MOTOR IMAGERY ABILITY IN TURKISH-SPEAKING STROKE PATIENTS: STUDY ON RELIABILITY AND CONSTRUCT VALIDITY STUDY OF TWO IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES

Abstract

Purpose: Motor imagery is considered as a complementary approach for functional recovery after stroke. Thus, applying reliable assessment tools to measure imagery ability in stroke is essential. The aims of this study were to apply Turkish versions of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3) and the Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire-20 (KVIQ-20) in individuals with stroke and investigate the validity and reliability of both questionnaires. Methods: Stroke patients with mild functional impairments (n=31) and healthy volunteers who age- and gender-matched were selected as a control group (n=29) were recruited to the study. The test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Spearman’s correlation analysis was performed to assess concurrent validity of the KVIQ-20 with the MIQ-3. Furthermore, the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and factorial structures of both questionnaires were investigated. Results: Each sub-score of the MIQ-3 was found statistically different between stroke and control groups (p<0.001). Only visual sub-score of the KVIQ-20 yielded statistically different between stroke and control groups (p<0.001). ICC values were in the acceptable level of reliability (0.571-0.850). Both questionnaires had good internal consistency with high Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach’s alpha test/retest for MIQ-3= 0.941/0.970; test/retest=0.971/0.981 for KVIQ-20.). The concurrent validity between the KVIQ-20 and MIQ-3 was good (r=0.40, p<0.05). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed that MIQ-3 had three-factor and KVIQ-20 had two-factor structure. These obtained factors were explaining 88.99% and 80.87% of the total variance, respectively. Conclusion: Turkish versions of the MIQ-3 and KVIQ-20 are the tools with good reliability and validity to assess motor imagery ability in stroke patients with mild functional impairments.

Keywords

• Body Image;
• Kinesthesis
• Imagination
• Stroke

TÜRKÇE-KONUŞAN İNME HASTALARINDA MOTOR İMGELEME YETENEĞİ: İKİ İMGELEME ANKETİNİN GÜVENİRLİK VE YAPI GEÇERLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Amaç: Motor imgeleme, inme sonrası fonksiyonel iyileşme için tamamlayıcı bir yaklaşım olarak kabul edilir. Bu nedenle, inmede imgeleme yeteneğini ölçmek için güvenilir değerlendirme araçlarının uygulanması gereklidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, inmeli bireylerde Hareket İmgeleme Anketi-3 (HİA-3) ve Kinestetik ve Görsel Görüntüleme Anketi-20'nin (KGİA-20) Türkçe versiyonlarını uygulamak ve her iki anketin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini araştırmaktı. Yöntem: Hafif fonksiyonel bozukluğu olan inme hastaları (n=31) ile yaş ve cinsiyet açısından eşleştirilmiş sağlıklı gönüllü bireyler kontrol grubu olarak (n=29) çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Test-tekrar test güvenilirliği, sınıf içi korelasyon katsayılarıyla (ICC) değerlendirildi. KGİA-20’nin HİA-3 ile eşzamanlı geçerliliğini değerlendirmek için Spearman’ın korelasyon analizi gerçekleştirildi. Ayrıca, her iki anketin iç tutarlılığı (Cronbach alfa) ve faktör yapıları araştırıldı. Sonuçlar: HİA’nin her alt bölümü, inme ve kontrol grupları arasında istatiksel olarak farklı bulundu (p<0,001). KGİA-20’nin sadece görsel alt skoru, inme ve kontrol grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak farklıydı (p <0,001). ICC değerleri kabul edilebilir güvenirlik seviyesindeydi (0,571-0,850). Her iki anket de yüksek Cronbach alfa ile iyi bir iç tutarlılığa sahipti (Cronbach alfa HİA-3 için test/tekrar test=0,941/0,970; KGİA-20 için test/tekrar test=0,971/0,981). KGİA-20 ve HİA-3 arasındaki eşzamanlı geçerlilik iyiydi (r =0,40, p <0,05). Açıklayıcı faktör analizi HİA’nin üç faktörlü ve KGİA-20’nin iki faktörlü yapıya sahip olduğunu doğruladı. Elde edilen bu faktörler toplam varyansın sırası ile %88,99 ve %80,87’sini açıklamaktaydı. Tartışma: HİA-3 ve KGİA-20’nin Türkçe versiyonları, hafif fonksiyonel bozukluğu olan inme hastalarında motor imgeleme yeteneğini değerlendirmek için iyi güvenirlik ve geçerliliğe sahip araçlardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Vücut imajı
• İmgeleme
• Kinestezi
• İnme

