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) | Med | Malouin et al. 2007 [43] | CA | E | Strokea | 33 | 60.1 | 7♀, 26♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | KVIQ-20 + KVIQ-10 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. |
Healthyb | 70 | 42.9 | 49♀, 21♂ | ||||||||||
LL amputationc | 13 | 35.0 | 13♂ | ||||||||||
Acquired blindnessd | 10 | 40.8 | 4♀, 6♂ | ||||||||||
LL immobilizatione | 5 | 50.1 | 5♂ | ||||||||||
Med | Randhawa et al. 2010 [68] | CA | E | PD | 11 | 61.7 | 7♀, 4♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. KVIQ-20 and MIQ-R r=0.94 kinaesthetic r=0.88 visual r=0.93 for total score | Inadequate | + | Sample size included in this analysis not adequate. Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct. | |
Med | Schuster et al. 2012 [67] | CH | G | Subacute stroke Chronic stroke Left parietal lobe MS PD | 19 | 59.9 | 6♀, 13♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. KVIQ-G and Imaprax-G r=0.36 visual (KVIQ-G-20 vs. Imaprax) r=0.32 visual (KVIQ-G-10 vs. Imaprax) | Doubtful | − | Small sample size. 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. | ||||||
Med | Tabrizi et al. 2013 [69] | IR | NR | MS | 15 | 31.7 | 12♀, 3♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. KVIQ-20 and MIQ r=0.75 kinaesthetic r=0.78 visual | Doubtful | + | *Insufficient information about factor analysis reported for quality criteria rating. Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct. | |
Construct validity- structural validity | KVIQ-20 Bifactorial structure of the KVIQ-20 was confirmed. Total variance of both factors explained by 90% | Inadequate | ? | ||||||||||
Med | Nakano et al. 2018 [71] | JP | J | Students | 28 | 20.6 | 13♀, 15♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. KVIQ-20 and MIQ-R r=0.77 kinaesthetic r=0.64 visual Corr. KVIQ-10 and MIQ-R r=0.78 kinaesthetic r=0.62 visual | Doubtful | + | Sample size calculation not mentioned. Small sample size. Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct. | |
Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ) | Sport | Hall et al. 1985 [72] | CA | E | Students | 80 | NR | NR | Construct validity- stability of the internal structure | Corr. kinaesthetic vs. visual subscale Correlation between the score achieved on the both subscales (kinaesthetic and visual) was 0.58 | NA | NA | Factor structure was not analysed. Only the total score corr. for both subscales was reported and authors suggest the stability of the subscale structure. |
n.d.s | Atienza & Balaguer 1994 [73] | ES | E | Students | 110 | 20.1 | 47♀, 63♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
n.d.s | Lequerica et al. 2002 [22] | USA | E | Students | 80 | 22.1 | 41♀, 39♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. MIQ and GTVIC r=0.45 MIQ visual Corr. MIQ and VMIQ r=0.56 kinaesthetic; r=0.52 visual | Doubtful | + | #, 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. | |
Revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R) | Psy | Hall & Martin 1997 [91] | CA | E | Students | 50 | 20.9 | 26♀, 24♂ | Criterion validity | Corr. MIQ and MIQ-R r=0.77 kinaesthetic r=0.77 visual | Doubtful | + | #, Doubtful sample size. Corr. with gold standard- MIQ was >0.70. |
Sport | Monsma et al. 2009 [74] | USA | E | Athletes and dancers | 325 | 20.2 | 189♀, 136♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | CFA include a path between two factors (kinaesthetic and visual) and suggest these two factors are interrelated. ∆χ2(1)=126.14, p<0.001. CFI=0.99, NNFI=0.98, AGFI=0.95, SRMR=0.03, RMSEA=0.06. | Very good | + | Accepted model fit: CFI, NNFI or AGFI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06. | |
