Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Internal Consistency and Construct Validity of Two Versions of the Revised Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire

Campos, A. (2011). Internal consistency and construct validity of two versions of the revised vividness of visual imagery questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(2), 454–460. doi:10.2466/04.22.pms.113.5.454-460

Abstract

The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973) is the questionnaire most extensively used to measure imagery vividness, but two newer versions have been developed. In this study, the reliability and construct validity of these two measures were assessed: the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire–2 (VVIQ–2) and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire–Revised Version (VVIQ–RV). A total of 206 undergraduate psychology students completed both questionnaires, and to assess construct validity, they also completed the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ), Betts' Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery (Betts' QMI), and the Measure of Ability to Form Spatial Mental Imagery (MASMI). Internal consistency reliability for both was high, with the VVIQ–RV having a Cronbach's alpha of .96, and the VVIQ–2 an alpha of .91. The construct validity of the VVIQ–RV and the VVIQ–2 was supported by the high correlations they had with the other three measures of imagery, which were all close to .50, and the very small correlations (.06–.07) they had with the Verbal scale of the OSIVQ, indicating that they validly measured the imagery construct. Thus, the findings support the two versions as equally valid psychometric instruments for measuring image vividness.

Authors

  • Alfredo Campos1
Hello! I’m the science communicator for the Aphantasia Research Network. Let’s dive into some research that helps us understand how we measure the "mind’s eye."

What This Study Is About

Researchers wanted to find out if two newer versions of the most famous test for mental imagery—the ability to picture things in your mind—actually work as they should. They wanted to ensure these tests accurately measure how vivid someone's mental images are, rather than accidentally measuring other skills like memory or logic.

How They Studied It

The researchers worked with 206 college students. Each student completed several different questionnaires, including two updated versions of the "Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire" (VVIQ). To see if the VVIQ was measuring the right thing, they also gave the students tests on:
  • Spatial imagery: The ability to move objects around in your head (like mentally folding a box).
  • Verbal style: How much someone prefers thinking in words rather than pictures.

What They Found

The study found that both new versions of the test are very reliable. They specifically measure "object imagery"—the ability to see colors, shapes, and details in your mind.
Interestingly, the tests were "pure." This means a person’s score on the imagery test didn't have much to do with how good they were with words or spatial logic. It’s like testing a thermometer to make sure it only measures temperature and doesn't get confused by how humid the air is.

What This Might Mean

For the community, this is great news! It suggests that these questionnaires are "valid" tools for identifying aphantasia—a condition where people have no mental imagery and see only darkness in their mind's eye.
However, we should be cautious. This study only looked at young psychology students in Spain. While it *suggests* the tests are accurate, we can't be certain they work exactly the same way for people of all ages or different cultures until more groups are tested.

One Interesting Detail

The researchers found that picturing a "vivid" object (like a red apple) and "spatial" thinking (like navigating a map) are actually two different skills. You can be a "blind" visualizer (aphantasic) but still be a total pro at mental maps!
This summary was generated by AI and may contain errors. Always refer to the original paper for accuracy.