Original article The Imagination in Sport Questionnaire – reliability and validity characteristics

Abstract

Background
Imagery is an effective performance enhancement technique. Imagery has been described previously in a range of psychological domains. Measuring imagery is critical in research and practice in sport. Self-report questionnaires are the most regularly used method. The aim of the present study was to examine reliability and validity characteristics of the Imagination in Sport Questionnaire (Kwestionariusz Wyobraźni w Sporcie – KWS).
Participants and procedure
Five and hundred eight (N = 326 – study I; N = 182 – study II) Polish athletes completed questionnaires (169 male, 156 female – study I; 139 male, 43 female – study II), aged between 12 and 57 years (M = 22.08, SD = 8.18 – study I; age 19-24, M = 20.46, SD = 1.1 – study II), at different competitive levels and recruited from various sports disciplines.
Results
Results indicated the maintained good stability and internal consistency over a 3-week period. Results of confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the 7-factor structure of the KWS resulted in acceptable model fit indices (NC = 2416.63, df = 1203, GFI = 0.944, AGFI = 0.944, CFI = 0.786, RMSEA = 0.056, p (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.002 – first study; NC = 2234.39, df = 1203, GFI = 0.673, AGFI = = 0.640, CFI = 0.691, RMSEA = 0.069, p (RMSEA < 0.05) = = 0.000 – second study). Concurrent validity was supported by examination of the relationships between the KWS subscales and the SIAM (Sport Imagery Ability Measure) in Polish adaptation. In addition, differences in athletes’ imagery ability were examined across competitive levels, and in relation to both gender and age.
Conclusions
Overall, the results supported the reliability and construct validity of the KWS.

Full text

current issues in personality psychology · volume (), 4
doi: 10.5114/cipp.2014.44303
background
Imagery is an eective performance enhancement tech-
nique. Imagery has been described previously in arange of
psychological domains. Measuring imagery is critical in re-
search and practice in sport. Self-report questionnaires are
the most regularly used method. The aim of the present
study was to examine reliability and validity characteris-
tics of the Imagination in Sport estionnaire (Kwestio-
nariusz Wyobraźni wSporcie – KWS).
participants and procedure
Five and hundred eight (N = 326 – study I; N = 182 – study II)
Polish athletes completed questionnaires (169 male, 156 fe-
male – study I; 139 male, 43 female – study II), aged be-
tween 12 and 57 years (M = 22.08, SD = 8.18 – study I; age
19-24, M = 20.46, SD = 1.1 – study II), at dierent compet-
itive levels and recruited from various sports disciplines.
results
Results indicated the maintained good stability and in-
ternal consistency over a3-week period. Results of confir-
matory factor analysis suggested that the 7-factor struc-
ture of the KWS resulted in acceptable model fit indices
(NC = 2416.63, df = 1203, GFI = 0.944, AGFI = 0.944,
CFI = 0.786, RMSEA = 0.056, p (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.002 –
first study; NC = 2234.39, df = 1203, GFI = 0.673, AGFI =
= 0.640, CFI = 0.691, RMSEA = 0.069, p (RMSEA < 0.05) =
= 0.000 – second study). Concurrent validity was support-
ed by examination of the relationships between the KWS
subscales and the SIAM (Sport Imagery Ability Measure)
in Polish adaptation. In addition, dierences in athletes’
imagery ability were examined across competitive levels,
and in relation to both gender and age.
conclusions
Overall, the results supported the reliability and construct
validity of the KWS.
key words
imagery; Imagination in Sport estionnaire; athletes
e Imagination in Sport estionnaire –
reliability and validity characteristics
  ― Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska, Ph.D., Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of
Psychology, University of Gdansk, 4 Bażyńskiego Str., 80-952 Gdansk, Poland, e-mail: psydbu@univ.gda.pl
Authors’ contribution ― A: Study design·B: Data collection·C: Statistical analysis·D: Data interpretation·
E: Manuscript preparation·F: Literature search·G: Funds collection
To cite this article ― Budnik-Przybylska, D. (2014). The Imagination in Sport estionnaire – reliability and validity
characteristics. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 2(2), 68-80.
