CTCU model provided the best fit to the data compared with the CT model: χ2=75.12, df=39, CFI=0.98, TLI=0.97, SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.05. The corr. between kinaesthetic and internal was strong (r = 0.60)
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI or TLI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06
The MIQ-3 factor structure was not invariant across gender.
Criterion validity- concurrent validity
Corr. MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2
r=0.68 external
r=0.63 internal
r=0.71 kinaesthetic
Very good
-
Corr. between MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2 only for kinaesthetic just above 0.70.
CFA with maximum likehood estimation confirmed the three-factor (external, internal and kinaesthetic) structure. χ2=76.98, df=51, CFI=0.93, GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.83, RMR=0.25, RMSEA=0.04
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, GFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
CFA and the three-factor structures previously proposed in the literature were tested using the LISREL structural equation-modelling programme developed. χ2 =115.60, df =51, P=0.000). CFI=0.97, GFI=0.91, AGFI=0.86, RMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.08, SRMR=0.05 Factor loadings 0.54–0.76.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI or GFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
EFA identified three factors: external, internal and kinaesthetic. Explained variance by factor 1=48.63%, factor 2=14.56%, factor 3=17.71%. Factor loadings 0.74–0.92. CFA with maximum likelihood was performed: χ2=120.75, df=54, CFI=0.91, RMSR=0.07 and 0.08, RMSEA=0.09.
Very good
−
Accepted model fit: CFI or GFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
CFA and the three-factor model showed good fit: RMSEA=0.07, NFI=0.90, RFI=0.91, CFI=0.90. The absolute fit measures with χ2 of p=0.001 indicating an inadequate model.
Doubtful
-
Accepted model fit: CFI or GFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Rotation method by CFA not described.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. MIQ-3 and MIQ-R
Total score Spearmen’s r=0.89
External and visual r=0.72
Internal and visual r=0.70
Kinaesthetic scales r=0.89
Inadequate
+
No information on the measurement properties of the comparator instrument. Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct.
Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children (MIQ-C)
MTMM approach to CFA and four models were tested. Factor loadings for the CT model ranged from 0.51 to 0.67 and for the CTCU model ranged from 0.51 to 0.69.
Corr. between the factors (external, internal and kinaesthetic) for the CT was 0.42 to 0.65 and for the CTCU 0.39 to 0.63. The three-factor CTCU model provided the best fit to the data compared with the CT model: χ2=75.33, df=39, CFI=0.93, TLI=0.89, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.07.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI or TLI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Corr. TAMIw and VVIQ: r=0.32 TAMIw does not correlate with VMIQ-2 external and kinaesthetic subscales, with the MRT, and with the FPIQ action, object and kinaesthetic subscales
Inadequate
?
#, No hypothesis defined. No information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
Test of Ability in Movement Imagery with Hands (TAMI-H)
Author mentioned that new Tool-TAMI-H (with two imagery type: Functionally-involved Movement (FM) and Isolated Movement (IM)) was developed but no information reported about development.
Measurement properties of the comparator instrument not mentioned.
Vividness of Haptic Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VHMIQ)
Pearson r=0.56 for women, r=0.66 for men 0.66 and r=0.60 for all participants.
Inadequate
?
Strong corr. was expected. Not reported if different corr. between VHMIQ and internal VMIQ or VHMIQ and external VMIQ was found.
No information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Known-groups validity
Mixes-model analysis of variance with the factor sex and type of image: neither sex (F: 2.12 p>0.05) or type of image (F: 3.24, p>0.05) had a sig. effect on reported vividness of imagery.
Doubtful
?
Results are in accordance with the hypothesis that no sex difference should be expected but no adequate description provided of important characteristics of the subgroups.
Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ)
Spearman rank for group b r=0.75, group c r=0.45 and group d r=0.65
Inadequate
?
Small sample size in group b, c and d.
Corr. ranged from low to strong among different groups. But group differences not reported. Insufficient information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
The three-factor CTCU analysis provided the best fit to the data: χ2=840.65, df=555, CFI=0.98, NNFI=0.97, SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.04. Factor loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.78. Corr. between the factors: internal and external r=0.39, internal and kinaesthetic r=0.63, external and kinaesthetic r=0.41
Very good
+
Roberts et al. reported in their article the results of three separate studies.
The three-factor CTCU further provided the best fit to the data: χ2=1242.76, df=555, CFI=0.98, NNFI=0.97, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.06. Factor loadings ranged from 0.64 to 0.82. Corr. between the factors: internal and external r=0.51, internal and kinaesthetic r=0.62, external and kinaesthetic r=0.43
No information about comparator or how concurrent validity was calculated.
Only briefly mention in the text.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing/
Known-groups validity
There were gender differences: female demonstrated more clear and vivid external imagery (p<0.001) and kinaesthetic (p<0.001) than male. For internal imagery no sign. differences (p=0.339) were found.
Inadequate
?
No adequate description provided of important characteristics of the subgroups for understanding of these results. No difference was expected.
MTMM and MT approach to CFA and three models were tested. The three-factor MTMM model provided the best fit to the data: χ2/df=1.63, CFI=0.92, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.05.
Factor loadings for external 0.57–0.75, for internal 0.56–0.73, for kinaesthetic 0.60–0.74.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI or TLI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Not all criteria met for positive rating of this measurement property.
CFA using maximum likelihood was performed. The three-factor 15-item model was tested using the three Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling. The interfactor correlations between the three imagery factors were as follows; external with internal r=0.71 (0.59, 0.80), external with kinaesthetic r=0.48 (0.30, 0.63), and internal with kinaesthetic r=0.63 (0.49, 0.74).
Doubtful
?
Sample size was adequate.
20172= study 2.
The use of BSEM analysis is becoming accepted as an innovative method to analyse a structural validity. However, this method was not proposed by COSMIN and therefore our rating is doubtful and indeterminate for this measures.
Corr. WIAQ and TOPS-2 (two scales, practice and competition)
external and practice r=0.23, external and competition r=0.27
kinaesthetic and practice r=0.21, kinaesthetic and competition r=0.27
No sig. corr. between internal and TOPS-2
Doubtful
+
20173= study 3.
No information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument. 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses.
Legend: The superscript numbers were used to distinguish the results per group
Disciplines in which field the tool was evaluated: Edu education, Med medicine, Psy psychology, n.d.s. not discipline-specific; healthy participants/students
Country abbreviations: AT Austria, CA Canada, CH Switzerland, ES Spain, FR France, JO Jordan, IR Iran, JP Japan, SI Slovenia, TR Turkey, NZ New Zealand, PL Poland, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
Language of the tool: E English, F French, G German, P Portuguese, J Japanese, PO Polish, SL Slovenian, Tu Turkish, S Spanish, AR Arabic
AGFI adjusted goodness of fit index, BSEM Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling, CI confidence interval, corr. correlation, CT correlated trial, CFA confirmatory factor analysis, CFI Comparative fit index, CTCU correlated trial-correlated uniqueness, COSMIN Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist, df degrees of freedom, EFA exploratory factor analysis, external external perspective subscale, FOLO Functions of Observational Learning Questionnaire, FPIQ Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire, GFI goodness of fit index, GTVIC Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control, internal internal perspective subscale, kinaesthetic kinaesthetic subscale, KVIQ-20 original Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire, KVIQ-10 short version of the KVIQ, MS multiple sclerosis, LISREL Linear Structural RELations, MT Multi-Trait, MRT Mental Rotation Test, MTMM Multitrait-multimethod, N sample size, NR not reported, NNFI non-normed fit index, PCA principal component analysis, PD Parkinson disease, RFI Relative Fit Index, RMR the root mean square residual, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, sign. significant, SIAQ Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire, SRMR standardised root mean square residual, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, TAMI Test of Ability in Movement Imagery, TAMI-H Test of Ability in Movement Imagery with Hands, TAMIw* TAMI-weighted - new scoring method (More difficult questions were more weighted than relatively easier questions), TOPS-2 Test of Performance Strategies-2, visual visual subscale, VVIQ Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, χ2 chi-square;
# methods could be doubtful, students received a course credits for participation. It could be interpreted that there was a certain dependency/necessity to participate, but it was not taken into account by the COSMIN evaluation
Quality Criteria: ‘+’ =sufficient, ‘−’=insufficient, ‘?’=indeterminate. *See Table 1 Legend for explanation of quality criteria
For criteria of an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) see de Vet et al. 2011 [52], Izquierdo et al. 2014 [61] and Watkins 2018 [62]
Motor imagery assessments: validity
Risk of bias rating
In total, 30 out of the 33 motor imagery articles reported structural, criterion or construct validity. Only ten studies [6, 43, 73, 74, 77‐80, 83, 89] were rated as very good or adequate and 12 studies [27, 67‐69, 75, 76, 82, 84, 85, 88, 92, 93] were rated as inadequate regarding their methodological quality. The ‘risk of bias assessment/rating’ could not be applied to the study by Hall et al. [72] due to insufficient reporting on statistical methods that were performed.
