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 | |||||||||||||||
Auditory Imagery Scale (AIS) | n.d.s. | Gissurarson 1992 [94] | IS | E | Volunteers | 160 | 33.0 | 70♀, 90♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.80 | Very good | ? | Very good sample size. Cronbach's alpha >0.70. Structural validity reported but indeterminate. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos 2017 [95] | ES | S | Students | 444 | 20.4 | 190♀, 254♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.63 | Very good | − | Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha <0.70. | |||
Auditory Imagery Questionnaire (AIQ) | n.d.s. | Hishitani 20091 [160] | JP | E | Students | 10 | 21.8 | 10♂ | Development | Students were recruited for item collection. 12 items were selected, and each item can be rated on a 5-point scale. | Inadequate | NA | It is not clear, for which target population the AIQ was developed. Data collection and analysis not described. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos 2017 [95] | ES | S | Students | 444 | 20.4 | 190♀, 254♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.74 | Very good | + | Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. Structural validity reported. | |||
Bucknell Auditory Imagery Scale (BAIS) | n.d.s. | Halpern 2015 [97] | USA | E | Volunteers | 76 | 22.6 | 22♀, 54♂ | Internal consistency | Control scale α=0.81 vividness scale α=0.83 | Very good | ? | Cronbach's alpha for both scales calculated and >0.70. Structural validity reported but indeterminate. | ||
Betts Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (original 150-item, QMI) | Psy | Betts 1909 [25] | CO | E | Students and psychologists | 46 | NR | NR | Development | 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) | Psy | Sheehan 1967 [98] | AU | E | Students | 280 | 23.0 | 140♀, 140♂ | Development | 7 sensory modalities: visual, auditory, cutaneous, kinaesthetic, gustatory, olfactory and organic. Total 35 items. | Inadequate | NA | Betts and Sheehen included psychology students for evaluation. Further studies are needed including older populations. | ||
n.d.s. | Sheehan 1967 [98] | USA | E | Students | 62 | NR | 62♀ | Test-retest | Pearson corr. visual subscale and total score r=0.78. | Inadequate | − | Time interval (7 months) for test-retest not appropriate. No ICC for test-retest calculated. Population only males. | |||
n.d.s. | Juhasz 1972 [99] | USA | E | Studentsa |  | 12.0 | NR | Internal consistency | α=0.95a | Inadequate | − | Insufficient information about participants and study procedures. Cronbach’s alpha for total score reported. | |||
Professorsb | 67.0 | α=0.99b | |||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Evans et al. 1973 [100] | USA | E | Students | 35 | 22.0 | NR | Test-retest | Pearson corr. for total score r=0.91 Subscales: visual=0.67, auditory=0.74, tactile=0.82, kinaesthetic=0.74, gustatory=0.75, olfactory=0.72, organic=0.61. | Doubtful | - | Sample size and time interval for this analysis doubtful (6 weeks). Low test-retest reliability for organic and visual subscales. | |||
n.d.s. | Westcott & Rosenstock 1976 [101] | USA | E | Students | 147 | NR. | 66♀, 81♂ | Test-retest | Reliabilities ranged from 0.72 to 0.75 | Doubtful | ? | No information whether ICC or correlation for reliabilities were calculated. | |||
Internal consistency | α ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 | Inadequate | ? | Cronbach’s for total score reported. *Insufficient information reported for quality criteria rating. | |||||||||||
n.d.s. | White et al. 1977 [48] | AU | E | students | 251 | NR | 89♀, 162♂ | Test-retest | Total score=0.59 Subscales: visual=0.52, auditory=0.46, tactile=0.51, kinaesthetic=0.32, gustatory=0.46, olfactory=0.59, organic=0.51. | Inadequate | − | No information how reliability was calculated (Pearson or ICC). Time interval for test-retest was 12 months. | |||
n.d.s | Baranchok John 1995 [102] | MX + USA | S + E | Mexican studentsa | 350 | NR | 159♀, 191♂ | Internal consistency | Both language versions Total α=0.90a. Subscales: auditory=0.70, kinaesthetic=0.67, gustatory=0.76, olfactory=0.72, organic=0.70, cutaneous=0.63, visual=0.67 Total α=0.88b. Subscales: auditory=0.70, kinaesthetic=0.67, gustatory=0.73, olfactory=0.70, organic=0.67, cutaneous=0.62, visual=0.66 | Very good | − | Translation process made with 30 students. High corr. r=0.98 between English and Spanish language version suggested semantic equivalence. Cronbach’s alpha for most scales >0.70. | |||
US studentsb | 307 | 130♀, 177♂ | |||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Sacco & Reda 1998 [103] | IT | I | Students | 201 | 22.6 | 65♀, 136♂ | Internal consistency | Total α=0.86. Subscales: auditory=0.65, kinaesthetic=0.58, gustatory=0.63, olfactory=0.64, organic=0.75, cutaneous=0.64, visual=0.67 | Very good | − | Cronbach's alpha only for organic scale >0.70. *No information for structural validity reported. | |||
n.d.s. | Campos & Pérez-Fabello 2005 [104] | ES | S | Students | 562 | 20.2 | 148♀, 414♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.92 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s for total score reported. Should be calculated for each subscales. | |||
