Research Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Institute for Rehabilitation and Performance Technology, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3401, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
BMC Med. 2022 May 2;20(1):166. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02295-3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PROSPERO CRD42017077004 .
在过去的两个世纪里，研究人员开发了几种评估方法来评估意象的多维结构。然而，目前尚不存在针对意象能力评估方法的全面系统综述（SR），也没有对其心理测量特性进行深入的质量评估。
我们在运动、心理学、医学和教育等六个学科的数据库中进行了全面的系统检索：SPORTDiscus、PsycINFO、Cochrane Library、Scopus、Web of Science 和 ERIC。两名评审员独立识别并筛选文章以进行选择。COSMIN 清单用于评估研究的方法学质量。使用良好测量特性的标准评估所有纳入的评估。使用 GRADE 方法总结证据综合。
共纳入 121 篇文章，报道了 155 项研究，描述了 65 项评估。我们根据其构建进行评估分类：（1）运动意象（n = 15）、（2）心理意象（n = 48）和（3）心理计时（n = 2）。研究的方法学质量主要是可疑或不充分的。大多数评估的心理测量特性不足或不确定。具有足够心理测量特性的最佳评估是 MIQ、MIQ-R、MIQ-3 和 VMIQ-2，用于评估运动意象能力。关于心理意象评估，只有 SIAQ 和 VVIQ 显示出足够的心理测量特性。
不同学科中存在各种评估方法，可用于评估个体在不同维度或模式下的意象能力。然而，大多数评估的心理测量特性不足或不确定。需要对几种评估进行修订和进一步验证。此外，大多数研究仅在学生中进行了评估。需要进行进一步的跨学科验证研究，包括更广泛年龄范围的老年人。我们的研究结果使临床医生、教练、教师和研究人员能够根据评估的重点和质量信息，为他们的环境和目标选择合适的意象能力评估。
PROSPERO CRD42017077004。