Measurement properties
There is high evidence for sufficient structural validity regarding the MIQ-R, MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2 assessments. The MIQ-C showed also sufficient structural validity but with moderate evidence (only one study of very good methodological quality). Construct validity of the MIQ and WIAQ was sufficient, but with low evidence (one study per assessment with doubtful quality). The FPIQ and Imaprax were not evaluated for validity. Further, the structural and construct validity of the KVIQ (original and short versions) for different language versions ranged from insufficient to sufficient between studies. These psychometric properties were evaluated with different populations (e.g. healthy individuals, patients after a stroke, Parkinson’s disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), or patients with orthopaedic problems). However, only one study per subgroup was identified, which meant that pooling the data was not feasible. Furthermore, the construct validity of the KVIQ was sufficient in two studies (with PD or with MS patients), but both studies had a very small sample size (N < 15) and were therefore downgraded for imprecision. Moreover, structural and construct validity of the MIQ-RS, TAMI, TAMI-H and VMIQ reported in several studies were rated as indeterminate.
Anzeige
Motor imagery assessments: Reliability
Risk of bias rating
In total, 29 out of the 33 motor imagery articles reported development, internal consistency or test-retest reliability. Nine studies [7, 31, 73, 79‐82, 85, 90] were rated as very good or adequate regarding their methodological quality. A total of 15 studies [27, 43, 67, 71, 72, 74‐76, 78, 83, 84, 86‐89] showed doubtful methodological quality and five studies [66, 68‐70, 77] were rated as inadequate.
Measurement properties
The test-retest reliability of several assessments was insufficient or indeterminate due to a lack of details reported in the studies, e.g. how reliability was calculated. For example, authors of several studies did not calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and stated that a ‘reliability coefficient’ or ‘reliabilities’ were calculated without specific description on the types of coefficients that were calculated (e.g. ICC, Pearson or Spearman correlations). In most cases, internal consistency was insufficient or indeterminate due to low evidence for sufficient structural validity. Only the MIQ-R, MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2 revealed a very clear sufficient internal consistency with a high evidence (multiple studies of at least adequate methodological quality) which corresponds to a sufficient structural validity. The KVIQ showed sufficient test-retest reliability but with low evidence. However, the results were summarised only for patients after a stroke.
Only two studies [76, 83] reported a sample size calculation. For the MIQ, MIQ-R, MIQ-3, VMIQ, VMIQ-2, KVIQ, and TAMI, the results were qualitatively summarised and reported in the Summary of Findings (SoF) Table (Additional file 4: Table 2S).
Mental imagery assessments
In total, 90 out of 121 articles reported mental imagery assessments. Based on their construct, we divided the assessments into three subgroups:
(1)
General mental imagery ability assessments (n = 24): Auditory Imagery Scale (AIS), Auditory Imagery Questionnaire (AIQ), Bucknell Auditory Imagery Scale (BAIS), Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (150 items, QMI), Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (shorted 35 items, SQMI), Clarity of Auditory Imagery Scale (CAIS), Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control (TVIC), Imaging Ability Questionnaire (IAQ), Imagery Questionnaire by Lane, Kids Imaging Ability Questionnaire (KIAQ), Mental Imagery Scale (MIS), Plymouth sensory imagery Questionnaire (Psi-Q), Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM), Revised Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM-R), Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire (SIAQ), Survey of mental imagery, Visual Elaboration Scale (VES), Vividness of Olfactory Imagery Questionnaire (VOIQ), Vividness of Object and Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (VOSI), Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), Revised version Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ-2), Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire- Revised version (VVIQ-RV), Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire-Modified (VVIQ-M), Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ).
(2)
Assessments to evaluate ability to rotate or manipulate mental images- mental rotation (n = 12): Card Rotation Test, Cube-cutting Task (CCT), German Test of the Controllability of Motor Imagery (TKBV), Hand laterality task, Judgement test of foot and trunk laterality, Map Rotation Ability Test (MRAT), Mental Paper Folding (MPF), Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects, Measure of the Ability to Form Spatial Mental Imagery (MASMI), Measure of the Ability to Rotate Mental Images (MARMI), Shoulder specific left right judgement task (LRJT), Spatial Orientation Skills Test (SOST).
(3)
Assessments of mental imagery to distinguish between the use of different cognitive styles (n = 7): Object-Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (OSIQ), Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSVIQ), Paivio’s Individual Differences Questionnaire (3 IDQ versions with 86 items, 72 items and 34 items), Sussex Cognitive Styles Questionnaire (SCSQ), Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ).
(4)
Assessments to evaluate use of imagery (n = 5): Children’s Active Play Imagery Questionnaire (CAPIQ), Exercise Imagery Questionnaire - Aerobic Version (EIQ-AV), Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ), Sport Imagery Questionnaire for Children (SIQ-C), Spontaneus Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS).
Tables 5 and 6 present the characteristics of included studies, the ‘risk of bias assessment/rating’ and the psychometric properties. The general characteristics of included instruments as well as SoF are presented in Additional files 5 and 6: Tables 3S and 4S.
Table 5
Mental imagery assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Reliability
Tool
Disciplines
Study
Country
Language
Study population
Reliability
COSMIN
Quality criteria
Comments
Participants
N
Age mean (years)
Sex
Design
Results
a. General mental imagery in any sensorial modality
Betts described 4 experiments with 143 participants. 1 experiment (n=46) was development of QUMI. 7 sensory modalities were defined: visual, auditory, cutaneous, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory, organic with total 150 items, and rating scale 1-7.
In another experiments the degree of clearness and vividness of the image, the correlation of the various type of image with each other and the correlation of imagery ability with scholarly was studied with students and teachers.
NA
NA
Development of QMI but no psychometric properties reported. No information provided about the target population for which the assessment was developed.
Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (shorted version 35-item, SQMI)
Study aim was to assess each item of the GTVIC for skewness through z distribution transformations. If provided scales were normal, analyses of construct validity and internal reliability were performed. All attempts to normalise the data failed and no further analysis was performed.
NA
NA
Study conclusion: measure should not be used as a continuous variable, because GTVIC was not designed as an interval scale.
IAQ contained 54 items, two subscales: an absorption and an image subscale. Scoring 0–4. Item variance carried out with 200 participants. 4 items were eliminated. Item sensitivity tested with 80 (mean age 40.5) participants. 18 items were eliminated. 32 (21 absorption and 11 image) items remained in the final version.
Inadequate
NA
Patients were not asked regarding comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
72. Items. Five imagery dimensions (vividness, control, ease, speed, duration) in any of six sensorial modalities: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile. Scoring: each item out of 100.
Doubtful
NA
Several studies in this article reported. Sample size doubtful. Insufficient *Information about data recording (e.g. interviews recorded and transcribed verbatim) and data analysis.
35 items designed to asses five types of imagery content: CS= cognitive specific, CG= cognitive general, MS= motivational specific, MG-A= motivational general arousal, MG-M= motivational general mastery. After factor analysis 20-item version was used in further development.
Doubtful
NA
Data collection and analyses not clearly described, e.g. how they designed 35-item version.
Only form A used. Cronbach’s alpha calculated for each subscale.
Unclear development process on French and new dimension ‘formation’. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity.
Pilot version: 9 items for object imagery vividness and 9 items for spatial imagery vividness. Rating scale 1–5. Factor analysis confirmed two factors: object and spatial imagery. Sign. and positive corr. found between VOSI pilot and OSIQ.
A positive corr. reported for age and response time, but negative corr. for age and accuracy and between gender and response time. Structural validity not evaluated.
EIQ-AV evaluated use of exercise imagery with 23 items. Three scales: Appearance, Energy, and Technique. Scoring: 9-point scale.
doubtful
NA
Results from 3 studies reported in this article.
Data collection with another sample of 144 (Phase 1) athletes provided basis for item development. However, insufficient data reported how data were analysed and if participants were asked about comprehensibility and comprehensiveness.
