Two assessments to evaluate imagery ability: translation, test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the German KVIQ and Imaprax

Abstract

BackgroundA combination of physical practice and motor imagery (MI) can improve motor function. It is essential to assess MI vividness in patients with sensorimotor impairments before implementing MI interventions. The study's aims were to translate the Canadian Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ) and the French Imaprax, and to examine reliability and validity of the German versions.MethodsQuestionnaires were translated according to guidelines. With examiner’s help patients (diagnosis: stroke: subacute/chronic, brain tumour, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease) were tested twice within seven days (T0, T1). KVIQ-G: Patients were shown a movement by the examiner, before executing and imagining the movement. They rated vividness of the image and intensity of the sensations on a five-point Likert-scale. Imaprax required a 3-step procedure: imagination of one of six gestures; evaluation of gesture understanding, vividness, and imagery perspective. Questionnaire data were analysed overall and for each group. Reliability parameters were calculated: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Cronbach's alpha, standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change. Validity parameters included Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and factor analysis of the KVIQ-G-20.ResultsPatients (N = 73, 28 females, age: 63 ± 13) showed the following at T0: KVIQ-G-20vis 41.7 ± 9, KVIQ-G-10vis 21.1 ± 5. ICC for KVIQ-G-20vis and KVIQ-G-10vis was 0.77; KVIQ-G-20kin 36.4 ± 12, KVIQ-G-10kin 18.3 ± 6. ICCs for KVIQ-G-20kin and KVIQ-G-10kin were 0.83/0.85; Imapraxvis 32.7 ± 4 and ICC 0.51. Internal consistency was estimated for KVIQ-G-20 αvis = 0.94/αkin = 0.92, KVIQ-G-10 αvis = 0.88/αkin = 0.96, Imaprax-G αvis = 0.70. Validity testing was performed with 19 of 73 patients, who chose an internal perspective: rs = 0.36 (p = 0.13). Factor analysis revealed two factors correlating with r = 0.36. Both explain 69.7% of total variance.ConclusionsKVIQ-G and Imaprax-G are reliable instruments to assess MI in patients with sensorimotor impairments confirmed by a KVIQ-G-factor analysis. KVIQ-G visual values were higher than kinaesthetic values. Patients with Multiple Sclerosis showed the lowest, subacute stroke patients the highest values. Hemiparetic patients scored lower in both KVIQ-G subscales on affected side compared to non-affected side. It is suggested to administer the Imaprax-G before the KVIQ-G to test patient’s ability to distinguish between external and internal MI perspective. Duration of both questionnaires lead to an educational effect. Imaprax validity testing should be repeated.

Lateralization patterns of covert but not overt movements change with age: An EEG neurofeedback study

“…After completion of the experiment participants completed the Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ), which is a reliable and valid tool to assess MI abilities (Malouin et al, 2007;Randhawa, Harris, & Boyd, 2010;Schuster, Lussi, Wirth, & Ettlin, 2012). Additionally participants were asked to rate their motivation on a visual analogue scale and perceived vividness of the CM on a 5-point Likert scale (see Supplementary methods).…”

Towards the integration of mental practice in rehabilitation programs. A critical review

“…The reliability and validity of the KVIQ have been documented in patients post stroke (Malouin et al, 2007, 2008b), in persons with Parkinson's disease (Randhawa et al, 2010) and a German version was recently validated (Schuster et al, 2012b). The validity of imagery questionnaires for assessing MI ability has been questioned because of the subjective nature of self-reported ratings (Lotze and Halsband, 2006; Sharma et al, 2006).…”

Cross-cultural adaptation of the drug-taking confidence questionnaire drug version for use in Brazil

“…However, some methodological studies of cross-cultural adaptation and translation do not report the sociodemographic of their targeted population and focus solely on the gender [44] and other aspects of the study [45]. These studies demonstrate that the emphasis on methodological studies is the same as that of the method used in cross-cultural adaptations [46–48], which, in the present study, was the guideline by Beaton et al (2007) [30]. Differences were identified concerning the sociodemographic characteristics among the targeted population of this study and the original DTCQ-8 article, education, type of consumed psychoactive substances and employment status.…”