Table 3 Motor imagery assessments: The characteristics of the included studies - Reliability

Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire (FPIQ)

Med

Ochipa et al. 1997 [65]

USA

E

Apraxia patient

1

61.0

1♀

NR

NR

NA

NA

Case report, first mention of FPIQ, no psychometric properties evaluated, no information about FPIQ development.

Imaprax

NR

Fournier 2000 [66]

FR

F

NR

10

NR

NR

Development

NR

Inadequate

NA

Development study, no psychometric properties evaluated.

Med

Schuster et al. 2012 [67]

CH

G

Subacute group^a

17

65.0

8♀, 9♂

Test-retest

Visual

ICC=0.84 (95% CI 0.62–0.94)^a

ICC=0.34 (95% CI 0.005–0.60)^b

ICC=0.77 (95% CI 0.19–0.95)^c

ICC=0.37 (95% CI - 0.40–0.85)^d

ICC=0.74 (95% CI 0.14–0.95)^e

Doubtful

?

Small sample size in four of five groups.

The smallest ICC was by group with largest sample size.

Chronic group^b

34

62.5

9♀, 25♂

Left parietal lobe^c

7

61.6

3♀, 4♂

MS^d

7

48.0

5♀, 2♂

Internal consistency

α=0.70

Very good

?

*Insufficient information for quality criteria rating.

PD^e

8

73.4

3♀, 5♂

Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ)

Med

Malouin et al. 2007 [43]

CA

E

Stroke^a

19

58.6

5♀, 14♂

Test-retest

KVIQ-20 / KVIQ-10

kinaesthetic

ICC=0.89 (CI_LL=0.75)^a/0.88 (CI_LL=0.71)^a

ICC=0.79 (CI_LL=0.65)^b/0.81 (CI_LL=0.68)^b

ICC=0.73 (CI_LL=0.43)^c/ 0.74 (CI_LL=0.45)^c

visual

ICC=0.81 (CI_LL=0.57)^a /0.82 (CI_LL=0.59)^a

ICC=0.73 (CI_LL=0.57)^b /0.72 (CI_LL=0.54)^b

ICC=0.80 (CI_LL=0.55)^c /0.78 (CI_LL=0.52)^c

Doubtful

+

CI_LL=confidence interval lower limit. Sample size calculation not mentioned.

Small sample size in stroke and age-matched groups.

Healthy^b

46

43.4

33♀, 13♂

Age-matched healthy^c

19

59.7

11♀, 8♂

Stroke

33

60.1

7♀, 26♂

Internal consistency

KVIQ-20 / KVIQ-10

Kinaesthetic

α=0.92/ α=0.87

Visual

α=0.94/ α=0.89

Very good

+

Very good sample size for this analysis.

Healthy

70

42.9

49♀, 21♂

LL amputation

13

35.0

13♂

Acquired blindness

10

40.8

4♀, 6♂

LL immobilisation

5

50.1

5♂

Med

Randhawa et al. 2010 [68]

CA

E

PD

11

61.7

7♀, 4♂

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic

ICC=0.95 (CI_LL=0.83)

Visual

ICC=0.82 (0.49)

Inadequate

+

Low sample size considered as very important flaws- axial movements were not reliable, but only 1 patient had deficits in axial movement.

Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ)

Med

Schuster et al. 2012 [67]

CH

G

Subacute stroke^a

17

65.0

8♀, 9♂

Test-retest

KVIQ-G-20/ KVIQ-G-10

Kinaesthetic (95% CI)

ICC=0.80 (0.54–0.92)^a/0.79 (0.51–0.92)^a

ICC=0.75 (0.56–0.87)^b/0.80 (0.64–0.89)^b

ICC=0.91 (0.61–0.98)^c/0.88 (- 0.52–0.98)^c

ICC=0.95 (0.75–0.99)^d/0.92 (0.66–0.99)^d

ICC=0.82 (0.39–0.96)^e/0.84 (0.44–0.97)^e

Visual (95% CI)

ICC=0.83 (0.60–0.94)^a/0.86 (0.66–0.95)^a

ICC=0.84 (0.71–0.92)^b/0.82 (0.67–0.90)^b

ICC=0.77 (0.20–0.96)^c/0.62 (- 0.10–0.90)^c

ICC=0.43 (- 0.35–0.87)^d/0.51 (- 0.67–0.94)^d

ICC=0.68 (0.08–0.93)^e/0.69 (0.10–0.89)^e

Doubtful

+

Sample size calculation not mentioned.