Cronbach’s alpha calculated for three factors for both samples ranged from 0.81 to 0.90.
Doubtful
?
Unclear whether Cronbach’s alpha for each factor separately calculated for the two samples.
Students exercisersb
171
22.4
3♀,168♂
Students exercisersa
144
22.0
16♀,128♂
Internal consistency
Calculated Cronbach’s alphas for the 3 factors for both samples ranged from 0.71 to 0.85 , with one exception; the alpha value for Technique for sample 1 was 0.65.
Doubtful
?
Cronbach’s alpha presumably calculated for each scale, but only range was reported.
Cronbach’s alpha for 1 scale >0.70.
Students exercisersb
267
22.4
5♀,262♂
Students exercisers
18
21.6
NR
Test-retest
Five days apart, r=0.88
Doubtful
?
Small sample size. Test procedure not described.
ICC not calculated.
Exercise Imagery Questionnaire-Aerobic Version EIQ-AV
46 items designed to asses 4 types of imagery content: CS= cognitive specific, CG= cognitive general, MS= motivational specific, MG= motivational general. After factor analysis, MG factor was found to represent two distinct subscales: MG-A= motivational general arousal and MG-M= motivational general mastery.
doubtful
NA
Data from 3 different studies in the article included.
Insufficient data reported about qualitative data collection to identify relevant items.
Internal consistency
Motivational specific (MS) α=0.82 motivational general (MG) α=0.76
ICC presumably calculated but without sufficient information on the procedure (model and formula not described). Reliability coefficient for 2 subscales <0.70.
Internal consistency
Motivational specific α=0.91
Motivational general arousal α=0.83
Cognitive specific α=0.88
Cognitive general α=0.88
Motivational general mastery α=0.85
Very good
+
Cronbach’s alpha for each subscales >0.70.
Structural validity reported and results are close to the results from the original study. However, low sample size for validity evaluation.
Results from two studies reported in this article. 20181=study 1. ICC not calculated.
Internal consistency
α=0.66
Very good
−
Cronbach’s alpha <0.70.
Legend: The superscript numbers were used to distinguish the results per group
Disciplines in which field the tool was evaluated: Edu Education, Med Medicine, Psy Psychology, n.d.s. not discipline-specific healthy participants/students
Country abbreviations: AU Australia, CA Canada, CO Columbia, DE Germany, ES Spain, FR France, IR Iran, IS Island, IT Italy, JP Japan, MX Mexico, NL Netherlands, NZ New Zealand, PL Poland, SE Sweden, TR Turkey, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
Language of the tool: E English, F French, G German, I Italian, S Spanish, Se Swedish, J Japanese, Po Polish, Pe Persian
α Cronbach’s alpha, AVE average variance extracted, CI confidence interval, corr. correlation, CR composite reliability, COSMIN Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist, ICC interclass correlation coefficient, KR-20 Kuder–Richardson, LBP low back pain, MDC minimal detectable change, N Sample size, NA Not applicable, NR Not reported, PCA principal component analysis, SEM standard error of measurement, sign. significant, TKBV Test zur Kontrollbarkeit der Bewegungsvorstellungsfähigkeit
Quality Criteria=see Table 1 and Legend for explanation of quality criteria
# methods could be doubtful, students received a course credits for participation. It could be interpreted that there was a certain dependency/necessity to participate, but it was not taken into account by the COSMIN evaluation
Quality Criteria: ‘+’ = sufficient, ‘−’ = insufficient, ‘?’ = indeterminate. *See Table 1 and Legend for explanation of quality criteria
Table 6
Mental imagery assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Validity
Tool
Disciplines
Study
Country
Language
Study population
Validity
COSMIN
Quality Criteria
Comments
Participants
N
Age mean (years)
Sex
Design
Results
a. General mental imagery in any sensorial modality
PCA conducted. All seven items loaded on a single dimension. Item loaded 0.50–0.77.
Adequate
?
Only EFA conducted.
*Not all information reported for quality criteria rating. CFA should be the next step.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. AIS with VVIQ
r=0.48
Corr. AIS with GTVIC
r=−0.23
Know-group validity
Sex difference on the AIS were not significant.
Inadequate
?
Psychometric properties of comparator instrument not reported.
Participant's characteristics not reported.
Low corr. indicated, that there are two unrelated modalities: visual and auditory. But no corr. calculated with instrument which measures the same construct.
CFA performed using on factor model: χ2//df=2.05, CFI=0.91, GFI=0.98, NNFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.05 and SRMR=0.04.
Doubtful
+
CFA performed but rotation method used was not described.
Accepted model fit: CFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. ASI with CAIS
r=-0.49
Corr. ASI with Bett's QMI
r=0.37
Doubtful
?
Psychometric properties of comparator instrument insufficiently reported. Not all results in accordance with the hypotheses. Corr. with comparator instrument <0.50.
PCA with oblimin rotation conducted. 3 factors extracted: relaxing sound, human voice, unpleasant sound. Factor loaded 0.31-0.74. Corr. factors 1 and 2 were 0.47, factors 2 and 3 were 0.47, factors 1 and 3 were 0.66. CFA performed using two-factor model (factor 1=human voice; factor 2=relaxing and unpleasant sound: GFI=0.92, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.07.
CFA performed using hierarchical model composed of four factors: relaxing sound, human voice, mind's ear, unpleasant sound. GFI=0.94, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.06.
Very good
+
Steps of FA well described. Very good sample size. CFA with hierarchical model showed acceptable fit to the data.
Accepted model fit: CFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Psychometric properties of comparator instrument insufficient reported. Results are not in accordance with the hypotheses. Stronger corr. between AIS and CAIS expected.
EFA using PCA with varimax rotation performed. 3 components/factors defined: environmental sound, voice and music.
BAIS-V: loading for environmental sound 0.48–0.81, for voice 0.42–0.77, for music 0.48–0.89. Total variance explained by 58%. BAIS-C: loading for environmental sound 0.55–0.82, for voice 0.44–0.73, for music 0.45–0.84. Total variance explained by 59%. Some items loaded on more than one factor but this loading <0.50.
Doubtful
?
Sample size doubtful.
Some items showed instability and loaded on two factors.
CFA should be conducted to confirm these three components.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. BAIS (both scales) with VVIQ-M
r=0.62
Know-group validity
No sig. difference between men and women on the BAIS score. Sig. difference between men and women on the VVIQ-M.
Doubtful
?
Psychometric properties of comparator instrument insufficiently reported. Participants insufficiently described.
No hypotheses defined.
Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (shorted version 35-item, SQMI)
American and Australian students compared. No sig. difference between students regarding vividness over all items established.
Inadequate
?
Low sample size. Population not described. Unclear which group difference analysis was performed.
60
NR
28♀, 32♂
Construct validity- structural validity
r=0.99 between total scores based on the complete scale and the shortened form was obtained. A factor established: a general imagery ability for all sensory modalities. All 35 items in the scale loaded highly on the factor, with an average loading of 0.57
Inadequate
?
Sample size for this analysis inadequate.
*Not all information reported for quality criteria rating.
Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (shorted version 35-item, SQMI)
PCA with varimax rotation; one factor with several modalities: auditory, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory, organic, cutaneous, visual. Total variance explained by 51.8%. Factor loadings ranged from 0.43 to 0.89. Only one item ‘sun’ on visual subscale loaded very low (<0.20).
Adequate
?
One item on visual subscale 'sun' should be removed from questionnaire.
PCA followed by varimax orthogonal rotation identified 8 factors, together accounted for 58.4% of total variance; Factor loadings 0.42–0.79. 3 items referred to different senses loaded on the 7. factor. Item 5 loaded on the 8 factor, which was a kind of visual image.
Adequate
?
Some items seem to be unstable and could be removed.
Item removed could influence the number of factors/modalities identified.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. Betts QMI and GTVIC
r=−0.34
Correlation Betts QMI and VVIQ
r=0.58
Inadequate
?
Measurement properties of the comparator instrument not reported.
Corr. Betts QMI with VVIQ reported, but unclear which modality of Betts QMI has a strong corr. with VVIQ.
The t-test, t(12)=0.71, p>0.10, supported the null hypothesis, suggesting that there was no difference between students from the USA and Mexico. The Spanish version of the QMI seems linguistically and statistically equivalent to the English version.
Very good
+
Very good sample size and good description of study population and procedures.