original article
Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
Department of Sport Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
69
volume (), 4
Background
e skill of visualisation is a technique frequently
employed in many areas of life, for example, in sport
psychology in order to improve results and as ameans
of dealing with stress. Visualisation activates sen-
sory and emotional experience through suggestion
(Kłodecka-Różalska, 1996; Morris & Summers, 1998;
Williams, 2006; Cox, 2007). It allows one to act out the
‘set position’ based on the dominant imagery style e.g.
visual, kinaesthetic, aural and to perform an ‘akinetic’
move in the imagination, making one accustomed to
agiven move at the same time (Paul-Cavallier, 1992).
Gawain (2001) stated that creative visualisation has
been a method of employing imagination in order to
shape agiven reality according to our wishes. “e re-
lationship between the reactions of the body and
mental movement imagery has long been observed in
sport. e study of this process, initiated over 40 years
ago, has revealed that (see: Eysenck, 1965) muscle
stimulation observed through an EMG test and pres-
ent during the act of imagining movement is almost
identical to that present during genuine movement”
(Nowicki, 2004, p. 135, Orlick, 2008).
Imagery has been described previously in arange
of psychological domains. An important denition
applicable to the sport context denes imagery as the:
“creation or re-creation of an experience generated
from memorial information, involving quasi-sensorial,
quasi-perceptual, and quasi-aective characteristics,
that is under the volitional control of the imager, and
which may occur in the absence of the real stimulus
antecedents normally associated with the actual expe-
rience” (Morris, Spile & Wa, 2005, p. 19).
Imagery is an eective performance enhancement
technique. Research and applied work have also
shown that imagery processing in relation to sport
can be improved through training (Morris et al., 2005).
Paivio (1986) suggested that individual dierences in
the capacity to use imagery was aproduct of genet-
ic variability interacting with experience. at means
that imagery use is most eective for people with
greater imagery ability (Martin, Moritz & Hall, 1999).
Measuring imagery is critical in research and prac-
tice in sport. Self-report questionnaires are the most
regularly used method.
ere is a range of measures developed within
the sport and motor performance domains, such as the
Movement Imagery estionnaire (MIQ; Hall, Pon-
grac & Buckholz, 1985), Movement Imagery estion-
naire-Revised (MIQ-R; Hall & Martin, 1997), Vividness
of Movement Imagery estionnaire (VMIQ; Isaac,
Marks & Russell, 1986) and revised Vividness of Move-
ment Imagery estionnaire-2 (VMIQ-2; Roberts,
Callow, Hardy, Markland & Bringer, 2008). All these
questionnaires were constructed for assessing image-
ry ability associated with general motor movements
and they do not examine images related to sport
(Bhasavanija, Vongjaturapat, Morris & Muangnapo
2011). ese measures assess only an individual’s
ability to image specic movements (e.g., knee li)
and actions (e.g. jumping of ahigh wall) (Williams
& Cumming, 2011). Hall (1998) explained such asitu-
ation by saying: “Just because athletes might be able
to easily and vividly imagine themselves performing
askill (e.g. “throwing aball”), does not mean they can
just as easily and vividly imagine receiving amed-
al or being in control of dicult situations” (p. 171).
Furthermore, only a single dimension (vividness),
and two sense modalities (visual and kinaesthetic)
are measured by those questionnaires.