Clarity of Auditory Imagery Scale (CAIS) | n.d.s. | Willander & Baraldi 2010 [105] | SE | E/Se | Students | 212 | 25.9 | 58♀, 154♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.88 | Very good | ? | Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. Structural validity doubtful. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos 2011 [106] | ES | S | Students | 234 | 19.6 | 47♀, 187♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.82 | Very good | ? | Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. Structural validity indeterminate. | |||
Edu | Tuznik & Francuz 2019 [107] | PL | Po | Musicians | 39 | 22.5 | 21♀, 18♂ | Test-retest | N=87 ICC 0.85 (95% CI 0.76–0.91) | Adequate | + | Adequate sample size. ICC calculated and >0.70, formula described. | |||
Non- musicians | 40 | 24.5 | 20♀, 20♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.87 | Very good | ? | Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. Structural validity reported indeterminate. | |||||||
Gordon Test of Visual imagery control (GTVIC) | n.d.s. | Juhasz 1972 [99] | USA | E | Studentsa | 67 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | αa=0.88 | Doubtful | ? | *Insufficient information about participants and study procedures. Cronbach’s alpha higher for smaller sample sizes. | ||
Professorsb | 12 | αb=0.95 | |||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Mckelvie & Gingras 1974 [108] | CA | E/F | Students | 87 | 16.5 | NR | Internal consistency | Split-half with the Spearmen-Brown formula 0.76 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha not calculated. No Information about test procedures. | |||
33 | 16.5 | NR | Test-retest | Pearson corr. r=0.84 | Doubtful | − | Unclear whether test conditions were similar. Sample size doubtful. ICC not calculated. | ||||||||
n.d.s. | Westcott & Rosenstock 1976 [101] | USA | E | Students | 147 | NR | 66♀, 81♂ | Internal consistency | α ranged from 0.64 to 0.66 | Very good | − | Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha <0.70. | |||
Test-retest | r ranged from 0.81 to 0.86 | Doubtful | ? | No information whether ICC or correlation for reliabilities calculated. | |||||||||||
n.d.s. | Hiscock 19782 [109] | USA | E | Students | 123 | NR | 55♀, 68♂ | Internal consistency | Split-half, r=0.77 | NA | NA | Authors reported several studies in one article. COSMIN + quality criteria rating could not be applied. Results only in discussion mentioned. | |||
n.d.s. | Hiscock 19783 [109] | USA | E | Students | 79 | NR | 36♀, 43♂ | Internal consistency | Split-half, r=0.84 | NA | NA | ||||
n.d.s. | Leboutillier & Marks 2002 [110] | UK | E | Students | 167 | 20.0 (median) | 52♀, 115♂ | 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. | ||||
n.d.s. | Pérez-Fabello & Campos 2004 [111] | ES | S | Students | 479 | 20.5 | 70♀, 409♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.69 | Very good | − | Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||
Imaging Ability Questionnaire (IAQ) | Med | Kwekkeboom 2000 [42] | USA | E | Participants from different sources | 200 | 48.7 | NR | Development | 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. | ||
Med | Kwekkeboom 2000 [42] | USA | E | Participants from different sources | 200 | 48.7 | NR | Internal consistency | 54-item version α=0.95 32-item version Total α=0.93; absorption α=0.92; Image generation α=0.92. | Very good | + | Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale calculated. | |||
84 | 53.0 | NR | Test-retest | 0.92 | Doubtful | ? | ICC not calculated. Insufficient information on how test-retest reliabilities was calculated. | ||||||||
Imagery Questionnaire by Lane | n.d.s. | Lane 1977 [112] | CA | E | Students | 320 | NR | 122♀, 198♂ | Internal consistency | Seven modalities: visual α=0.50 auditory α=0.53 cutaneous α=0.46 kinaesthetic α=0.57 gustatory α=0.56 olfactory α=0.64 feeling states α=0.53 | Very good | − | Development process not described. No information about test procedures. Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | ||
Kids Imaging Ability Questionnaire (KIAQ) | Med | Kwekkeboom et al. 2000 [113] | USA | E | Children | 58 | 9.9 | 19♀, 39♂ | Internal consistency | 17-item KIAQ 1st Time, N=54 analysed: α=0.70 absorption scale, α=0.61 image generation scale, total α=0.76. 2nd Time, N=44 analysed: α=0.69 absorption scale, α=0.58 image generation scale, total α=0.75. | Very good | − | Low sample size considered for 2ndTime (n<50). Cronbach’s alpha not for all items >0.70. | ||
Test-retest | N=44 analysed, Pearson’s corr. coefficient r=0.73 | Doubtful | ? | Sample size < 50. ICC not calculated. Corr. coefficient does not consider systematic error. | |||||||||||
Mental Imagery Scale (MIS) | n.d.s | Dercole et al. 2010 [114] | IT | I | Participants characteristics NR | 262 | 29.0 | 92♀, 170♂ | Development | MIS: 33 items generated: image formation speed, permanence/stability, dimensions, level of details and grain, distance and depth of field/perspective. rating scale 1–5. | Inadequate | NA | Participants not clearly described. No information provided of the target population for which the assessment was developed. | ||
n.d.s | Dercole et al. 2010 [114] | IT | I | Participants characteristics NR | 262 | 29.0 | 92♀, 170♂ | Internal consistency | Inter-item analyses for components: Stability=0.77, Distance=0.76, Level of Details=0.74, Rapidity=0.72, Dimensions= 0.60, Perspective=0.69. | Very good | - | Cronbach’s alpha for two items >0.70. | |||