Sport | Williams et al. 20121 [31] | CA | E | Athletes and dancers | 400 | 20.8 | 219♀, 181♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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) | Sport | Gregg et al. 2010 [75] | UK | E | Athletes | 321 | 23.3 | 174♀, 146♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | CFA confirmed the bifactorial (kinaesthetic and visual) structure of MIQ-RS. χ2//df=3.72, CFI=0.99, RFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.09. | Inadequate | - | MIQ-RS developed for patients with motor impairments but tested with athletes. Should be tested in another field. RMSEA not acceptable. SRMR not reported. |
Criterion validity | Corr. MIQ-RS and MIQ-R r=0.80 kinaesthetic r=0.82 visual | Very good | + | Corr. with gold standard- MIQ-R was >0.70. | |||||||||
Med | Butler et al. 2012 [76] | USA | E | Strokea | 23 | 59.2 | 7♀, 16♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |||||||||
n.d.s. | Loison et al. 2013 [77] | FR | F | Healthy | 153 | 37.9 | 118♀, 35♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3) | Sport | Williams et al. 20122 [31] | CA | E | Athletes and dancers | 370 | 20.3 | 185♀, 185♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |||||||||
Sport | Williams et al. 20123 [31] | CA | E | Athletes | 97 | 19.5 | 58♀, 39♂ | Criterion validity- Predictive validity | MIQ-3 external sign. predict skill observational learning (OL) β=0.39, t=2.82, p=0.006 MIQ-3 external sign. predict strategy (OL) β=0.44, t=3.17, p=0.002 MIQ-3 kinaesthetic sign. predict performance (OL) β=0.48, t=3.30, p=0.001 | Doubtful | ? | Multiple regressions conducted to assess the predictive validity. Sample size doubtful. Doubtful if FOLO could be used as external criterion. | |
Sport | Budnik-Przybylska et al. 2016 [78] | PL | PO | Athletes | 276 | 21.3 | 102♀, 174♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
n.d.s. | Paravlic et al. 2018 [79] | Sl | SL | Healthy | 86 | 35.3 | 41♀, 45♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | CFA and three-factor model achieved best model fits: χ2=75.40, df=51, CFI=0.94, TLI=0.93, RMR/SRMR=0.11, RMSEA=0.07 | Adequate | − | Accepted model fit: CFI or TLI >0.95, or SRMR <0.08, or RMSEA <0.06. Above mentioned criteria for good properties not met. | |
n.d.s. | Dilek et al. 2020 [80] | TR | Tu | Healthy | 181 | 21.6 | 53♀, 132♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
Sport | Robin et al. 2020 [81] | FR | F | Students | 172 | 20.2 | 115♀ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
19.9 | 57♂ | ||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Trapero-Asenjo et al. 2021 [82] | ES | S | Students | 140 | 21.5 | 47♀, 93♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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) | n.d.s. | Martini et al. 2016 [83] | CA | E | Healthy children | 204 | 9.6 | 125♀, 79♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. |
Test of Ability in Movement Imagery (TAMI) | Psy | Madan & Singhal, 20132 [84] | CA | E | Students | 49 | 19.6 | 29♀, 20♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | PCA and varimax rotation confirmed that factor objective movement imagery was loaded by TAMI with 0.81. | Inadequate | ? | #, EFA performed but not explicit to explore the structural validity of TAMI. *Insufficient information reported for quality criteria rating. |
Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. TAMI and VMIQ-2 internal visual: r=0.36, p<0.05 Corr. TAMI and FPIQ three subscales:Â r=0.451, r=0.392, r=0.343, p<0.05 Corr. TAMI and VVIQ:r=0.43, p<0.01 TAMI do not correlate with VMIQ-2 external and kinaesthetic subscales, with the MRT, and with the FPIQ kinaesthetic | Inadequate | ? | The subscales of FPIQ: 1= position, 2= action, 3= object No hypothesis defined. Insufficient information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument. | |||||||||
