Imagery ability assessments: a cross-disciplinary systematic review and quality evaluation of psychometric properties

Zorica Suica; Frank Behrendt; Szabina Gäumann; Ulrich Gerth; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; Thierry Ettlin; Corina Schuster-Amft

doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02295-3

Imagery ability assessments: a cross-disciplinary systematic review and quality evaluation of psychometric properties

BMC Med. 2022 May 2;20(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02295-3.

Authors

Zorica Suica¹, Frank Behrendt^{1

2}, Szabina Gäumann¹, Ulrich Gerth¹, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss³, Thierry Ettlin¹, Corina Schuster-Amft^{4

5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Research Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
² Institute for Rehabilitation and Performance Technology, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3401, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
³ Department for Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.
⁴ Research Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland. c.schuster@reha-rhf.ch.
⁵ Institute for Rehabilitation and Performance Technology, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3401, Burgdorf, Switzerland. c.schuster@reha-rhf.ch.
⁶ Department for Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. c.schuster@reha-rhf.ch.

Abstract

Background: 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.

Systematic reviews register: PROSPERO CRD42017077004 .

Keywords: Assessment; Mental imagery; Motor imagery; Psychometric properties; Reliability; Responsiveness; Validity.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Checklist
Humans
Medicine*
Psychometrics / methods