US students2
307
130♀, 177♂
Construct validity- structural validity
PCA with varimax rotation identified one general imagery factor with 7 modaliies specific factors. 51.1% of the variance was explained by the USA students and 49.9% by the Mexican. Factor loaded from students from the USA by 0.25–0.83 (only one item on visual subscale loaded <0.20) and from the Mexican students by 0.25-0.80 (one item on visual and two items on kinaesthetic loaded <0.20).
Adequate
−
Some items loaded very low.
These results confirmed findings by White (1974) [161] and Campos & Péréz-Fabello 2005 [104].
Kinaesthetic subscale seems the most unstable, and item 5 on visual subscale should be evaluated again.
EFA and principal axis factoring was conducted and one factor was extracted. Factor loadings of 16 items ranged from 0.40 to 0.67. The total variance was explained by 31.63%.
Adequate
?
Following COSMIN recommendation EFA should be rated as adequate.
CFA should be performed too.
Explained variance just above 0.30.
Clarity of Auditory Imagery Scale (CAIS)
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Known-groups validity
No difference established between men and women (p > 0.05).
Doubtful
+
Results are in accordance with the hypotheses but participants characteristics insufficiently described.
PCA with varimax orthogonal rotation was conducted. 5 factors with eigenvalues >1 identified. Factor 1 loaded by Item 5,11,12,13,14,15,16; Second factor loaded by Item 6,8,9: Third factor: Item 7 and 10; fourth factor: Item 1 and 2; Fifth factor Item 3 and 4. Factor loadings ranged 0.41–0.79. The five factors explained 57.4% of total variance.
Adequate
?
According to COSMIN recommendations EFA should be rated as adequate.
EFA identified 5 factors, but factors not explained by CFA should be performed too.
PCA was conducted by forcing a one-factor solution. The factor loadings of 16 items ranged from 0.46 to 0.74. All factor loadings were >0.32. The total variance was explained by 34.48%.
Doubtful
?
Doubtful sample size.
Non-musicians
40
24.5
20♀, 20♂
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Known-group validity
Neither gender (p=0.372) of participants or their level of musical expertise (p=0.114) differentiated the scores obtained.
Very good
?
Participants characteristics well described.
Not all results are in accordance with hypotheses.
PCA with the varimax rotation was used to extract 3 factors: Factor 1: Vividness and control, Factor 2: Spatial manipulation, Factor 3: childhood memory. GTVIC loaded on 1. factor with loading 0.81.
Sign. corr. among subjective measures of mental imagery. No corr. between objective and subjective measures of mental imagery providing evidence for the multidimensional nature of imagery.
Adequate
+
# Students received extra credits in their psychology courses for participation. Results in accordance with the hypothesis.
PCA followed by varimax orthogonal rotation identified four factors. Movement, misfortune, colour, stationarity. The total variance explained by 55.6%. Factors loadings range 0.43 to 0.88.
Adequate
−
Statement of four- factor structure should be rejected. Item 6 loaded on two factors.
Authors calculated corr. between different measures (construct validity), which measured different constructs. The corr. with the comparison instrument that measures the same construct is missing.
Alternate Form of the Gordon Test of Visual Imagery Control (TVIC)
CFA with PCA and oblique rotation was performed and two factors confirmed: absorption and image generation. Factor loadings >0.44. The corr. between two factors was r=0.42.
Adequate
?
Adequate sample size for factor analysis.
*Not all information reported for quality criteria rating .
PCA with varimax rotation of modality yielded one factor: imagery control. Loadings ranged from 0.59 to 0.76. 11 factors were obtained in the component analysis of the individual items. While the composition of four of these factors approximated the content of four of the modalities, no factor completely and exclusively represented any given modality.
Doubtful
?
Insufficient information about factor analysis and quality criteria rating not possible.
60
NR
22♀, 38♂
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. Imagery by Lane with:
GTVIC r=0.53
Betts QMI r=0.57
Inadequate
−
Why comparison with Betts QMI, when not the same domains/constructs were investigated?
All reviewers agreed that the items adequately represented the construct of ‘imaging ability’. The content and language of items were assessed to be appropriate for 6- to 14-year-olds. The format, either self-administered or reading items to the child, was also agreed to be satisfactory.
Doubtful
?
Only 3 experts reviewed the KIAQ for relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
Target population was not considered for evaluation of content validity.
Children
58
9.9
19♀, 39♂
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. KIAQ with SFPI
1. Time, N=54: r=0.31
2. Time, N=44: r=0.46
Doubtful
−
Doubtful if comparator instrument cover the same construct
EFA with oblimin rotation produced six factor solution: stability, perspective, distance, level of details, dimensions, rapidity. The total variance explained by 54.6%. Factors loadings 0.52–0.80.
Doubtful
+
Sample size very good but participants not described. CFA should be performed.
EFA with maximum likelihood extraction and oblimin rotation found seven factors with eigenvalues >1. Goodness of fit test: χ2/(371)=889. Factors loaded very strong, all >0.50 (range 0.53–0.87).
Very good
?
This article reported results from 3 studies.
*Not all information reported for quality criteria rating.
Items were selected through examination of relevant imagery theories, analysis of research work in the field of imagery ability, and review and analysis of a number of existing measures of imagery ability, used in the areas of sport and general psychology. Students were asked about comprehensibility, professionals were asked about relevance and comprehensiveness. 6 experts reviewed all items. Comments and suggested modifications were analysed and incorporated into the final draft.
Doubtful
?
This article reported results from 4 studies.
Data recording and analysis are not clearly described.
Relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility no evaluated by the population of interest.
EFA with oblimin rotation, two factors: 1. dimensions and visual modality; 2. modalities minus visual modality. The total variance explained by 75%. Factors loadings greater than 0.50 (0.50–0.92). Only emotion variable had no loadings greater than 0.50. 1. Factor=0.45 and 2. Factor=0.43 both the loadings for this variable were very close.
Adequate
?
This article reported results from 4 studies, 20031=study 1.
Subscales emotion and kinaesthetic loaded on both factors with >0.40.
CFA performed. The model of 4 factors (visual/dimensions, body feeling, chemical, emotion/auditory) produced the best fit indices for the data. Nonetheless, the combination of the emotion and auditory variables as a latent construct was considered implausible. The three-factor model involving auditory sense grouped with the other single organ senses of taste and smell, visual/dimensions, and bodily feeling had the greatest conceptual coherence as a representation of sport imagery ability. χ2 (df)=617.63 (51), CFI=0.92, NFI=0.91, TLI=0.89, RMSEA=0.13.
Doubtful
−
20032= study 2.
Rotation method by CFA not described.
Accepted model fit: CFI, NFI and TLI >0.95, or RMSEA <0.06.
Construct validity- convergent and discriminant validity
Corr. SIAM-R with GTVIC, VMIQ-2, SQMI
All correlations between all the imagery tests and subscales were significant. Small to moderate correlations (r=0.27 to 0.48) were found for the SIAM control, vividness, visual, and kinaesthetic subscales with a number of the related dimension modalities variables of the other imagery measures, providing support for the convergent validity of these subscales of the SIAM.
Corr. SIAM with MAB
Very low to small correlations (r=0.01 to 0.20) reported between the SIAM subscales and (a) the cognitive ability measures and (b) unrelated dimension and modality variables of the other imagery measures, supporting the discriminant validity.
Very good
+
20033= study 3.
Appropriate sample size. The results are in accordance with the hypothesis.
5 sport psychology experts, who were experienced in designing questionnaires, and 5 athletes systematically examined the wording and the content of items. Content validity index was calculated.
Doubtful
?
Pilot study (SAIQ development).
Results from 4 studies reported in this article.
Insufficient information about test procedures: how data were collected- individually or group.
Data collection regarding relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility doubtful.
20-item version was evaluated. Principle axis factoring with oblimin rotation resulted in 4 factors/subscales: skill imagery, strategy imagery, goal imagery and affect imagery. Final SAIQ included 12 items with 3 item per factor. Eigenvalues ranged from 1.13–4.05, together accounting for 69.63 % of the variance.
Adequate
+
Following COSMIN recommendation EFA should be rated as adequate.
CFA with maximum likelihood performed. The four-factor model demonstrated adequate fit model: χ2=96.19, CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.05. Factor loadings 0.58–0.86.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA <0.06.
