Further Validation and Development of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire

Abstract

This research validated and extended the Movement Imagery QuestionnaireRevised (MIQ-R; Hall & Martin, 1997). Study 1 (N = 400) examined the MIQ-R's factor structure via multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analysis. The questionnaire was then modified in Study 2 (N = 370) to separately assess the ease of imaging external visual imagery and internal visual imagery, as well as kinesthetic imagery (termed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3; MIQ-3). Both Studies 1 and 2 found that a correlated-traits correlated-uniqueness model provided the best fit to the data, while displaying gender invariance and no significant differences in latent mean scores across gender. Study 3 (N = 97) demonstrated the MIQ-3's predictive validity revealing the relationships between imagery ability and observational learning use. Findings highlight the method effects that occur by assessing each type of imagery ability using the same four movements and demonstrate that better imagers report greater use of observational learning.

Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3)

“…However, that study was conducted in one specific sport discipline, basketball, and the group of respondents was not large (n = 62, 31 females and 31 males). Our research confirmed that gender differences do not exist in movement imagery ability, as in the original study (Williams et al, 2012). There was no significant correlation between age and imaging visual and kinesthetic abilities, which corresponds to previous studies on the general imagery ability (Budnik-Przybylska, 2014;Bhasavanija et al, 2011).…”

“…With regard to gender the results were in line with previous studies, which indicated gender invariance in the imagery ability (Campos, 2014;Williams et al, 2012;Bhasavanija, Vongjaturapat, Morris, & Muangnapo, 2011;Hall, 2001;Richardson, 1994Richardson, , 1999Abma, Fry, Li, & Relyea, 2002;Lorant & Nicholas, 2004;Vadocz, Hall, & Moritz, 1997). Despite the fact that there was some evidence where males and females presented different imagery generating capabilities, it should be pointed out that different aspects of imagery were examined and only limited differences were discovered (Ozel, Molinaro, & Larue, 2001;Richardson, 1995;Taktek, 2004;Campos, Pérez-Fabello, & Gómez-Juncal, 2004;Williams & Cumming, 2011;Budnik-Przybylska, 2014).…”

“…In the last step the model assuming equal latent means in imagery subscales for males and females was examined. This procedure is equivalent to Williams et al (2012). Results are presented in Table 2.…”

“…633). Williams et al (2012) identified the MIQ-3 to be a valid and reliable questionnaire. The MIQ-3 demonstrated good internal reliability for each subscale, with CR values of .83 (external visual imagery), .79 (internal visual imagery), and .85 (kinesthetic imagery), and AVE values of .55 (external visual imagery), .52 (internal visual imagery), and .59 (kinesthetic imagery).…”

Measuring Athlete Imagery Ability: The Sport Imagery Ability Questionnaire

“…A higher score therefore represents a higher ability to perform visual or kinesthetic imagery. Williams et al (2011) identified the MIQ-3 to be a valid and reliable questionnaire.…”