Small sample size in MS and PD groups.

MS group showed lowest ICCs in the visual subscale.

Chronic stroke^b

34

62.5

9♀, 25♂

Left parietal lobe^c

7

61.6

3♀, 4♂

MS^d

7

48.0

5♀, 2♂

PD^e

8

73.4

3♀, 5♂

Internal consistency

KVIQ-G-20/ KVIQ-G-10

Kinaesthetic

α=0.96/ α=0.92

Visual

α=0.94/ α=0.88

Very good

?

Adequate sample size for this analysis. Structural validity indeterminate.

Med

Tabrizi et al, 2013 [69]

IR

MS

15

31.7

12♀, 3♂

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic

ICC=0.93 (p<0.001)

Visual

ICC=0.85 (p<0.001)

Inadequate

+

Language version of KVIQ not mentioned. Sample size insufficient for this analysis.

Internal consistency

α=0.84

Inadequate

?

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for total score and not for each subscales.

Med

Demanboro et al. 2018 [70]

BR

Stroke^a

33^a

54.8^a

NR

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic α=0.94^a, Visual α=0.95^a

Kinaesthetic α=0.95^b, Visual α=0.97^b

Inadequate

?

Test procedure not described.

*No information about structural validity of the KVIQ reported.

Sample size calculation not mentioned.

No information if patients were “stable”. Videorating used for inter-rater reliability could be inappropriate.

Healthy^b

24^b

55.2^b

Inter-rater

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.99 (range 0.99–0.99)^a

Visual ICC=0.99 (range 0.99–1.00)^a

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.99 (range 0.99–0.99)^b

Visual ICC=0.99 (range 0.99–0.99)^b

Inadequate

+

Intra-rater

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.75 (range 0.57–0.86)^a

Visual ICC=0.87 (range 0.77–0.92)^a

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.82 (range 0.67–0.91)^b

Visual ICC=0.90 (range 0.81–0.95)^b

Inadequate

+

n.d.s.

Nakano et al. 2018 [71]

JP

Students

28

20.6

13♀, 15♂

Internal consistency

KVIQ-20/ KVIQ-10

Kinaesthetic

α=0.91/ α=0.77

Visual

α=0.88/ α=0.78

Doubtful

?

Sample size calculation not mentioned and may be insufficient for this analysis.

Structural validity of the KVIQ not reported.

Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ)

Sport

Hall et al. 1985 [72]

CA

E

Students

32

NR

NR

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.83

Visual ICC=0.83

Doubtful

+

#, Doubtful sample size.

80

NR

NR

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic α=0.91

Visual α=0.87

Very good

?

Adequate sample size for this analysis but lack of evidence for sufficient structural validity.

n.d.s.

Atienza & Balaguer 1994 [73]

ES

E

Students

110

20.1

47♀, 63♂

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic α=0.88

Visual α=0.89

Very good

?

Very good sample size for this analysis but lack of evidence for sufficient structural validity.

Revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R)

Sport

Monsma et al. 2009 [74]

USA

E

Athletes and dancers

86

NR

NR

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic 0.81

Visual 0.80

Doubtful

?

Adequate sample size for this analysis. Doubtful how test-retest coefficient was calculated.

325

20.2

189♀, 136♂

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic α=0.88

Visual α=0.84

Very good

+

Very good sample size for this analysis.

Revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R)

Sport

Williams et al. 2012¹ [31]

CA

E

Athletes and dancers

400

20.8

219♀, 181♂

Internal consistency

CR=0.82 kinaesthetic and 0.88 visual

AVE=0.53 kinaesthetic and 0.65 visual

Very good

+

Williams et al. reported in their article the results of three separate studies.

2012¹= study 1.

Movement Imagery Questionnaire- Revised second version (MIQ-RS)

Sport

Gregg et al. 2010 [75]

UK

E

Athletes

87

NR

NR

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic r=0.73, ICC=0.54–0.73

Visual r=0.83, ICC=0.54-0.72

Doubtful

?

MIQ-RS developed for patients with movement limitation and validated in healthy participants.

321

23.3

174♀, 146♂

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic α=0.90

Visual α=0.87

Very good

?

Very good sample size for this analysis but lack of evidence for sufficient structural validity.