Measures constructed specically for sport in-
clude the Sport Imagery estionnaire (SIQ; Martens,
1982), modied versions of the SIQ (Vealey, 1986;
Vealey & Walter, 1993; Vealey & Greenleaf, 1998), the
Motivational Imagery Ability Measure for Sport (MI-
AMS; Gregg & Hall, 2006), the Sport Imagery Ability
estionnaire (SIAQ; Williams & Cumming, 2011),
and the Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM; Wa,
Morris & Andersen, 2004). e SIQ (Martens, 1982)
is aself-report measure, which involves description
of four sport-oriented scenes. Aer visualization of
each scene athletes rate vividness of visual, kinaes-
thetic, auditory imagery and mood associated with
imagery. e MIAMS (Gregg & Hall, 2006) measures
participants’ imaging abilities associated with ease
and level of emotion experienced following the gen-
eration of eight motivational general images, i.e., four
MGA (motivational general arousal) and four MGM
(motivational general mastery) images. e SIAQ is
aquestionnaire developed for measuring sport-spe-
cic images and at the same time assessing cognitive
and motivational imagery ability associated with the
ve functions of athlete imagery use: skill, strategy,
goal, aect, and mastery sport imagery ability (Wil-
liams & Cumming, 2011). e Sport Imagery Ability
Measure (SIAM) (Wa et al., 2004) assesses ve im-
agery dimensions (vividness, control, ease of gener-
ation, speed of generation, and duration), six senses
(visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory, gustatory,
and tactile sense), and the experience of emotions.
A precise imagery ability measure can assist re-
searchers, coaches, psychologists and athletes to iden-
tify whether athletes have high or low imagery ability
and then develop or modify imagery programmes to
support their performance. Imagery ability is normal-
ly assessed from performance on aspecic set of men-
tal-ability tasks or from answers to questionnaires that
require behavioural or emotive-imagery responses
(Sheehan, Ashton & White, 1983). Imagery-use meas-
ures typically incorporate a questionnaire format to
determine when, where, and how (Hall, 1998) people
use imagery during their involvement in aparticular
performance or experience (Morris et al., 2005).
Research has demonstrated that images can serve
multiple functions for athletes (Nordin & Cumming,

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
70 current issues in personality psychology
2008; Short, Monsma & Short, 2004). Two judokas use
avariety of sensory modalities visualizing the exe-
cution of techniques. One can use the imagination
to improve the execution of technique using an ex-
ternal perspective. e second one visualizes feeling
his own physiological states just to build condence
during competition.
erefore, there is aneed for atool combining the
advantages of the above-mentioned questionnaires,
and exploring aholistic view of visualization – atool
which also will measure the ability of visualization
in sport as well as ways of sport athletes’ eective
visualization.
e aim of the present investigation was to de-
velop avalid, reliable and comprehensive assessment
of athletes’ imagery ability called the Imagination
in Sport estionnaire (Kwestionariusz Wyobraźni
wSporcie – KWS).
ParticiPants and Procedure
PARTICIPANTS
Participants involved in the rst study were recruited
from primary and secondary schools oering special-
ist sport programmes, Gdansk University of Physical
Education and Sport, University of Gdansk, and elite
sporting groups (N = 326) (169 male, 156 female, miss-
ing data were recorded), aged between 12 and 57 years
(M = 22.08, SD = 8.18). is sample was also catego-
rized into two ability levels, novice (n = 84) and elite
(n = 186), representing avariety of sports disciplines,
including football, sailing, basketball, track and eld,
volleyball, and swimming. An additional sample of
32 athletes was recruited from Gdansk University and
Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport to
test the stability of the KWS over time.
Participants of the second study consisted of 182
students recruited from Gdansk University of Phys-
ical Education and Sport (139 male, 43 female), aged
between 19 and 24 years (M = 20.46, SD = 1.10) also
categorized into two ability levels, novice (n = 55) and
elite (n = 81). ey also represent avariety of sport
disciplines.
PROCEDURE
e study was approved by the University of
Gdansk Human Research Ethics Commiee. e lead
investigator and aresearch assistant contacted the in-
dividuals directly and provided them information indi-
cating the study purpose, voluntary participation, and
condentiality of the results. Wrien consent was ob-
tained from athletes over 18 years, and aparent or per-
son with care responsibilities in the case of minors. e
treatment of athletes was in accordance with APA eth-
ical guidelines. In both studies each participant com-
pleted the KWS and provided their demographic infor-
mation (4 items to source data associated with gender,
age, sport/s in which the athlete has had involvement,
and competitive level of their participation) in aquiet
environment, usually at their education or training fa-
cilities. e participants completed the materials indi-
vidually or in small groups and then returned them to
the investigators. Data collection took approximately
20 minutes. e test-retest reliability procedure requir-
ed the athletes recruited to complete the KWS on two
occasions separated by a3-week interval.
