The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2

Abstract

Objective: Motor imagery is a therapeutic tool in healthcare, and evaluating motor imagery ability is increasingly important. This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2 (VMIQ-2-T). Materials and Methods: 248 young adults (mean age: 21.34±2.33 years) participated in the study. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Cronbach's alpha determined the internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed through the correlation analysis between the VMIQ-2-T and the Turkish version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3-T). Results: The VMIQ-2-T demonstrated good test-retest reliability (ICC2,1=0.74 for external imagery, ICC2,1=0.77 for internal imagery, and ICC2,1=0.82 for kinaesthetic imagery), adequate internal consistency (α=0.94 for all subscales), and good construct validity. Moderate correlations were observed between the subscales of the VMIQ-2-T and MIQ-3-T (r=-0.58 to -0.69, p<0.05). The minimal detectable change and standard error of measurement values for the VMIQ-2-T subscales were 9.82 to 11.88 and 3.58 to 4.33, respectively. Conclusions: The VMIQ-2-T is a reliable and valid tool for assessing motor imagery vividness in Turkish-speaking individuals. Its ability to evaluate motor imagery without requiring active movement makes VMIQ-2-T suitable for patients with restricted mobility, such as those experiencing high-risk pregnancy or immobilization.

Keywords

• Movement imagery questionnaire
• reliability
• validity
• vividness of movement imagery questionnaire

Hareket İmgeleme Canlılığı Anketi-2’nin Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği

Öz

Amaç: Motor imgeleme sağlık hizmetlerinde terapötik bir araçtır ve motor imgeleme yeteneğini değerlendirmek giderek daha önemli hale gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Hareket İmgeleme Canlılığı Anketi-2'nin Türkçe versiyonunun (HİCA-2-T) geçerliliği ve güvenirliği değerlendirildi. Materyal ve Metot: Çalışmaya 248 genç yetişkin (ortalama yaş: 21,34±2,33 yıl) katıldı. Test-tekrar test güvenirliği sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (ICC) kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Anketin iç tutarlılığı Cronbach alfa değeri ile belirlendi. Yapı geçerliliği, HİCA-2-T ile Hareket İmgeleme Anketi-3’ün Türkçe versiyonu (HİA-3-T) arasındaki korelasyon analizi yoluyla değerlendirildi. Bulgular: HİCA-2-T, iyi bir test-tekrar test güvenilirliğine (Dışsal görsel imgeleme için ICC2,1=0,74, içsel görsel imgeleme için ICC2,1=0,77 ve kinestetik imgeleme için ICC2,1=0,82), yeterli iç tutarlılığa (tüm alt ölçekler için α=0,94) ve iyi yapı geçerliğine sahipti. HİCA-2-T ve HİA-3-T alt ölçekleri arasında orta düzeyde korelasyonlar gözlendi (r=-0,58 ile -0,69, p<0,05). HİCA-2-T alt ölçekleri için minimum saptanabilir değişim ve standart ölçüm hatası değerleri sırasıyla 9,82 ile 11,88 ve 3,58 ile 4,33 arasında bulundu. Sonuç: HİCA-2-T, Türkçe konuşan bireylerde motor imgeleme canlılığını değerlendirmek için güvenilir ve geçerli bir araçtır. Aktif hareket gerektirmeden motor imgelemeyi değerlendirme özelliği, HİCA-2-T'yi yüksek riskli gebelik veya immobilizasyon yaşayanlar gibi kısıtlı hareket kabiliyetine sahip hastalarda kullanım için uygun hale getirir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• hareket imgeleme anketi
• hareket imgeleme canlılığı anketi

Kaynakça

1. Agosti V, Sirico M. Motor imagery as a tool for motor learning and improving sports performance: a mini review on the state of the art. Sport Sci. 2020;13:13-17.
2. Lee WH, Kim E, Seo HG, et al. Target-oriented motor imagery for grasping action: different characteristics of brain activation between kinesthetic and visual imagery. Sci Rep. 2019;9:12770. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-49254-2
3. Sharma N, Baron JC. Does motor imagery share neural networks with executed movement: a multivariate fMRI analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:564. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00564
4. Marvel CL, Morgan OP, Kronemer SI. How the motor system integrates with working memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;102:184-194. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.04.017
5. Ruffino C, Papaxanthis C, Lebon F. The influence of imagery capacity in motor performance improvement. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235(10):3049-3057. doi:10.1007/s00221-017-5039-8
6. Vasilyev AN, Nuzhdin YO, Kaplan AY. Does real-time feedback affect sensorimotor EEG patterns in routine motor imagery practice? Brain Sci. 2021;11(9):1234. doi:10.3390/brainsci11091234
7. Debarnot U, Perrault AA, Sterpenich V, et al. Motor imagery practice benefits during arm immobilization. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):8928. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88142-6
8. Eggelbusch M, Charlton BT, Bosutti A, et al. The impact of bed rest on human skeletal muscle metabolism. Cell Rep Med. 2024;5(1):101372. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101372