Modified version (15 items and 5 subscale) evaluated. CFA with maximum likelihood performed. An adequate fit to the data was established for a final five-factor model: χ2=204.53, CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95,SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.06. Factor loadings 0.62-0.88.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
Modified version (15 items and 5 subscale) evaluated with second population. CFA with maximum likelihood performed. An adequate fit to the data was established for a five-factor model: χ2=108.59, CFI=0.98, TLI=0.97, SRMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.04. Factor loadings 0.62–0.88.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
Construct validity- convergent and discriminant validity
Convergent and discriminant validity supported by the fact that the corr. between both main dimensions (controllability and vividness) on the same test forms were les (discriminant) than the corr. between the same factors on the different test forms (convergent).
Doubtful
?
*Insufficient information reported for COSMIN and quality criteria evaluation.
28
NR
NR
Construct validity- structural validity
PCA with the orthogonal varimax rotation. 7 factors were extracted: visual, olfactory, somesthetic, kinaesthetic-tactile controllability, gustatory, kinaesthetic-tactile vividness, and auditory imagery. Factors loadings greater than 0.50. Form A: 0.60–0.81. Form B: 0.58–0.82.
Inadequate
-
FA performed only with 28 subtests (14 for each form).
Factor analysis, performed on 4 modality-factor subtest scores, yielded four specific factors corresponding to 4 modalities of imagery for controllability, vividness and formation. Expanded variance for controllability ranged from 7.3–13% for all four subscales, for vividness from 8.7–14.2% and for formation from 8.0–13.9%.
PCA with the varimax rotation used to extract 3 factors: Factor 1: Vividness and control, Factor 2: Spatial manipulation, Factor 3: childhood memory. VVIQ loaded on 1.factor with loading 0.78.
PCA with varimax orthogonal rotation confirmed a single factor, vividness of visual imagery. All items loaded over 0.50 (0.53–0.66) which explained 37 % of total variance.
Adequate
?
Test procedures only briefly reported.
*Insufficient information reported for quality criteria rating.
# Sufficient information provided on measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
Results are in accordance with the hypothesis: high corr. with Betts’ QMI and object imagery scale of OSIVQ, low corr. with MASMI and verbal + spatial scale of OSIVQ.
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire- Revised version (VVIQ-RV)
PCA with oblique rotation employed and suggested 3 components: smell, taste, vision. Variance was explained by 68.8%. Factor loadings for smell 0.41–0.58, for taste 0.82–0.94, for vision 0.62–0.83.
Inadequate
−
Low sample size. Instability recognisable by smell items, which loaded on 2 factors (smell and taste)!
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. VWIQ with PSI-Q
smell r=0.36, taste=0.43, vision r=0.51
Corr. VWIQ-vision with VVIQ
r=−0.51
Corr. VWIQ-smell with VOIQ
r=−0.43
Inadequate
−
No description of participants.
No information about the measurement properties of comparator instrument.
Not all results are in accordance with the hypotheses.
PCA with the varimax rotation used to extract 3 factors: Factor 1: Vividness and control, Factor 2: Spatial manipulation, Factor 3: childhood memory. Cube loaded on 2. factor with loading 0.86.
No information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument. The results are in accordance with the hypothesis: no sig. corr. between subjective and objective measures of mental imagery.
German Test of the Controllability of Motor Imagery in older adults (TKBV)
EFA with with the orthogonal varimax rotation showed two- factor structure: recognition and free recall. Total variance explained by 42%. Factors loaded ranged from 0.57–0.85.
Adequate
−
Adequate methodological quality because no CFA performed.
Variance explained by two factors < 50%.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. TKBV Recognition and TUG
r=−0.31
Corr. TKBV Recognition and MIQ visual
r=0.143
Corr. TKBV Recognition and MIQ kinaesthetic
r=0.13
Corr. TKBV Free recall and TUG
r=−0.33
Corr. TKBV Free recall and MIQ visual r=0.14
Corr. TKBV Free recall and MIQ kinaesthetic
r=0.11
No gender difference established.
Doubtful
?
Some information about comparator instrument provided, but no information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
No hypothesis defined.
Construct validity-hypothesis testing
Corr. TKBV Recognition with Corsi block tapping test
r=0.45
Corr. TKBV Free recall with Corsi block tapping test
Response time increased with age, was greater in females than in males and was greater in left-handers than in right-handers (p<0.001). Accuracy reduced with age (p<0.001), but was unaffected by gender or handedness (p=0.493).
Very good
?
Sample size very good but gender imbalance (much more female participants than males).
That should be taken into account for a know-groups-validity analysis.
Response time was not affected by back pain status. Patients who had back pain at the time of testing were less accurate than pain-free controls (p=0.027), as were patients who were pain free but had a history of back pain (p<0.01).
Doubtful
−
Insufficient description of participants (both groups) characteristics. Results are not in accordance with hypothesis.
Student interviewed about all items from the OSIQ. 3 experts in the field of mental imagery reviewed the OSIQ object and spatial items. Agreement among judges was 97%.
Doubtful
?
This article reported results from 4 studies.
No details reported about interviews.
Unclear if students were asked about relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
Visual artist scored higher than scientists and humanities professionals did on objects imagery scale. Scientists scored higher than visual artists and humanities professionals did on the spatial scale.
Doubtful
+
Authors used a term 'criterion validity', although the relationship between imagery abilities among different professions (subgroups) was investigated.
However, characteristics of the group poorly described. The results are in accordance with the hypothesis.
Natural scientists
24
19♀, 5♂
Humanities professionals
23
9♀, 14♂
Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSVIQ)
3 experts reviewed the verbal items with regard to their relevance to verbal cognitive style. After excluding all of the items on which there was a disagreement between the judges, items were administered to a sample of 166 students.
Doubtful
?
This article reported results from 2 studies.
No details reported about interviews.
Not clear if students were asked about relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility?
Expert asked only about relevance.
Students and professionals from different fields
625
24.0
251♀,374♂
Construct validity- structural validity
First PCA revealed 18 factors with eigenvalues above 1.
Only three factors (object, spatial, verbal imagery), had eigenvalues markedly higher than the others. These first 3 factors explained 31.95% of the variance. Based on the results from the initial PCA, a second PCA with varimax rotation was performed. The 45 OSIVQ loaded from 0.13–0.73.
Adequate
−
# Several factors loaded lower than 0.45 and variance explained by factors <50%.
Confirmatory factor analysis: the estimated three-factor model, and values of fit suggest that the three-factor model fits the data well. Model three-factor, χ2=27.61, df=24.00, p value=0.28, χ2/df= 1.15, CFI=0.97, RMSEA=0.03.
Inadequate
?
Sample size not appropriate for this analysis.
Accepted model fit: CFI>0.95, or RMSEA <0.06.
But several factors from previously PCA loaded very low.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. OSIVQ spatial with spatial measures PFT r=0.47 and with MRT r=0.31. OSIVQ verbal positiv corr.
Corr. OSIVQ verbal with verbal measures:
arranging words r=0.17 and with SAT verbal r=0.20. OSIVQ object positiv corr.
Corr. OSIVQ object with VVIQr=0.41
Doubtful
+
Some information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument reported.
The results are in accordance with the hypothesis.
First analysis was PCA with varimax rotation and 13 factors identified, but only 3 factors had eigenvalues above 3.0 and explained 33.1% of the variance. A second three-factor forced PCA with varimax rotation was performed. Factor loadings was 0.07–0.80.
Inadequate
−
Sample size not appropriate for this analysis.
Several factors loaded very low and variance explained by factors < 50%.
FA with the oblique, 6 factor model (six factor: good verbal expression fluency, habitual use of imager, concern with correct use of words, self-reported reading difficulties, use of images to solve problems, vividness of daydreams/ dreams) provided a better fit to the data than the two-factor model.
Adequate
?
Data were collected in 1968 and 1970 with two samples. Finally data from 713 students analysed (collected in both years) but no details about samples available. *Insufficient data for quality criteria rating proposed by COSMIN.
CFA with the oblique five-factor model (factors: good verbal expression fluency, habitual use of imagery, concern with correct use of words, self-reported reading difficulties, vividness of daydreams, dreams) provided highest values: χ2=811.36, df=517, AGFI=0.77. Variance was explained by 71–77 %. Factor loadings 0.25–0.80. Only on item <0.25.
EFA with an oblique rotation suggesting a six factor solution: imagery ability, technical /spatial, language and word forms, need for organisation, global bias, systemising tendency.