Plymoth sensory imagery questionnaire (Psi-Q) | n.d.s. | Andrade et al. 20141 [115] | UK | E | Students | NA | NR | NA | Development | 7 modalities: vision, sound, smell, taste, touch, bodily sensation, emotional feeling, five items for each modality, total 35 items. | Inadequate | NA | Several studies in this article reported. No information on target population. Only evaluated with students. | ||
41 | NR | NR | Test-retest | r=0.71(subscales ranged from 0.43 to 0.84) | Inadequate | − | Time interval between measurements not appropriate. Sample size doubtful. | ||||||||
404 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | α=0.96 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha for total score reported. Sex not reported. | ||||||||
n.d.s. | Andrade et al. 20142 [115] | UK | E | Students | 209 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | α=0.93 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha for total score reported. Sex not reported. | |||
n.d.s. | Andrade et al. 20143 [115] | UK | E | Students | 212 | 23.4 (median) | 59♀, 153♂ | Internal consistency | Long form α=0.96 Short form α=0.94 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha for total score reported. | |||
n.d.s. | Pérez-Fabello & Campos 2020 [116] | ES | S | Students | 394 | 21.0 | 101♀, 293♂ | Internal consistency | vision α=0.68 sound α=0.77 smell α=0.72 taste α=0.75 touch α=0.75 body α=0.68 emotions α=0.72 | Very good | + | Very good sample size, Cronbach’s alpha for each subscales reported, structural validity evaluated and sufficient. | |||
Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM) | Sport | Watt 20031 [36] | AU | E | Students and athletes | 5 | 15-16 | NR | Development | 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. | ||
Sport | Watt 20031 [36] | AU | E | Students and athletes | 474 | 18.42 | 268♀, 206♂ | Internal consistency | Gustatory α=0.80 Auditory α=0.68 Duration α=0.72 Vividness α=0.70 Speed α=0.65 | Olfactory α=0.81 Tactile α=0.76 Emotion α=0.76 Control α=0.73 Visual α=0.68 Ease α=0.63 | Very good | ? | For quality criteria rating: 1/3 of all items are <0.70. A subgroup analysis regarding age or sport and physical activities experience may reveal more homogeneous data. | ||
Revised Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM-R) | Sport | Watt 20031 [36] | AU | E | Students and athletes | 47 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Gustatory r=0.83 Auditory r=0.51 Kinaesthetic r=0.68 Duration r=0.57 Vividness r=0.59 Speed r=0.44 | Olfactory r=0.78 Tactile r=0.70 Emotion r=0.63 Control r=0.61 Visual r=0.51 Ease r=0.44 | Doubtful | ? | Sample Size doubtful. ICC not calculated. Insufficient information on how test-retest reliabilities were calculated. | |
Sport | Watt 20032 [36] | AU | E | Athletes and students | 633 | 18.77 | 334♀, 299♂ | Internal consistency | Gustatory α=0.87 Auditory α=0.75 Kinaesthetic α=0.77 Control α=0.79 Vividness α=0.75 Ease α=0.67 | Olfactory α=0.84 Tactile α=0.80 Emotion α=0.75 Duration α=0.77 Speed α=0.66 Visual α=0.76 | Very good | ? | Very good sample size. High internal consistency. However, last 3 items <0.70. | ||
58 | NR. | NR | Test-retest | Gustatory r=0.76 Auditory r=0.41 Kinaesthetic r=0.58 Control r=0.66 Vividness r=0.56 Ease r=0.50 | Olfactory r=0.65 Tactile r=0.61 Emotion r=0.75 Duration r=0.59 Speed r=0.53 Visual r=0.67 | Doubtful | ? | ICC not calculated. Insufficient information on how test-retest reliabilities were calculated. | |||||||
Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire (SAIQ) | Sport | Williams & Cumming 2011 [117] | UK | E | Athletes | 403 | 20.2 | 198♀, 205♂ | Development | 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. No group meetings or interviews mentioned. | ||
Sport | Williams & Cumming 20111 [117] | UK | E | Athletes | 375 | 24.7 | 179♀, 196♂ | Internal consistency | 20-item version of SIAQ | Very good | + | Authors reported results from 4 studies in this article. Criterion level for CR 0.70 and AVE 0.50. | |||
| Â | CR | AVE | |||||||||||||
Skill imagery: | 0.74 | 0.50 | |||||||||||||
Strategy imagery | 0.75 | 0.50 | |||||||||||||
Goal imagery | 0.79 | 0.57 | |||||||||||||
Affect imagery | 0.78 | 0.55 | |||||||||||||
Sport | Williams & Cumming 20112 [117] | UK | E | Athletes | 363 | 24.8 | 175♀, 188♂ | Internal consistency | 12-item version of SIAQ CR ranged from 0.76 to 0.80 AVE ranged from 0.52 to 0.58 | Very good | + | Criterion level for CR 0.70 and AVE 0.50. | |||
Sport | Williams & Cumming 20113 [117] | UK | E | Athletes | 426 | NR | 199♀, 227♂ | Internal consistency | Modified SIAQ: 15-item version (3 new items added to 12-item version) + fifth subscale added: mastery CR ranged from 0.76 to 0.86 AVE ranged from 0.51 to 0.68 | Very good | + | Sample size very good. Criterion level for CR 0.70 and AVE 0.50. | |||
116 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Skill ICC=0.83 Strategy ICC=0.86 Goal ICC=0.86 Affect ICC=0.75 Mastery ICC=0.85 | Doubtful | + | Test-retest interval doubtful. Test conditions were presumably similar. All ICC values > 0.70. | ||||||||
Sport | Williams & Cumming 20114 [117] | UK | E | Athletes | 220 | 19.5 | 86♀, 134♂ | Internal consistency | Modified SIAQ: 15 items, five subscales CR ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 AVE ranged from 0.55 to 0.67 | Very good | + | Sample size very good. Criterion level for CR 0.70 and AVE 0.50. | |||