9. Di Rienzo F, Collet C, Hoyek N, Guillot A. Impact of neurologic deficits on motor imagery: a systematic review of clinical evaluations. Neuropsychol Rev. 2014;24(2):116-147. doi:10.1007/s11065-014-9257-6
10. Malouin F, Richards CL, Durand A, et al. Effects of practice, visual loss, limb amputation, and disuse on motor imagery vividness. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(5):449-463. doi:10.1177/1545968308328733
11. Lahuerta-Martín S, Ceballos-Laita L, Jiménez-Del-Barrio S, Llamas-Ramos R, Llamas-Ramos I, Mingo-Gómez MT. The effectiveness of action observation and motor imagery in freezing of gait, speed, physical function and balance in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2024:1-19. doi:10.1080/09593985.2024.2404600
12. Valadez-Roque G, Cantillo-Negrete J, Carino-Escobar RI, Torres-Chávez A. Paresis of an upper extremity. Action observation and motor imagery in recovery of patients with chronic stroke. Rev Neurol. 2024;78(11):307-315. doi:10.33588/rn.7811.2024017
13. Suica Z, Behrendt F, Gäumann S, et al. Imagery ability assessments: a cross-disciplinary systematic review and quality evaluation of psychometric properties. BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):166. doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02295-3
14. Dilek B, Ayhan Ç, Yakut Y. Kinestetik ve Görsel İmgeleme Anketi-20’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. JETR. 2019;6(3):201-210.
15. Dilek B, Ayhan Ç, Yakut Y. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3: Its cultural adaptation and psychometric properties. Neurol Sci Neurophys. 2020;37(4):221-227. doi:10.4103/NSN.NSN_30_20
16. Fulford J, Milton F, Salas D, et al. The neural correlates of visual imagery vividness - An fMRI study and literature review. Cortex. 2018;105:26-40. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.09.014
17. Roberts R, Callow N, Hardy L, Markland D, Bringer J. Movement imagery ability: development and assessment of a revised version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30(2):200-221. doi:10.1123/jsep.30.2.200
18. Ziv G, Lidor R, Arnon M, Zeev A. The Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ-2) - translation and reliability of a Hebrew version. Isr J Psychiatry. 2017;54(2):48-52.
19. Plakoutsis G, Fousekis K, Tsepis E, Papandreou M. Cross cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Greek version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire-2 (VMIQ-2). Discov Psychol. 2023;3:30. doi:10.1007/s44202-023-00091-5
20. Dahm SF, Bart VKE, Pithan JM, Rieger M. Deutsche übersetzung und validierung des VMIQ-2 zur erfassung der lebhaftigkeit von handlungsvorstellungen. Z Sportpsychol. 2019;26(4):151-158. doi:10.1026/1612-5010/a000273
21. Arifin WN. A web-based sample size calculator for reliability studies. Educ Med J. 2018; 10(3):67-76. doi:10.21315/eimj2018.10.3.8
22. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69-71.
23. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
24. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147-1157. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
25. van Melick N, Meddeler BM, Hoogeboom TJ, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, van Cingel REH. How to determine leg dominance: The agreement between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189876.
26. Williams SE, Cumming J, Ntoumanis N, Nordin-Bates SM, Ramsey R, Hall C. Further validation and development of the movement imagery questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;34(5):621-646. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.5.621
27. Cicchetti DV. The precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23(5):695-700. doi:10.1076/jcen.23.5.695.1249
28. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
29. Dahm SF. Validation of a computer-based version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire. PTAD. 2022;3(1):10-22. doi:10.1027/2698-1866/a000022
30. Krüger B, Hegele M, Rieger M. The multisensory nature of human action imagery. Psychol Res. 2024;88(6):1870-1882. doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01771-y