The reduced version of the questionnaire contained 60 items, which explained 32% of total variance. Factor loading ranged from 0.31 to 0.74.
Adequate
?
20161=study 1.
Several items loaded <0.50.
These items should be considered for deletion. CFA should be performed.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Know-groups validity
Females scored higher on imagery ability and males scored higher on technical/spatial.
Doubtful
?
Participant's characteristics insufficiently described and not all results are in accordance with hypothesis.
Females scored higher on imagery ability, and males scored higher on both technical/spatial, and systemising tendency.
The differences observed between grapheme-colour and sequence-space synaesthetes on SCSQ scales shows that different forms of synaesthesia may predict different aspects of cognition.
Very good
?
20163=study 3.
Participants with equence-space synaesthesia, or grapheme-colour synaesthesia or with both. Participants characteristics described but not all results are in accordance with hypothesis.
PCA with varimax orthogonal rotation yielded 5 factors: 1. Factor= interest in words, 2. Factor= dream vividness and frequency, 3. Factor= verbal fluency, 4. Factor= task performance difficulty, 5. Factor= ways of thinking and acting. Factors loaded 0.43–0.77.
This test does not have a clear factorial structure.
Adequate
−
Only high school students tested.
Not all information reported for quality criteria rating.
But this finding is in contrast with findings from previous studies, that obtained only 2 factors.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. VVQ with GTVIC
r=0.08
Inadequate
−
No information on the measurement properties of the comparator instrument. Corr. found was very weak. It was expected. But the corr. with the comparison instrument that measures the same construct is missing.
FA and varimax rotation yielded 2 factors: visualizer and verbalizer. However, a large deviation between original and translated version was established. 7 items cannot clearly be attributed to one of the both factors.
Adequate
?
Quality criteria for good measurements properties cannot be rated.
The assessment of item-content relevance and comprehensiveness was conducted by experts. Target population was not involved in this step. Not clear if data were analysed by 2 researchers independently.
Doubtful
?
Relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility not evaluated in this phase.
PCA with oblimin rotation identified a three-factor solution with 11 items. Factor 1=capability imagery. Factor 2=social imagery. Factor 3=fun imagery. The variance was explained by 61.4%. The interfactor correlations were low to moderate (1+2 r=0.23, 1+3 r=0.30, 2+3 r=0.44).
Adequate
?
Very good sample size. Factors loading not reported.
Children’s Active Play Imagery Questionnaire (CAPIQ)
CFA with three-factor model provided acceptable model fit: CFI=0.95, NFI=0.92, TLI=0.93, RMSEA=0.07.
Very good
−
Accepted model fit: CFI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06
Almost all fits just below cut-off.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Known-group validity
No significant effects were noted between age (7–10 and 11–14) and for any of the imagery functions. Significant main effect for gender was found for capability imagery, (p=0.052), with females reporting more use of this imagery function.
Doubtful
?
Insufficient description of participants characteristics. Not all results are in accordance with hypothesis.
3 exercise professionals and 3 exercise participants commented on the wording, phraseology, and scoring of the questionnaire items. Minor revisions were made to the questionnaire items based on their comments.
Doubtful
?
This article reported results from 3 studies.
No information whether experts and athletes were asked about relevance and comprehensiveness and how data were analysed.
Athletes
3
Athletes
3071
22.91
9♀,296♂1
Construct validity- structural validity
PCA with varimax rotation conducted for each sample to reduce items. From this analysis a three-factor structure emerged accounting for 63.8% of the variance in sample 1 and 67.6% of the variance in sample 2. The three factors are: energy, appearance, and technique.
Very good
?
*Insufficient information (e.g. factors loading) reported for quality criteria rating.
CFA was conducted. Some items were removed. The revised model yielded good fit indices: Athletesa: χ2=40.5, χ2/df=1.69, RMSR=0.05, SRMSR=0.05, GFI=0.94, AGFI=0.89, NFI=0.92, NNFI=0.95, GFI=0.97. Athletesb: χ2=49.6, χ2/df=2.06, RMSR=0.05, SRMSR=0.05, GFI=0.96, AGFI=0.93, NFI=0.95, NNFI=0.96, GFI=0.97. Finally, version consists of 9 items.
Very good
+
Very good sample size.
Steps of data analysis very clear described. Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
CFA and two-factor model (only factors energy and technique, the factor appearance was eliminated) revealed a better fit indicates: χ2 (df=8)=14.95, GFI=0.97, CFI=0.97, NNFI=0.94, RMSEA=0.07, SRMR=0.04.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Sign. corr. among the three EIQ scales: technique with appearance imagery r=0.52, technique with energy imagery r=0.56, energy with appearance imagery r=0.48
No corr. found between EIQ and MIQ-R, VMIQ, or VVIQ. Only low corr. (r=0.26) was found between EIQ technique and GTVIC.
Very good
−
Most of the results are not in accordance with the hypothesis.
4 research experts, in the area of sport psychology and 4 in cognitive psychology assessed content validity. The content, format, wording of the items and usage within athletic populations were determined and evaluated by experts.
Doubtful
?
This article reported results from 3 studies.
No details reported about interviews, insufficient information about data analysis.
Unclear whether athletes were asked about relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
PCA and maximum likehood with oblique rotation was employed. MG was separated in two different factors: represent two distinct subscales: MG-A= motivational general arousal and MG-M= motivational general mastery.
Inadequate
?
Sample size for this analysis not appropriate.
Quality criteria for good measurements properties cannot be rated.
PCA and maximum likelihood with oblique rotation was employed. Results showed that the items loaded very cleanly onto 5 factors (cognitive general, cognitive specific, motivational specific, motivational general arousal, motivational general mastery) and all items loaded above the criterion level (>0.35). Factors loading ranged from 0.45–0.97.
PCA revealed the existence of 5 distinct factors: cognitive general, cognitive specific, motivational specific, motivational general arousal, motivational general mastery.
Factors loaded >0.45. Total variance explained by 57.5%.
EFA and varimax rotation determined 30 items and 5 factors. The explained variance was by 65.48%. CFA with maximum likelihood estimation method performed and the model found with the EFA showed a good fit to the data: χ2 (395)=632.55, GFI=0.77, CFI=0.88, NNFI=0.87, RMSEA=0.06, SRMR=0.07.
Inadequate
+
Sample size inadequate for this analysis.
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
The CFA representing the 30-item 5 factor SIQ model revealed acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (378)=694.60; CFI=0.91; TLI=0.90; RMSEA=0.05; SRMR=0.05). Factors loaded 0.41-0.83.
Very good
+
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
CFA performed, with a five-factor model of imagery use being hypothesised: (Q=3.33, CFI=0.89, GFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.06) indicated that the measurement model was tenable.
Doubtful
-
Rotation method not described.
Model fits were at the limit. Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.90, or RMSEA<0.10.
CFA was conducted in groups b and c evaluating a one- and two-factor model. The one-factor model was accepted as final for the following reasons: Fit indices did not strongly differ between the two models, and in the two-factor model, the factors were highly correlated. Fit indices group b: CFI: 0.93. TLI=0.92, RMSEA=0.06, χ2=115 .50
df=54, p<.001. Factor loadings 0.35–0.98. 2 Items 1 and 6 did not reach 0.30. Fit indices group c: CFI: 0.91. TLI=0.89, RMSEA=0.07, 174.19, df=54, p<.001.Factor loadings 0.40–0.71. 2 items 1 and 6 did not reach 0.30.
Very good
+
# Very good sample size. The steps of data analysis very clearly described. Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or RMSEA<0.06.
Volunteersb
373
34.9
119♀,254♂
Studentsc
433
18.4
82♀,351♂
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. SUIS with VVIQ
r(350)=−0.35, p<.001
Corr. SUIS with visual subscale of the QMI
r(338)=−0.38, p<.001.
Doubtful
+
The results are in accordance with hypothesis. Incomplete information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument.
CFA one-factor model revealed acceptable fit indices: χ2 (df=54)=86.91, p<.01, RMSEA=0.05, CFI=0.92, TLI=0.90. Factor loadings 0.21–0.64. One item (item 6) reach −0.05.
Very good
-
This article reported results from two studies.
Good sample size.
Several factors loaded very low.
Accepted model fit: CFI, TLI>0.95, or SRMR<0.08, or
RMSEA<0.06.