Med

Butler et al. 2012 [76]

USA

E

Stroke^a

23

59.2

7♀, 16♂

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic (95% CI)

ICC=0.92 (0.83–0.97)^a/ 0.94 (0.86-0.97)^b

Visual (95% CI)

ICC=0.83 (0.64–0.92)^a/ 0.99 (0.98-0.99)^b

Doubtful

+

Doubtful sample size and no information if patients were “stable”.

Healthy^b

23

51.0

11♀, 12♂

Internal consistency

Kinaesthetic

T1 α=0.97; T2 α=0.98 both groups

Visual

T1 α=0.95^a/ α=0.98^b; T2 α=0.95^a/ 0.98^b

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.

n.d.s.

Loison et al. 2013 [77]

FR

F

Healthy

113

NR

NR

Test-retest

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.78

Visual ICC=0.68

Very good

−

ICC for visual <0.70.

153

37.9

118♀, 35♂

Internal consistency

α=0.90

Inadequate

?

Cronbach’s alpha was reported for total score, not for each subscales

Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3)

Sport

Williams et al. 2012² [31]

CA

E

Athletes

370

20.3

185♀, 185♂

Internal consistency

CR=0.83 external, 0.79 internal and 0.85 kinaesthetic

AVE=0.55 external, 0.52 internal and 0.59 kinaesthetic

Very good

+

Williams et al. 2012² [31] = results of study 2.

Sport

Williams et al. 2012³ [31]

CA

E

Athletes

97

19.5

58♀, 39♂

Internal consistency

CR=0.89 external, 0.81 internal and 0.89 kinaesthetic

AVE=0.66 external, 0.51 internal and 0.67 kinaesthetic

Very good

+

Williams et al. 2012³ [31] = results of study 3.

Sport

Budnik-Przybylska et al. 2016 [78]

PL

PO

Athletes

47

NR

NR

Test-retest

External r=0.70

Internal r=0.62

Kinaesthetic r=0.65

Doubtful

−

Small sample size for this analysis.

No information if the participants were stable. 3-weeks interval for the test-retest could explain r <0.70.

276

21.3

102♀, 174♂

Internal consistency

External α=0.75

Internal α=0.78

Kinaesthetic α=0.81

Very good

+

*Information for sufficient structural validity reported.

n.d.s.

Paravlic et al. 2018 [79]

Sl

SL

Healthy

80

34.8

40♀, 40♂

Test-retest

External ICC=0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93)

Internal ICC=0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.93)

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.92 (95% CI 0.87–0.95)

Very good

+

Adequate sample size for this analysis. ICC for each subscales >0.70.

86

35.3

41♀, 45♂

Internal consistency

External α=0.89

Internal α=0.89

Kinaesthetic α=0.91

Very good

+

Adequate sample size for this analysis.

n.d.s.

Dilek et al. 2020 [80]

TR

Tu

Healthy

86

NR

NR

Test-retest

External (four items) ICC=range 0.86–0.90

Internal (four items) ICC=range 0.85–0.88

Kinaesthetic (four items) ICC=range 0.86–0.95

Adequate

+

Sample size adequate but test conditions by retest not mentioned.

181

21.6

53♀, 132♂

Internal consistency

T1: external α=0.74, internal α=0.74

Kinaesthetic α=0.79

T2: external α=0.72, internal α=0.68

Kinaesthetic α=0.74

Very good

+

T1=first test, T2=retest

Internal scale at the T2 was <0.70 but that may be considered as sufficient.

Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3)

Sport

Robin et al. 2020 [81]

FR

F

Students

172

20.2

115♀

Test-retest

Bravais-Pearson intraclass correlation coefficient

External r=0.86

Internal r=0.87

Kinaesthetic r=0.88

Adequate

+

Bravais-Person and not ICC calculated.

19.9

57♂

100

20.4

72♀

Internal consistency

External α=0.88

Internal α=0.92

Kinaesthetic α=0.92

Very good

?

Very good sample size for this analysis. Cronbach's alpha for each scale calculated.

19.9

28♂

n.d.s.

Trapero-Asenjo et al. 2021 [82]

ES

S

Students

62

NR

NR

Test-retest

External ICC=0.81

Internal ICC=0.88

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.82

Adequate

+

Sample size adequate but test conditions for retest not mentioned.

n.d.s.

Trapero-Asenjo et al. 2021 [82]

ES

S

Students

140

21.5

47♀, 93♂

Internal consistency

External α=0.84

Internal α=0.85

Kinaesthetic α=0.86

Very good

?

Very good sample size, Cronbach's alpha for each scale calculated.