Kaynakça

1. 1. Jeannerod M, Decety J. Mental motor imagery: a window into the representational stages of action. Current opinion in neurobiology. 1995;5(6):727-32.
2. 2. Decety J. The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery. Behavioural brain research. 1996;77(1-2):45-52.
3. 3. Decety J, Jeannerod M. Mentally simulated movements in virtual reality: does Fitts's law hold in motor imagery? Behavioural brain research. 1995;72(1-2):127-34.
4. 4. Warner L, McNeill ME. Mental imagery and its potential for physical therapy. Physical therapy. 1988;68(4):516-21.
5. 5. Hall CR. Individual differences in the mental practice and imagery of motor skill performance. Canadian journal of applied sport sciences Journal canadien des sciences appliquees au sport. 1985;10(4):17S-21S.
6. 6. Malouin F, Richards CL, Jackson PL, Lafleur MF, Durand A, Doyon J. The Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ) for assessing motor imagery in persons with physical disabilities: a reliability and construct validity study. Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT. 2007;31(1):20-9.
7. 7. Butler AJ, Cazeaux J, Fidler A, Jansen J, Lefkove N, Gregg M, et al. The Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised, Second Edition (MIQ-RS) Is a Reliable and Valid Tool for Evaluating Motor Imagery in Stroke Populations. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM. 2012;2012:497289.
8. 8. Malouin F, Richards CL, Durand A. Normal aging and motor imagery vividness: implications for mental practice training in rehabilitation. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2010;91(7):1122-7.

9. 9. Page SJ, Levine P, Sisto SA, Johnston MV. Mental practice combined with physical practice for upper-limb motor deficit in subacute stroke. Physical therapy. 2001;81(8):1455-62.
10. 10. Braun SM, Beurskens AJ, Borm PJ, Schack T, Wade DT. The effects of mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2006;87(6):842-52.
11. 11. Atienza F, Balaguer I, Garcia-Merita ML. Factor analysis and reliability of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;78(3 Pt 2):1323-8.
12. 12. Hall CR, Martin KA. Measuring movement imagery abilities: A revision of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery. 1997;21:143-54.
13. 13. Williams SE, Cumming J, Ntoumanis N, Nordin-Bates SM, Ramsey R, Hall C. Further validation and development of the movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of sport & exercise psychology. 2012;34(5):621-46.
14. 14. Monsma EV, Short SE, Hall CR, Gregg M, Sullivan P. Psychometric properties of the revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R). Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity. 2009;4(1).
15. 15. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of psychiatric research. 1975;12(3):189-98.
16. 16. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine. 1975;7(1):13-31.
17. 17. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Physical therapy. 1983;63(10):1606-10.
18. 18. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6-18.
19. 19. Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clinical rehabilitation. 2001;15(3):311-9.
20. 20. Dilek B, Ayhan C, Yakut Y. The Turkish version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3: Its cultural adaptation and psychometric properties. Eurohand; 2017.
21. 21. Dilek B, Ayhan Ç, Yakut Y. Kinestetik ve Görsel İmgeleme Anketi-20’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Journal of Exercise Therapy and Rehabilitation. 2019;6(3):201-10.
22. 22. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.
23. 23. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420.
24. 24. Howell DC. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth,Cengage Learning; 2009.
25. 25. Gregg M, Hall C, Butler A. The MIQ-RS: A Suitable Option for Examining Movement Imagery Ability. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM. 2010;7(2):249-57.
26. 26. Loison B, Moussaddaq AS, Cormier J, Richard I, Ferrapie AL, Ramond A, et al. Translation and validation of the French Movement Imagery Questionnaire - Revised Second Version (MIQ-RS). Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine. 2013;56(3):157-73.
27. 27. Schuster C, Lussi A, Wirth B, Ettlin T. Two assessments to evaluate imagery ability: translation, test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the German KVIQ and Imaprax. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:127.
28. 28. Paravlic A, Pisot S, Mitic P. Validation of the Slovenian Version of Motor Imagery Questionnaire 3 (MIQ-3): Promising Tool in Modern Comprehensive Rehabilitation Practice. Zdr Varst. 2018;57(4):201-10.
29. 29. Budnik-Przybylska D, Szczypińska M, Karasiewicz K. Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3). CIPP. 2016; 4(4):253-67.
30. 30. das Nair R, Cogger H, Worthington E, Lincoln NB. Cognitive rehabilitation for memory deficits after stroke. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;9:CD002293.