Survey of mental imagery | n.d.s. | Switras 1978 [118] | USA | E | Students | 350 | NR | 129♀, 221♂ | Internal consistency Form A | Controllability | Vividness | very good | ? | For development 1200 participants involved but no characteristics reported. Two versions of the Survey of Mental Imagery assessments: Form A and B. | |
Visual α=0.79 | α=0.88 | ||||||||||||||
Auditory α=0.78 | α=0.87 | ||||||||||||||
Gustatory α=0.86 | α=0.90 | ||||||||||||||
Tactile α=0.78 | α=0.85 | ||||||||||||||
Somesthetic α=0.68 | α=0.78 | ||||||||||||||
Kinaesthetic α=0.81 | α=0.89 | ||||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Switras 1978 [118] | USA | E | Students | 350 | NR | 129♀, 221♂ | Internal consistency Form B | Controllability | Vividness | Very good | ? | # Students received course credits for participation. Cronbach’s alpha calculated including all subscales. Structural validity indeterminate. | ||
Visual α=0.83 | α=0.89 | ||||||||||||||
Auditory α=0.78 | α=0.87 | ||||||||||||||
Olfactory α=0.80 | α=0.85 | ||||||||||||||
Gustatory α=0.88 | α=0.91 | ||||||||||||||
Tactile α=0.76 | α=0.84 | ||||||||||||||
Somesthetic α=0.71 | α=0.79 | ||||||||||||||
Kinaesthetic α=0.80 | α=0.87 | ||||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Grebot 2003 [119] | FR | F | Teachers | 162 | 36.0 | 31♀, 131♂ | Internal consistency | French version with 52 items: only visual, auditory, somesthetic and kinaesthetic modalities. Controllability: Visual α=0.66, Auditory α=0.88, Somesthetic α=0.77, Kinaesthetic α=0.91 Vividness: Visual α=0.86, Auditory α=0.91, Somesthetic α=0.83, Kinaesthetic α=0.93 Formation: Visual α=0.88, Auditory α=0.89, Somesthetic α=0.80, Kinaesthetic α=0.93 | Very good | ? | 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. | |||
Visual Elaboration Scale (VES) | n.d.s. | Slee 1976 [120] | AU | E | Students | 40 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | Original form of VES (Three absent objects and 15 items) Item-total correlation (range) 1. object α=0.25–0.48 2. object α=0.30–0.56 3. object α=0.23–0.51 Five items did not show sig. corr. with total score and were removed from original form. | doubtful | ? | Only item-total corr. calculated and no Cronbach’s alpha or KR-20. Sample size doubtful. No information about participants. | ||
Students | 50 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | Second form of the scale (four objects and 20 items) Item-total correlation (range) 1. object α=0.35–0.56 2. object α=0.27–0.74 3. object α=0.34–0.62 4. object α=0.25–0.55 KR-20 reliability was 0.78 Five items were removed from second form and the 15 items remaining were accepted as a final form. KR-20 calculated for final form (N=50) 0.78. | Doubtful | ? | Only a few information about participants. # Participants received course credits for their participation. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||||||
Vividness of Olfactory Imagery Questionnaire (VOIQ) | n.d.s. | Gilbert et al. 1998 [121] | USA | E | Fragrance expertsa | 122 | NR | 63♀, 59♂ | Internal consistency | Split-half reliability coefficient 0.77a/ 0.86b | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha not calculated. Structural validity not mentioned. | ||
Non-expert controlsb | 95 | 50♀, 45♂ | |||||||||||||
Vividness of Object and Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (VOSI) | n.d.s. | Blazhenkova Olesya 20161 [122] | TU | NR | Students | 111 | 21.8 | 53♀, 58♂ | Development | 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. | inadequate | NA | Results of two studies in this article reported. | ||
n.d.s. | Blazhenkova Olesya 20162 [122] | TU | NR | Students | 205 | 21.0 | 95♀, 110♂ | Development | The final version of VOSI: 14 items assessing object imagery vividness and 14 items assessing spatial imagery. | Inadequate | NA | For both versions (pilot and final), no information provided on how data were collected for item creating. Target population not mentioned. Only students participated and were reimbursed with course credits or chocolate bars. | |||
Internal consistency | Object vividness scale: α=0.88 Spatial vividness scale: α=0.85 | Inadequate | - | Cronbach’s alpha for total score reported. | |||||||||||
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) | n.d.s. | Marks 1973 [26] | NZ | E | Students | 68 | NR | NR | Test-retest | r=0.74 | Doubtful | ? | Test-retest reliability only briefly mentioned. No information on how test-retest was calculated. | ||
n.d.s. | Mckelvie & Gingras 1974 [108] | CA | E | Students | 87 | 16.5 | NR | Internal consistency | Split-half with the Spearmen-Brown formula 0.93 | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha not calculated. No information about test procedures. | |||
n.d.s. | Mckelvie 1974 [108] | CA | E | Students | 33 | 16.5 | NR | Test-retest | Pearson corr. r=0.67 | Doubtful | − | Unclear if the test-retest conditions were similar. Sample size doubtful. | |||
n.d.s. | Rossi 1977 [123] | USA | E | Students | 119 | NR | NR | Test-retest | 0.73 | Doubtful | ? | Time interval doubtful. Participants characteristics not described. No information on how test-retest was calculated. | |||
Internal consistency | α=0.91 | Doubtful | ? | No information about participants characteristics and test procedures. Structural validity evaluated but indeterminate. | |||||||||||
Sport | Isaac et al. 1986 [27] | NZ | E | Students/ athletes | 220 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Pearson’s corr. coefficient r=0.75 | Doubtful | − | ICC no calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating. | |||
