Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35491422›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2022

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Zorica SuicaResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Frank BehrendtResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Szabina GäumannResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Ulrich GerthResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Arno Schmidt-TrucksässDepartment for Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.
Thierry EttlinResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Corina Schuster-AmftResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Salinenstrasse 98, CH-4310, Rheinfelden, Switzerland. c.schuster@reha-rhf.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionVarious 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 .

Indexed as

MedicineChecklistHumansPsychometricsAssessmentMental imageryMotor imageryPsychometric propertiesReliabilityResponsivenessValidity

Identifiers

PMID35491422
PMCPMC9059408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.