File
Z. Suica1, S. Gäumann1, A. Schmidt-Trucksäss2, T. Ettlin1, C. Schuster-Amft1,2,3
1Reha Rheinfelden, Research Department, Rheinfelden, Switzerland, 2University of Basel, Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, Basel, Switzerland, 3Bern University of Applied Sciences, Institute for Rehabilitation and Performance Technology, Burgdorf, Switzerland
Background: Over the last two centuries, researchers have developed several assessments to evaluate the multidimensional construct of imagery. However, no systematic review (SR) exists for imagery ability evaluation methods and their psychometric properties.
Purpose: SR to evaluate assessments that measure imagery ability in the disciplines of sports, psychology, medicine, and education and appraise their psychometric properties.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in October 2017 in SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC, and will be updated in August 2020. 3922 references were identified and independently selected and appraised by two reviewers. Studies’ methodological quality was evaluated with COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Assessments’ quality was evaluated using the criteria for good measurement properties. The level of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Protocol registration: PROSPERO: CRD42017077004.
Results: 85 studies were included reporting on 49 imagery ability assessments. Most studies reported on different aspects of reliability and validity regarding four main categories: motor imagery (MI), mental imagery, mental rotation (MR), and mental chronometry (MChr). In few studies the COSMIN appraisal was not possible due to the lack of a psychometric evaluation. For MI 13 assessments were identified: Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire, Imaprax, Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire original and short version, Movement Imagery Questionnaire, Revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire, Movement Imagery Questionnaire- Revised second version, Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3, Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children, Test of Ability in Movement Imagery, Test of Ability in Movement Imagery with Hands, Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire, Revised Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2. Only 4 studies were of very good or adequate, and 20 studies were of inadequate or doubtful methodological quality. The measurement properties of 7 assessments were inadequate or doubtful.
For MR 8 assessments were identified: MR of three-dimensional objects, Mental Paper Folding, Cube-Cutting task, Hand laterality task, Measure of the ability to rotate mental images, Shoulder specific left/right judgement task, Foot/trunk laterality task and the German Test of the Controllability of MI. The methodological quality of 3 studies was very good or adequate and for 5 studies was inadequate. The measurement properties of 4 assessments were inadequate or doubtful.
For MChr only 2 assessments were identified: Time-dependent MI screening test and Temporal Congruence Test. The study was of doubtful methodological quality. However, both assessments showed a sufficient psychometric properties regarding test-retest reliability.
Study and assessment quality evaluations for mental imagery are ongoing. Final results are expected in autumn 2020.
For MR 8 assessments were identified: MR of three-dimensional objects, Mental Paper Folding, Cube-Cutting task, Hand laterality task, Measure of the ability to rotate mental images, Shoulder specific left/right judgement task, Foot/trunk laterality task and the German Test of the Controllability of MI. The methodological quality of 3 studies was very good or adequate and for 5 studies was inadequate. The measurement properties of 4 assessments were inadequate or doubtful.
For MChr only 2 assessments were identified: Time-dependent MI screening test and Temporal Congruence Test. The study was of doubtful methodological quality. However, both assessments showed a sufficient psychometric properties regarding test-retest reliability.
Study and assessment quality evaluations for mental imagery are ongoing. Final results are expected in autumn 2020.
Conclusion(s): So far, we identified 49 assessments, which evaluate the individual’s imagery ability within different dimensions: vividness or image clarity and controllability, or the ease and accuracy how an image can be mentally manipulated. However, the structural validity or criterion validity of many assessments are inadequate or doubtful. Furthermore, the COSMIN appraisal classified most studies as inadequate or doubtful due to small sample size, inadequate statistical analysis used or insufficient reporting.
Implications: The present SR 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.
Funding, acknowledgements: This study was not funded
Keywords: Imagery, Assessments, Measurement properties
Topic: Mental health
Did this work require ethics approval? No
Institution: Reha Rheinfelden
Committee: Ethics Committee Northwest/Central Switzerland EKNZ
Reason: This SR is based on published data, and ethical approval is not required.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