Construct validity- hypothesis testing
Corr. SUIS with TABS
R=0.43, p<0.001
Corr. SUIS with RSQ
r=0.14, p<0.05
Adequate
?
Sufficient information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument. Very low corr., no hypothesis defined. Insufficient information about comparator instrument.
Sufficient information on measurement properties of the comparator instrument. Very low corr., no hypothesis defined. Insufficient information about comparator instrument.
No significant difference in mean SUIS-J score between patients with SAD (38.7, SD=5.06) and healthy controls (36.1, SD=6.9), p=0.92.
Very good
?
20182=study 2. SAD=social anxiety disorder.
Assumable that data from healthy participants from study 1 were analysed.
No hypothesis defined.
Legend: The superscript numbers were used to distinguish the results per group
Disciplines in which field the tool was evaluated: Edu education, Med medicine, Psy psychology, n.d.s. not disciplines specific, healthy participants/students
Language of the tool, E English, F French, G German, D Dutch, I Italian, S Spanish, Se Swedish, Tu Turkish
Country abbreviations: AU Australia, CA Canada, DE Germany, ES Spain, FR France, IR Iran, IT Italy, JP Japan, MX Mexico, NL Netherlands, SE Sweden, TR Turkey, PL Poland, UK United Kingdom, USA United States of America
Advanced Vocabulary Advanced Vocabulary Test, AGFI adjusted goodness of fit index, APM Advanced Progressive Matrices, CFA confirmatory factor analysis, CI confidence interval, CFI Comparative fit index, corr. correlation, COSMIN COSMIN Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist, CV Water Polo Imagery Concurrent Verbalisation (CV) Activity was developed by Watt 2003 [36] only for evaluating of criterion validity, DPT Degraded Pictures Test for measures object imagery, df degrees of freedom, EFA exploratory factor analysis, HVOT Hooper Visual Orientation Test, ICC interclass correlation coefficient, JOLO Judgement Of Line Orientation, MAB Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB - Spatial Ability and Verbal Comprehension), MEIQ Mental Imagery Questionnaire, MIQ-3 Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3, MPFB Minnesota Paper Board Form, MRT Mental Rotation of Three-dimensional Objects, N sample size, NFI normed fit index, NNFI non-normed fit index, NR not reported, PMA the Spatial Test of Primary Mental Abilities, PCA Principal Component Analysis, PFT, RT response time, SEQ-S Self-Efficacy Questionnaire—Soccer, SFPI Singer Fantasy Proneness Interview, SRMR standardised root mean square residual, STAI-T Trait-Angstskala des State-Trait-Angstinventars, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, VKMRT Vandenberg-Kuse=Vandenberg-Kuse Mental Rotation Test, WAIS Similarities Test of the conceptual similarity between the two words, TABS Tellegen Absorption Scale, RSQ Response Styles Questionnaire, sign. significant, WAIS Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale, WAIS-R Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale-Revised, χ2 chi-square
Quality Criteria=see Table 1 Legend for explanation of quality criteria, # methods could be doubtful, students received a course credits for participation. It could be interpreted that there was a certain dependency/necessity to participate, but it was not taken into account by the COSMIN evaluation
Quality Criteria: ‘+’ = sufficient, ‘−’ insufficient, ‘?’ indeterminate. *See Table 1 and Legend for explanation of quality criteria
For criteria of EFA see de Vet et al. 2011 [52], Izquierdo et al. 2014 [61] and Watkins 2018 [62]
The structural, construct, content and criterion validity of most assessments were indeterminate due to lack of details reported in the studies regarding statistical methods and analysis (for more details see Tables 5 and 6). Some information about performed factor analyses such as factor loading by EFA or correlation between factors are not reported. Or the authors conducted an EFA, for which several items were loaded on more than on factor, which could indicate that these items should be deleted. However, for mostly assessments, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is missing to confirm the number of extracted factors. Regarding rating of construct validity, the reviewers have formulated own hypotheses depending on comparator instruments and constructs measured. However, it was not possible for the reviewers to formulate a hypothesis in all cases as in some studies the information on the comparison instrument and the construct to be measured was insufficient. Consequently, the construct validity was rated as indeterminate. Finally, only the SIAQ revealed sufficient structural and construct validity in several studies of at least adequate methodological quality. There is moderate evidence (two studies with at least adequate methodological quality) for sufficient structural validity of the SIQ. The SIQ-C, on the other hand, has a low evidence for insufficient rating of structural validity (only two studies with doubtful methodological quality available).
The internal consistency or Cronbach’s alpha values of most assessments were reported as very high. However, for a quality rating of the internal consistency, the structural validity should also be taken into account, which finally led to an insufficient or indeterminate rating of this psychometric property. Other reasons for an insufficient rating were that in several studies the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated as multidimensional total score and not for each subscale. Only the SIAQ showed sufficient internal consistency with high evidence (multiple studies of very good methodological quality). Test-retest reliability was insufficient or indeterminate for most assessments due to an inappropriate time interval between the measurement sessions, and a poor reporting on the reliability coefficient calculation.
Mental chronometry
Only one study [44] evaluated two assessments on mental chronometry: Time-dependent motor imagery screening test (TDMI) and Temporal Congruence Test (TCT) (Table 7). Both assessments showed sufficient test-retest reliability. No information about validity was provided. However, the methodological quality of this study was considered doubtful due to the small sample size.
Table 7
Mental chronometry assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Reliability
Tool
Disciplines
Study
Country
Language
Study population
Reliability
COSMIN
Quality Criteria
Comments
Participants
N
Age mean (years)
Sex
Design
Results
Time-dependent motor imagery screening test (TDMI)
Legend: The superscript numbers were used to distinguish the results per group
Disciplines in which field the tool was evaluated: Med medicine
Language of the tool: E English
Country abbreviations: CA Canada
COSMIN Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist, ICC interclass correlation coefficient, N sample size, NA not applicable
Quality Criteria: ‘+’ sufficient, ‘–’ insufficient, ‘?’ indeterminate, For more information see Table 1 Legend for explanation of quality criteria
Discussion
Quality of studies and assessments
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate all available assessments measuring individual imagery ability and their psychometric properties. Assessments were categorised based on their construct: motor imagery, mental imagery, and mental chronometry. A summary of the current level of evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the selected assessments is provided in the Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. All specific characteristics of the included assessments are presented in the supplementary material (Tables S1 and S3). In total, 121 articles were included reporting 155 studies evaluating psychometric properties of 65 assessments in four different disciplines. Articles reported data either about reliability or about validity. No study evaluated the responsiveness, which is defined as the ability of an instrument to detect change over time in the construct to be measured [171]. One possible reason for not reporting on responsiveness might be that the imagery ability or different imagery techniques are used for motor learning, to enhance performance, or to treat different psychological disorders. Hence, the outcome measured is not an improvement of imagery ability, and therefore, responsiveness was not evaluated.
We included in our SR only assessments that comprise items that solely focus on imagery ability. Assessments like the Sport Mental Training Questionnaire (SMTQ) [172] were excluded, as the majority of items focus on mental skills, such as performance, foundation, or interpersonal skills. Only three items of the SMTQ are focussing on imagery ability.
The methodological quality of most included studies was rated low. The reasons for this rating were for instance: a small sample size, inadequate statistical analysis or insufficient information reported. In particular, several studies calculated Cronbach’s alpha as multidimensional total score for internal consistency and not for each subscale of the assessment. The lack of reporting could lead to inaccuracy, because it is important to know the degree of inter-item correlation among the items for each subscale. Furthermore, some studies calculated the split-half reliability to report internal consistency. With this method, the correlation coefficient may not represent an accurate measure of reliability due to the fact that a single scale is being split into two scales, decreasing the reliability of the measure as a whole [173]. As proposed by COSMIN, we would recommend to calculate and report the internal consistency coefficient (usual Cronbach’s alpha for continuous scores) for each subscale separately. Specifically for structural validity, the authors did not report all details about the number of extracted factors by the EFA, the correlations among factors, the rotation methods applied and model fits from CFA (if performed). Furthermore, regarding construct validity, in some cases no information about the comparator instrument was available. Here, it was not possible to formulate a hypothesis by the reviewer to evaluate construct validity. Regarding the test-retest reliability, in several studies Person’s or Spearman’s reliability coefficient was calculated and no ICC. COSMIN recommends to calculate the ICC a two-way random effects model as the variance within individuals (e.g. systematic differences) and between time points taken into account this way. Using Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficient, systematic error is not taken into account [64]. Moreover, the time interval for test-retest reliability was sometimes not appropriate (more than 3 weeks apart), which could explain a low (< 0.70) correlation coefficient.