Sport | Eton et al. 1998 [86] | USA | E | Recreational athletes + non-athletes | 36 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Pearson’s corr. coefficient for eyes open r=0.48, eyes closed r=0.62 | Doubtful | − | Small sample size. ICC not calculated. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating. | |||
Varsity athletes | 51 | NR | 27♀, 24♂ | Internal consistency | Eyes open α=0.91 Eyes closed α=0.93 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||||||
Recreational athletes | 48 | 24♀, 24♂ | |||||||||||||
Non-athletes | 26 | 14♀, 12♂ | |||||||||||||
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) | n.d.s. | Campos et al. 2002 [124] | ES | S | Secondary school students | 850 | 13.3 | 428♀, 422♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.88 | Very good | ? | High internal consistency but not reported whether for eyes open or closed version. Structural validity indeterminate. | ||
n.d.s. | Leboutillier & Marks 2001 [125] | UK | E | Students | 198 | 23.86 | 75♀, 123♂ | Internal consistency | Nature scenes overall α=0.88 (range 0.31–0.67) Person scene overall α=0.80 (range 0.42–0.62) Ship scene overall α=0.76 (range 0.36–0.52) | Very good | + | Only the eyes-open version of VVIQ was evaluated in this study. | |||
n.d.s. | Campos & Pérez-Fabello, 2009 [126] | ES | S | Students | 279 | 20.1 | 117♀, 162♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.91 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
Revised version Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ-2) | n.d.s. | Campos & Pérez-Fabello, 2009 [126] | ES | S | Students | 279 | 20.1 | 117♀, 162♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.94 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos 2011 [106] | ES | S | Students | 206 | 19.7 | 43♀, 163♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.91 | Very good | ? | # Students received course credits for participation. *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire- Revised version (VVIQ-RV) | n.d.s. | Campos 2011 [106] | ES | S | Students | 206 | 19.7 | 43♀, 163♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.96 | Very good | ? | #, *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating. | ||
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire –Modified (VVIQ-M) | n.d.s. | Halpern 2015 [97] | USA | E | Volunteers | 76 | 22.6 | 22♀, 54♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.91 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating. | ||
Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ) | Edu | Croijmans et al. 2019 [127] | NL | E | Volunteers with experience with wine | 50 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Smell r=0.87 Taste r=0.83 Vision r=0.79 | Doubtful | ? | Only corr. calculated. ICC not calculated. Sample size doubtful and no description of participants. | ||
83 | 40.8 | 71♀,12♂ | Internal consistency | Omega coefficient Smell 0.95 Taste 0.96 Vision 0.88 | Very good | ? | Omega could be acceptable but structural validity may be insufficient. This should be evaluated with a larger sample size. | ||||||||
b. Assessments of mental rotation | |||||||||||||||
Card Rotation Test | n.d.s. | Ekstrom et al. 1976 [128] | USA | E | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NA | NA | Ekstrom et at. 1976 published ‘Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests’. First description of Card Rotation Test and Cube Comparison Test. | ||
Cube Comparison Test | n.d.s. | Ekstrom et al. 1976 [128] | USA | E | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NA | NA | |||
German Test of the Controllability of Motor Imagery in older adults (TKBV) | n.d.s. | Schott 2013 [29] | DE | G | Healthy | 195 | 57.3 | 102♀, 93♂ | Internal consistency | Two scales (Recognition and Free recall) with total 20 items, 10 items per scale. α=0.89 for Free recall α=0.73 for Recognition | Very good | + | Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha calculated for each scale. Structural validity evaluated. | ||
Hand Laterality Task | n.d.s. | Hirschfeld et al. 2013 [30] | DE | G | Students | 99 | 21.2 | 20♀, 79♂ | Internal consistency | Split-Half with the Spearman-Brown Intercepts: blocked group=0.79 and mixed group=0.82. Slopes: blocked group=0.79 and mixed=0.20. | Inadequate | − | Cronbach’s alpha not calculated. Unacceptable low reliability for the slopes mixed group. | ||
Test-retest | Corr. Intercepts: blocked group r=0.68 and mixed group r=0.51 Slopes: blocked group r=0.69 and mixed r=0.55. | Doubtful | ? | Time interval (6 weeks) for test-retest doubtful. ICC not calculated. Corr. coefficient does not consider systematic error. | |||||||||||
Left/Right Judgements (LRJ) | Med | Bray & Mosley 2011 [129] | AU | E | Patients with back paina | 5 | 46.0 | 1♀, 4♂ | Test-retest | Response time trunk rotation ICC=0.87a/ ICC=0.74b Response time hands ICC=0.70a/ ICC=0.95b Accuracy trunk rotation ICC=0.92a/ ICC=0.80b Accuracy hands ICC=0.92a/ ICC=0.87b | inadequate | + | ICC for accuracy and response time for all pictures (with trunk rotation and hands) was >0.70. However, very low sample size. Further studies with a large sample size needed. | ||