Psy | Madan & Singhal, 2014 [92] | CA | E | Students | 189 | 19.5 | 125♀, 64♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. TAMIw *and VMIQ-2 internal visual: r=0.37 Corr. TAMIw and FPIQ subscale position: r=0.44 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) | Psy | Donoff et al. 2017 [93] | CA | E | Students | 70 | NR | 49♀, 21♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. TAMI-H and TAMIw: r=0.29 FM/ r=0.53 IM Corr. TAMI-H and FPIQ kinaesthetic: r=0.34 FM/ r=0.26 IM Corr. TAMI-H and FPIQ position: r=0.19 FM/ r=0.26 IM Corr. TAMI-H and FPIQ action: r=0.21 FM/ r=0.34 IM Corr. TAMI-H and FPIQ object: r=0.35 FM/ r=0.44 | inadequate | ? | 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) | n.d.s. | Campos et al. 1998 [85] | ES | S | Students | 338 | 20.9 | 51♀, 287♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. VHMIQ and VMIQ 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) | Sport | Isaac et al. 1986 [27] | NZ | E | Studentsa | 220 | NR | NR | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. VMIQ and VVIQ Pearson corr. coefficient for group a r=0.81 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. |
No trampoline experienceb | 25 | ||||||||||||
Trampoline experiencec | 25 | ||||||||||||
International level trampolinistsd | 16 | ||||||||||||
Sport | Eton et al. 1998 [86] | USA | E | Varsity athletes | 51 | NR | 27♀, 24♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. VMIQ and VVIQ r=0.60, p<0.01 | Doubtful | ? | Doubtful if constructs measured by comparator instrument are same. Some information about measurement properties of the comparator instrument. | |
Recreational athletes | 48 | 24♀, 24♂ | |||||||||||
Non-athletes | 26 | 14♀, 12♂ | |||||||||||
n.d.s | Lequerica et al. 2002 [22] | USA | E | Students | 80 | 22.1 | 41♀, 39♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. VMIQ and GTVIC r=0.72 VMIQ visual Corr. VMIQ and MIQ see above notes for the MIQ | Doubtful | + | See above comments for the MIQ. | |
Revised Version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ-2) | Sport | Roberts et al. 20081 [7] | UK | E | Athletes | 351 | 20.44 | 159♀, 189♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. 20081= study 1 Very good sample size for this analysis. |
Sport | Roberts et al. 20082 [7] | UK | E | Athletes | 355 | 20.44 | 119♀, 235♂, 1 NR | Construct validity- structural validity | 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 | Very good | + | Roberts et al. 20082 [7]= study 2 Very good sample size for this analysis. | |
Sport | Roberts et al. 20083 [7] | UK | E | Athletes | 71 | 21.72 | 55♀, 16♂, | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. internal VMIQ-2 and visual MIQ-R r=−0.34, p<0.05 Corr. external VMIQ-2 and visual MIQ-R r=−0.65, p<0.01 Corr. kinaesthetic VMIQ-2 and kinaesthetic MIQ-R r=−0.74, p<0.01 | Doubtful | + | Roberts et al. 20083 [7]= study 3 Strong corr. with instruments measuring the same construct. 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses. | |
Sport | Qwagzeh et al. 2018 [88] | JO | AR | Students | 46 | NR | 18♀, 28♂, | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Concurrent validity was 0.89. | Inadequate | − | 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. | |||||||||
n.d.s. | Dahm et al. 2019 [89] | AT | G | Students | 254 | 24.0 | 79♀, 175♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. | |
Wheelchair Imagery Ability Questionnaire (WIAQ) | Med | Faull & Jones 20182 [90] | UK | E | Athletes | 115 | 31.46 | 62♀, 53♂ | Construct validity- structural validity | 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. |
Med | Faull & Jones 20183 [90] | UK | E | Athletes | 115 | 31.46 | 62♀, 53♂ | Construct validity- hypothesis testing | Corr. WIAQ with SIAQ (total score) external and SIAQ r=0.39 internal and SIAQ r= 0.26 kinaesthetic and SIAQ r=0.20 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. |