One possible reason for poor reporting is that the majority of the instruments were developed during the early 90s. A practical guide for conducting and reporting of such studies was published much later [52, 57, 58, 64, 174].
Further, reporting deficits in the selected studies resulted in an only substantial agreement with regard to the kappa statistic calculated between the ratings of ZS and CSA after full texts’ selection. For example, some reports did not use the usual terms for psychometric properties when describing the study aim [129, 167]. This led to a confusion among the authors (ZS and CSA) in their attempt to determine which psychometric properties were evaluated.
The psychometric properties for most of the assessments regarding construct validity (e.g. correlation with other measures) and criterion validity were rated as indeterminate or insufficient. These findings corresponded to previous studies [39, 48]. A possible explanation could be that most of these questionnaires are self-reports and the individuals should express the ease or vividness of imagery in relation to the Likert scale. There are no references or standards against which reports of imagery experience can be validated. This is not trivial, considering that the idea about what a vivid image is can vary greatly from person to person. Moreover, the objective and subjective assessments showed low correlation suggesting that these two types of imagery (object and spatial) are not related to each other. Previous studies reported the same findings [22, 34, 35]. Structural validity by most assessments was also considered as indeterminate or insufficient. For example, in several studies, when evaluating Betts Questionnaire, the GTVIC, or the CAIS, only the EFA was conducted and reported. Depending on the method of analysis used in different studies, the number of extracted factors varied greatly. No study conducted a CFA to confirm the number of factors identified. Further, particularly the evaluation of the Betts Questionnaire by various studies [102, 104, 161] showed that some items seem to be unstable on the kinaesthetic and the visual scale and should be removed. This is very interesting, as most of the other assessments for measuring individual differences in imagery were developed based on the Betts Questionnaire as a pioneer assessment, whose structural validity may be considered as indeterminate.
Almost all studies, when reporting psychometric properties of the comparator instrument or the ‘gold standard’ instrument, only reported about reliability (e.g. internal consistency), which is in most cases very high. Such assessments often lacked structural or criterion validity but authors did not critically discuss that. In addition, most studies were only conducted with students aged 12–28 years, who received a course credit for study participation.
The best-evaluated assessments with sufficient psychometric properties were the MIQ, MIQ-R, MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2 for evaluation of motor imagery ability. They are mostly applied in the field of sport. All assessments are self-reports, very easy to use and evaluate vividness in two modalities: visual and kinaesthetic. Moreover, the MIQ-3 and VMIQ-2 evaluate also the perspective used during imagination: external or internal. The MIQ-3 is translated into several languages, which enables a wide use. The SIAQ as mental imagery assessment in sport showed sufficient psychometric properties, but the SIAQ is not able to distinguish between ease of imaging and vividness. The VVIQ was evaluated only with psychology students, and only internal consistency was sufficient. In the field of medicine, the KVIQ is the most evaluated assessment, focusing on vividness in two modalities: visual and kinaesthetic. The original version KVIQ-20 is translated into several languages, but due to the number of items, applying the KVIQ-20 can be quite time-consuming. Structural validity is particularly critical and further studies with large sample sizes and the use of a CFA are needed. Although all assessments described above are self-report, easy to use and cost-effective, a general limitation of these assessments is that they do not allow to control for imagery ability before or during an experiment.
Our results demonstrate that there are a number of published instruments for measuring the imagery ability in different disciplines. We categorised all assessments based on their construct and a clear differentiation between the terms ‘motor imagery’ and ‘mental imagery’. These terms are often confused in the literature.
Limitations regarding the COSMIN recommendations
As proposed by COSMIN, sample sizes are not taken into account when assessing study quality in terms of reliability. It is recommended, however, that sample size should be taken into account at a later step of the review process when the results of all available studies can be summarised (e.g. as imprecision, which refers to the total sample size). Hence, the pooled evidence from many small studies together can provide strong evidence for good reliability [64]. However, in our review, it was not possible to pool or qualitatively summarise the results from all small studies with n = ≤30 due to their different subgroups of patients, different language versions and inconsistency of results. Therefore, we downgraded every study with a small sample size for imprecision as having a risk of bias. We used the ‘other flaws’ option to take this into account. For other psychometric properties like content validity or structural validity, there are standards concerning the sample size. However, some measures were developed and evaluated only for a specific population (e.g. patients) [68, 69]. Therefore, a large sample size is often not feasible, but robust data can be expected due to homogeneity. In cases where we estimated the sample size to be low, most of these studies were of inadequate methodological quality [67‐69]. On the other hand, several studies with a large sample size (e.g. students), when the target population for a specific measure was not clearly described, were rated as ‘adequate’ or ‘very good’ [141, 142].
In our opinion, the studies with healthy individuals (students, athletes, etc.) or with patients should be more differentiated during evaluation following the COSMIN guideline.
Systematic review limitations and strengths
A limitation of our systematic review is that we did not emphasize on content validity of the evaluated assessments. We rated content validity only in case the authors did specify this as one of their study aims and included a sufficient description of the performed procedures. However, there were some questionnaire development studies, which could be considered assessing content validity. Nevertheless, most of the questionnaire development studies lacked important information about whether the target population was asked about relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the questionnaire under development. The authors focused on reporting the validation steps. Therefore, we could not conclude, if the evaluation of content validity was not performed or not reported. Furthermore, we used the COSMIN evaluation tool, a widely accepted and valid tool for rating the methodological quality of studies. However, the COSMIN evaluation of methodology is strictly based on information published in the studies. As most identified articles were published more than 20 years ago, authors could not be contacted to request additional details. Therefore, some ratings as ‘doubtful’ could have been inequitable. In addition, our search was limited to English or German, so relevant articles may have been excluded. We applied the filter published by Terwee et al. [54] and adapted it for each database. However, we identified many articles by screening the references. The main reason why our filter did not find such articles is that the measurement properties are sometimes poorly reported in the abstract and some authors did not use any commonly used term for measurement properties in the title or abstract of their article. There is a large variation concerning terminology for measurement properties. For example, for reliability, many synonyms can be found in the literature (e.g. reproducibility, repeatability, precision, variability, consistency, dependability, stability, agreement, and measurement error) [54]. However, the composition of the search strategy and the search itself were conducted by a professional research librarian from the University of Zurich in accordance with the review protocol providing a comprehensive search and detailed knowledge of different databases in all four disciplines. Therefore, the search was easily reproduced and verified by ZS resulting in the same number of identified records. Moreover, all references were selected by two authors (ZS and CSA) and several reviewers extracted and double-checked all the data from the included articles, which limited the risk of errors in the extraction process.
Conclusion
Over the last century, various assessments were developed to evaluate an individual’s imagery ability within different dimensions or modalities of imagery: vividness or image clarity, controllability, ease and accuracy of how an image can be mentally manipulated, perspective used, frequency of use of imagery and imagery preferences (verbal or visual style). However, the validity of many assessments is insufficient or indeterminate. Although reliability, in particular internal consistency, of most assessments was reported as high (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70), due to insufficient or indeterminate structural validity this property of imagery assessment should also be regarded very critically. Furthermore, the COSMIN recommendations classified most studies as inadequate or doubtful due to small sample sizes, inadequate statistical analyses used, or an insufficient reporting. Most studies were conducted with young students and further studies are needed in other fields and wider age ranges.
Despite the limitations described, the present systematic review enables clinicians, coaches, teachers, and researchers to select a suitable imagery ability assessment for their settings and goals based on information provided regarding the assessment’s focus and quality.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank to Dr. Sabine Klein, Librarian, who helped with the search strategy. Further, we would like to thank Prof. Alfredo Campos for providing literature and necessary assessments. Furthermore, we are grateful to Ladina Matter, Luca Beugger, and Valerie Zumbrunnen for their valuable support during the data extraction period.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review, as we analysed already published literature only.
Consent for publication
Not applicable, no individual person’s data.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.
Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.
Unerkannte Herzmuskelentzündungen infolge einer Virusinfektion führen immer wieder dazu, dass junge, gesunde Menschen plötzlich beim Sport einen Herzstillstand bekommen. Gerade milde Herzbeteiligungen sind oft schwer zu diagnostizieren – speziell bei Leistungssportlern.
Update Allgemeinmedizin
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.