Healthyb | 5 | 40.0 | 2♀, 3♂ | ||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Zimney et al. 2018 [130] | USA | E | Students | 50 | 24.3 | 15♀, 35♂ | Test-retest | Card-based LRJ Accuracy: left ICC=0.60 (CI, 0.29–0.78), right ICC=0.79 (CI, 0.63–0.88) Response time: ICC=0.84 (CI, 0.06–0.95). Tablet-based LRJ Accuracy: left ICC=0.60 (CI, 0.31–0.77), right ICC=0.38 (CI, 0.04–0.64) Response time: ICC=0.90 (CI, 0.82–0.94) | Doubtful | ? | Sample size and time interval for test-retest doubtful. ICC only for reaction time >0.70. ICC for accuracy very low. | |||
Measurement error | Card-based LRJ Accuracy: left SEM=2.55%, MDC=7.07%, right SEM=2.12%, MDC=5.86% Response time: SEM=0.16%, MDC=0.44% Tablet-based LRJ Accuracy: left SEM=4.89%, MDC=13.54%, right SEM=6.81%, MDC=18.87% Response time SEM=0.13%, MDC=0.37% | Doubtful | ? | Sample size and time interval for test-retest doubtful. Minimal important change (MIC) not defined. | |||||||||||
n.d.s. | Williams et al. 20191 [131] | AU | E | Healthy | 20 | 55.3 | 5♀, 15♂ | Test-retest | Tablet version of LRJ Accuracy ICC=0.82 Response time ICC=0.90 | Doubtful | + | Results of two studies in this article reported. Only one day between test-retest. Sample size doubtful. | |||
Judgement Test of Foot and Trunk Laterality | Med | Linder et al. 2016 [132] | SE | Se | LBP patientsa | 30 | 44.9 | 10♀, 20♂ | Test-retest | Reliability between Test 1 and 2, aN=24, bN=26 aICC=0.51–0.75 bICC=0.59–0.85 Reliability between Test 2 and 3, aN=21, bN=23 aICC=0.63–0.91 bICC=0.51–0.89 | Inadequate | ? | Time interval between tests inappropriate. Doubtful sample size (<50). ICC by patients lower and <0.70, but not for all tasks. | ||
Healthyb | 30 | 43.3 | 10♀, 20♂ | ||||||||||||
Map Rotation Ability Test (MRAT) | n.d.s. | Campos & Campos-Juanatey 2020 [133] | ES | S | Students | 257 | 19.7 | 86♀, 171♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.77 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | ||
Mental Paper Folding | Psy | Shepard & Feng 1972 [134] | USA | E | Students | 20 | NR | 11♀, 9♂ | NR | NR | NA | NA | First description of measure of visuospatial ability, no psychometric properties evaluated. | ||
Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects (MRT) | Psy | Shepard & Metzler 1971 [135] | USA | E | Healthy | 8 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NA | NA | First description of the mental rotation tasks, no psychometric properties evaluated. | ||
n.d.s. | Vandenberg & Kuse 1978 [136] | USA | E | Healthy | 3268 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | Kuder-Richardson 20 formula=0.88 | NA | NA | Vandenberg & Kuse 1978 [136] reported finding from previous studies (partly unpublished data). Insufficient data reported for COSMIN and quality criteria evaluating. | |||
Students | 312 | NR | 197♀, 115♂ | Internal consistency | Split-Half with the Spearman-Brown formula 0.79 | NA | NA | ||||||||
NR | 336 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Corr. =0.83 | NA | NA | ||||||||
NR | 456 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Corr. =0.70 | NA | NA | ||||||||
n.d.s. | Campos & Campos-Juanatey 2020 [137] | ES | S | Students | 281 | 19.8 | 97♀, 184♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.82 | very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
Measure of the Ability to Form Spatial Mental Imagery (MASMI) | n.d.s. | Campos 2009 [96] | ES | S | Students | 138 | 20.1 | 63♀, 75♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.93 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos 2013 [138] | ES | S | Students | 254 | 19.5 | 108♀, 146♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.93 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
n.d.s. | Campos & Campos-Juanatey 2020 [137] | ES | S | Students | 281 | 19.8 | 97♀, 184♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.84 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
Measure of the Ability to Rotate Mental Images (MARMI) | n.d.s. | Campos 2012 [139] | ES | S | Students | 354 | 19.5 | 45♀, 309♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.90 | Very good | ? | Very good sample size but more than 90% females. No information about structural validity. | ||
Shoulder specific left right judgement task (LRJT) | Med | Breckenridge et al. 2017 [140] | AU | E | Patients with shoulder pain | 1413 | 42.9 | NR | Internal consistency | α=0.95 for all 40 items (20 left and 20 right) | Very good | ? | Very good sample size. 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. | ||
Spatial Orientation Skills Test (SOST) | n.d.s. | Campos & Campos-Juanatey 2020 [137] | ES | S | Students | 281 | 19.8 | 97♀, 184♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.83 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | ||
c. Assessments of mental imagery to distinguish between different types of imagers | |||||||||||||||
Object-Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (OSIQ) | n.d.s. | Blajenkova et al. 20061 [34] | USA | E | Students | 214 | 20.33 | 108♀, 106♂ | Development | After PCA 30 items (15 spatial and 15 object imagery) were retained. Two subscales: object and spatial imagery. Scoring 0–4. | Inadequate | NA | Results of four studies reported. There is no clear description of the target population for which the OSIQ was developed. Only with psychology students evaluated. | ||
Internal consistency | Object scale α=0.83 Spatial scale α=0.79 | Very good | + | Test-retest after 1 week. | |||||||||||
Students | 24 | 22.9 | 4♀,20♂ | Test-retest | Object r=0.81 Spatial r=0.95 | Doubtful | ? | Corr. calculated and no ICC calculated. | |||||||
Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSVIQ) | n.d.s. | Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov 20091 [35] | USA | E | Students | 38 | NR | NR | Development | 45 Items: 15 object, 15 spatial, 15 verbal. 5-point scale. | Inadequate | NA | Results of four studies reported. # There is not clear description provided of the target population for which the OSVIQ was developed. Only with psychology students evaluated. | ||
Students and professionals from different fields | 625 | 24.0 | 251♀,374♂ | Internal consistency | Verbal scale α=0.74 Object scale α=0.83 Spatial scale α=0.79 | Very good | ? | Cronbach's alpha >0.70. Structural validity indeterminate. | |||||||
n.d.s. | Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov 20092 [35] | USA | E | Students | 41 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Corr. calculated: Verbal r=0.73 Object r=0.75 Spatial r=0.84 | Doubtful | ? | Sample size < 50. Corr. calculated and no ICC calculated | |||
n.d.s. | Campos 2011 [106] | ES | S | Students | 213 | 19.6 | 62♀,151♂ | Internal consistency | Object scale α=0.77 Spatial scale α=0.81 Verbal scale α=0.72 | Very good | ? | Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. Structural validity indeterminate. | |||
n.d.s. | Campos & Campos-Juanatey 2020 [137] | ES | S | Students | 281 | 19.8 | 97♀, 184♂ | Internal consistency | Verbal scale α=0.72 Object scale α=0.79 Spatial scale α=0.81 | Very good | ? | *Insufficient information for quality criteria rating regarding structural validity. | |||
Paivio’s Individual Differences Questionnaire (IDQ, 86 items) | n.d.s. | Paivio & Harshman 1983 [141] | CA | E | NR | NR | NR | NR | Development | IDQ assess verbal and imaginal habits, preferences and abilities. Total 86 items with possible answer 'true' or ‘falsh’ to each item. | Inadequate | NA | Insufficient information reported about qualitative data collection for questionnaire construction. Target population unclear. | ||
Students | 713 | NR | NR | Internal consistency | Verbal scale 47 items α=0.86 Imagery scale 39 items α=0.82 | Very good | + | Very good sample size. No information on sex and age. Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||||||
Paivio’s Individual Differences Questionnaire (shorted IDQ, 34 items) | n.d.s. | Kardash et al. 1986 [142] | USA | E | Students | 189 | NR | 99♀, 90♂ | Internal consistency | Verbal scale 27 items α=0.71 Imagery scale 7 items α=0.52 | Very good | - | Short version revealed lower internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha <0.70. | ||
Revised Paivio’s Individual Differences Questionnaire (IDQ, 72 items) | n.d.s. | Hiscock 19781 [109] | USA | E | Students | 481 | NR | 48♂ | Internal consistency | Imagery scale α=0.801; α=0.812; α=0.873 Verbal scale α=0.831; α=0.862; α=0.883 | Very good | + | 3 student groups. Sample size in first group (N=48) doubtful. Cronbach’s alpha consistent in all three groups >0.70. | ||
1142 | 57♀, 57♂ | ||||||||||||||
793 | |||||||||||||||
36♀, 43♂ | |||||||||||||||
n.d.s. | Hiscock 19781 [109] | USA | E | Students | 58 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Imagery scale 0.84 Verbal scale 0.88. | Doubtful | ? | 4 studies reported in this article. Insufficient information on how test-retest reliabilities were calculated. | |||
Sussex Cognitive Styles Questionnaire (SCSQ) | n.d.s. | Mealor et al. 20161 [143] | UK | E | NA | NA | NA | NA | Development | Total 84 items generated: 22 from OSIVQ, 4 from IDQ, 24 from Systemising Quotient questionnaire, 7 from the ‘Attention to Detail’ subscale of the Autism Quotient. 27 items generated by authors. | Inadequate | NA | Target population and context of use unclear. Item generation only based on existing questionnaire, without asking of experts or target population. | ||
Students | 1542 | 27.0 | 586♀, 956♂ | Internal consistency | Imagery ability α=0.88 Technical /Spatial α=0.89 Language and Word Forms α=0.80 Need for Organisation α=0.77 Global bias α=0.74 Systemising Tendency α=0.73 | Very good | ? | Sample size good. Cronbach’s alpha calculated for each scale and >0.70. Structural validity indeterminate. | |||||||
Verbalizer-Visualiser Questionnaire (VVQ) | n.d.s. | Stevens et al. 1986 [144] | USA | E | Students | 184 | NR | 49♀, 123♂ | Test-retest | Pearson corr. r=0.47 | Doubtful | ? | ICC not calculated. Insufficient information on how test-retest reliabilities were calculated. | ||
n.d.s. | Campos et al. 2004 [145] | ES | S | Students | 969 | 14.2 | 496♀, 473♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.30 | Very good | - | Very good sample size for this analysis. Low internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||
n.d.s. | Wedell et al. 2014 [146] | DE | G | Volunteers | 476 | 24.1 | 99♀, 377♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.04 | Inadequate | - | Total Cronbach’s alpha calculated, but not for each scale. Very low internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||
d. Assessments of use of mental imagery | |||||||||||||||
Children’s Active Play Imagery Questionnaire (CAPIQ) | Sport | Cooke et al. 20141 [147] | CA | E | None | NA | NA | NA | Development | Based on existing literature 16 items were generated. 5-point scale. | Doubtful | NA | 20141=phase 1. Item generation based only on existing literature. Target population was not involved in item generation. | ||