Measurement error

External SEM=1.47, MDC=4.07

Internal SEM=1.38, MDC=3.82

Kinaesthetic SEM=1.98, MDC=5.48

Adequate

+

Test conditions by retest not mentioned.

Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children (MIQ-C)

n.d.s.

Martini et al. 2016¹ [83]

CA

E

Healthy children

20

NR

NR

Development

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.

Doubtful

NA

*Insufficient information about data analysis.

Martini et al. 2016² [83]

CA

E

Healthy children

23

NR

15♀, 8♂

Test-retest

External ICC=0.43

Internal ICC=0.72

Kinaesthetic ICC=0.82

Doubtful

−

Small sample size for this analysis. ICC external >0.70.

Test of Ability in Movement Imagery (TAMI)

Psy

Madan & Singhal, 2013² [84]

CA

E

Students

24

NR

NR

Test-retest

Pearson’s corr. coefficient r=0.71, p<0.001

Doubtful

−

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)

n.d.s.

Campos et al. 1998 [85]

ES

S

Students

338

20.9

51♀, 287♂

Internal consistency

α=0.90

Very good

?

*Insufficient information reported about structural validity of the VMIQ and its modification called VHMIQ.

Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ)

Sport

Isaac et al. 1986 [27]

NZ

E

Students/athletes

220

NR

NR

Test-retest

Pearson’s corr. coefficient r=0.76

Doubtful

−

ICC no calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating.

Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ)

Sport

Eton et al. 1998 [86]

USA

E

Recreational athletes + non-athletes

36

NR

NR

Test-retest

Pearson’s corr. coefficient for internal r=0.80, external r=0.64

Doubtful

?

Small sample size for this analysis.

ICC not calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating.

Varsity athletes

51

NR

27♀, 24♂

Internal consistency

External α=0.96

Internal α=0.96

Very good

?

*Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity.

Recreational athletes

48

24♀, 24♂

Non-athletes

26

14♀, 12♂

Revised Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2 (VMIQ-2)

Sport

Williams et al. 2012² [31]

CA

E

Athletes

370

20.3

185♀, 185♂

Internal consistency

CR=0.94 external, 0.93 internal and 0.93 Kinaesthetic

AVE=0.56 external, 0.52 internal and 0.53 kinaesthetic

Very good

+

Very good sample size for this analysis.

Sport

Williams et al. 2012³ [31]

CA

E

Athletes

97

19.5

58♀, 39♂

Internal consistency

CR=0.93 external, 0.92 internal and 0.93 kinaesthetic

AVE=0.54 external, 0.50 internal and 0.53 kinaesthetic

Very good

+

Adequate sample size for this analysis.

Sport

Roberts et al. 2008³ [7]

UK

E

Athletes

71

21.72

55♀, 16♂,

Internal consistency

External α=0.95

Internal α=0.95

Kinaesthetic α=0.93

Very good

+

Roberts et al. 2008³ [7] = study 3

Adequate sample size for this analysis..

Sport

Ziv et al. 2017 [87]

IL

HE

Students

88

29.5

56♀,

Test-retest

External r=0.72

Internal r=0.57

Kinaesthetic r=0.66

Doubtful

−

ICC not calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating

25.6

32♂,

Internal consistency

T1: α=0.91 external, α=0.95 internal, α=0.94 Kinaesthetic

T2: α=0.94 external, α=0.94 internal, α=0.95 kinaesthetic

Very good

?

T1=first test, T2= retest.

Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity.

Sport

Qwagzeh et al. 2018 [88]

JO

AR

Students

46

NR

18♀, 28♂,

Internal consistency

External α=0.98

Internal α=0.98

Kinaesthetic α=0.98

Doubtful

?

Sample size calculation not mentioned and may be doubtful for this analysis.

Structural validity of the VMIQ-2 not reported

n.d.s.

Dahm et al. 2019 [89]

AT

G

Students

78

24.0

30♀, 48♂

Test-retest

Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) calculated

External r=0.62

Internal r=0.61

Kinaesthetic r=0.69

Doubtful

−

CCC> 0.70. Doubtful if the test conditions were similar.

254

24.0

79♀, 175♂

Internal consistency

External α=0.91

Internal α=0.90

Kinaesthetic α=0.91

Very good

+

Very good sample size for this analysis. Structural validity also reported.

Wheelchair Imagery Ability Questionnaire (WIAQ)

Med

Faull & Jones 2018¹ [90]

UK

E

Athletes

6

25.17

6♂

Development

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