Subjective and Objective Assessment Methods of Mental Imagery Control: Construct Validations of Self-Report Measures

Abstract

A study was conducted to examine the relationship between subjective and objective measures of mental imagery control. Eighty college undergraduates completed a battery of imagery tests and self-report measures to examine whether questionnaires that purport to measure imagery control or dynamic imagery ability (imagery of movement) would show a stronger relationship with objective measures of mental manipulation than would subjective measures that tap vividness of static imagery. Neither subjective measures of movement imagery nor subjective measures of stationary imagery showed meaningful relationships with objective measures of visuospatial manipulation. Additionally, subjective and objective imagery measures generally tended to dissociate. Basic component skills thought to be involved in mental manipulation, however, showed a much stronger relationship with the objective imagery tasks than did the self-report questionnaires. Findings suggest that subjective measures of imagery control do not tap the same cognitive processes involved in objective tests that require accurate imagery manipulation.

Hypnotizability and imagery modality preference: Do highs and lows live in the same world?

“…Also, the present fi ndings agree with criticism about the inadequacy of questionnaires alone to detect imagery abilities (Gliski et al, 1995;Kogon, Jasiukaitis, Berardi et al, 1998;Lequerica et al, 2002); in fact the Betts questionnaire did not enlighten any differences between Highs and Lows.…”

Reliability, factor structure, and construct validity of the Polish version of the sport imagery ability measure

“…The psychometric properties of these measures have typically been demonstrated using internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities, and to a lesser extent via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the MIQ and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the VMIQ-R. Internal consistency, for the VMIQ ranged from r = .96 (external perspective subscale) to r = .97 (total scale) (Eton, Gilner, & Munz, 1998) and r = .95 for the visual subscale and r = .97 for the kinesthetic subscale (Lequerica, Rapport, Axelrod, Telmet, & Whitman, 2002). For the MIQ, the internal consistency coefficient ranged from r = .87 to r = .89 (visual) and r = .86 to r = .91 (kinesthetic) (Atienza, Balaguer, & Garcia-Merita, 1994;Hall et al, 1985).…”

Further Validation and Development of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire

“…How easily a movement is imaged might be affected by whether this movement was performed recently or frequently by the participant (Lequerica, Rapport, Axelrod, Telmet, & Whitman, 2002). Returning to the ball kicking example, someone who regularly plays soccer will likely recall this experience more readily from memory than an individual who has not performed this action for themselves in a long time, or ever.…”