Sport | Cooke et al. 20142 [147] | CA | E | Children | 302 | 10.0 | 145♀, 157♂ | Internal consistency | Capability α=0.82 Social α=0.71 Fun α=0.65 | Very good | − | Cronbach’s alpha for scale ‘fun’ <0.70. | |||
Sport | Cooke et al. 20143 [147] | CA | E | Children | 252 | 10.4 | 118♀, 134♂ | Internal consistency | Capability α=0.82 Social α=0.73 Fun α=0.82 | Very good | ? | Cronbach’s alpha for each scale calculated. Structural validity evaluated but insufficient. | |||
Sport | Kashani et al. 2017 [148] | IR | Pe | Students | 60 | NR | NR | Test-retest | Capability ICC=0.87 Social ICC=0.88 Fun ICC=0.87 | Adequate | + | Adequate sample size, ICC >0.70. | |||
Exercise Imagery Questionnaire-Aerobic Version EIQ-AV | Sport | Hausenblas et al. 19992 [149] | CA | E | Students exercisersa | 307 | 22.9 | 9♀,296♂ | Development | 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. | ||
Students exercisersb | 171 | 22.4 | 3♀,168♂ | ||||||||||||
Sport | Hausenblas et al. 19993 [149] | CA | E | Students exercisersa | 307 | 22.9 | 9♀,296♂ | Internal consistency | 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 | Sport | Pérez-Fabello & Campos 2020 [150] | ES | S | Students | 166 | 20.1 | 127♀,39♂ | Internal consistency | Three factors Appearance α=0.78, CR=0.59 Energy α=0.75, CR=0.34 Technique α=0.78, CR=0.64 Two factors Energy CR=0.30 Technique CR=0.41 Cronbach’s alpha total >0.70 | Very good | ? | Sample size good, Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale reported and was >0.70 but CR below recommended values. | ||
Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ) | Sport | Hall et al. 19981 [151] | CA | E | Athletes | 113 | 23.6 | 53♀,60♂ | Development | 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 cognitive specific (CS) α=0.87 cognitive general (CG) α=0.77 | Very good | + | Cronbach’s alpha for each scales >0.70. | |||||||||||
Sport | Hall et al. 19982 [151] | CA | E | Athletes | 271 | NR | 184♀,87♂ | Internal consistency | 30-item version motivational specific (MS) α=0.88, motivational general arousal (MG-A) α=0.70 motivational general mastery (MG-M) α=0.83 cognitive specific (CS) α=0.85 cognitive general (CG) α=0.75 | Very good | + | Cronbach’s alpha for each scales >0.70. | |||
Sport | Vurgun et al. 2012 [152] | TR | Tu | Athletes | 142 | 21.8 | 100♀,42♂ | Test-retest | Motivational specific 0.76 Motivational general arousal 0.60 Cognitive specific 0.72 Cognitive general 0.62 Motivational general mastery 0.71 | Adequate | ? | 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. | |||||||||||
Sport | Ruiz & Watt 2014 [153] | Not clear | S | athletes | 361 | 24.1 | 234♀,29♂ | Internal consistency | 30-item version Cognitive specific (CS) α=0.81 Cognitive general (CG) α=0.72 Motivational specific (MS) α=0.86 Motivational general arousal (MG-A) α=0.73 Motivational general mastery (MG-M) α=0.83 | very good | + | Cronbach’s alpha for each scales >0.70. | |||
Sport Imagery Questionnaire for Children (SIQ-C) | Sport | Hall et al. 20091 [154] | CA | E | Young athletes | 428 | 10.9 | 137♀,291♂ | Internal consistency | Cognitive specific (CS) α=0.80 Cognitive general (CG) α=0.69 Motivational specific (MS) α=0.75 Motivational general arousal (MG-A) α=0.69 Motivational general mastery (MG-M) α=0.82 | Very good | + | Several studies reported. Development could not be evaluated (insufficient data reported). Finally, 21-item version of SIQ-C was evaluated. 2 scales with α=0.69 may be viewed as sufficient. | ||
Sport | Hall et al. 20092 [154] | CA | E | Young athletes | 628 | NR | 283♀,345♂ | Internal consistency | Cognitive specific (CS) α=0.77 Cognitive general (CG) α=0.62 Motivational specific (MS) α=0.70 Motivational general arousal (MG-A) α=0.77 Motivational general mastery (MG-M) α=0.70 | Very good | ? | Calculated Cronbach’s alpha was lower by higher sample size. CG scale <0.70. | |||
Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS) | n.d.s. | Reisberg et al. 2003 [155] | USA | E | Researcher in imagery field | 150 | 39.4 | NR | Internal consistency | Inter-item corr. was for all items 0.98 or higher. | Doubtful | ? | Only inter-item corr. calculated, no Cronbach’s alpha. *No information regarding structural validity. | ||
n.d.s. | Nelis et al. 2014 [156] | UK | E | Studentsa | 491 | 18.6 | 88♀,403♂ | Internal consistency | αa=0.76 αb=0.72 αc=0.72 | Very good | + | # Students received course credits for participation. Very good sample size. Structural validity reported. Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||
Volunteersb | 373 | 34.9 | 119♀,254♂ | ||||||||||||
Studentsc | 433 | 18.4 | 82♀,351♂ | ||||||||||||
Students | 49 | NR | NR | Test-retest | ICC=0.69 | Inadequate | + | Time interval of 5 months not appropriate. Sample size doubtful. ICC almost 0.70. | |||||||
n.d.s. | Görgen et al. 20161 [157] | DE | G | Students | 216 | 23.7 | 60♀,156♂ | Internal consistency | α=0.66 | Very good | − | Results from 2 studies reported in this article. 20151=study 1. Cronbach’s alpha <0.70. | |||
n.d.s. | Görgen et al. 20162 [157] | DE | G | Students | 447 | 24.9 | 161♀,286♂ | Internal consistency | SUIS 17-item version α=0.85 | Very good | + | 20152=study 2. Very good sample size. Cronbach’s alpha >0.70. | |||
n.d.s. | Tanaka et al. 20181 [158] | JP | J | Students | 126 | 20.6 | 66♀,60♂ | Test-retest | Pearson corr. r=0.76 | Adequate | ? | 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. | |||||||||||