DATA ANALYSIS
Descriptive, reliability, correlational, and inferential
analyses were conducted using SPSS version 21. Re-
lationships between subscales, the time stability of
the KWS, correlation of the KWS with age and rela-
tionships between KWS and SIAM were calculated
using Pearson’s correlation coecient. A value of
r > 0.8 is considered to be the typical value indicative
of strong test-retest reliability (Kline, 2000). Internal
consistency of each of the 7 KWS sub-scales was ex-
amined using Cronbach’s α coecient. Independent
samples t-tests were used to examine gender and
competitive level dierences in imagery ability for
each of KWS subscales.
Factor validity hierarchical cluster structure was
tested using the Ward method in alinear covariance
matrix among scale items scores. e analysis was
conducted using Statistica 10.
Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conduct-
ed using AMOS 21 for Windows and the maximum
likelihood estimation (Arbuckle, 2006). To determine
the t of the model, there were considered dierent
indices of t that included normed χ2 (NC), goodness
of t (GFI) index, goodness of t index adjusted for
the number of parameters (AGFI), the comparative
t index (CFI), and the root mean square error of ap-
proximation (RMSEA), the p-value for the null hypo-
thesis that RMSEA is greater than or equal to 0.05.
Agood model t is inferred when values of AGFI are
higher than 0.80; and CFI and GFI are higher than
0.90; and the RMSEA is close to 0.08
χ
2 and p (RMSEA
< 0.05) is not signicant, but these indices are very
strict and considered as over-conservative (Hooper,
Coughlan & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
STEPS OF CREATING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
e aim of the rst phase of the questionnaire con-
struction was to create questions that concerned two
aspects of visualization: a) whether the person is able
to imagine something (ability), b) the ways of the
person’s visualization (use).

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
71
volume (), 4
e questionnaire had to be created in such way
that the entire study/lling in should not exceed 10-
20 minutes. Filling in was to be preceded by adynam-
ic visualization of aperson’s behaviour/action in the
situation common in sport competition. is situation
should be connected with the excitation emotions,
with the present threat of failure or assessment.
Preliminary dimensions of the questionnaire were:
vividness, modalities, visualization control and exibil-
ity, armation – positive self-armation, the perspec-
tive of visualization (external vs. internal), emotions
– feeling emotions during visualization, ease of visuali-
zation and general – the use of visualization in general.
e preliminary instruction was constructed in
the following way:
Imagine yourself before the rst start in the com-
petition of high rank. If you want, you can close your
eyes. Try to keep the image as realistic as possible,
have as much detail as possible, pay aention to all
elements. Imagine what you see, what you hear and
what you feel, what you’re doing, what others are do-
ing and what is happening around you. Feel the emo-
tions and sensations that this situation induces in you.
Rate specic aspects of your image on ascale from
1 to 5 by entering the appropriate number next to
where 1 means “at all” and 5 “completely”.
TESTING INSTRUCTIONS AND
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Preliminary analysis was undertaken on 64 ques-
tions. Students participating in sport mental training
classes (N = 30), having dierent sports experience
read the instructions and questionnaire. Participants
were asked to imagine the situation aer reading the
instructions and then answered if everything was
clear and if they understood the way of lling in the
questionnaire. If the questions according to them
were unclear, students were asked to write their
comments. From the pool of those questions there
were selected 58 which were included in the rst
study. Aer students’ comments the instruction was
modied as follows:
Imagine yourself before the start of the high-level
competitions. Spend on this task about 60 seconds. If
you want, you can close your eyes. Try to keep the
image as realistic as possible, have as much detail,
pay aention to all the elements. Imagine what you
see, what you hear and what you feel, what you’re
doing, what others are doing and what is happening
around you. Feel the emotions and sensations that
this situation has on you.
en rate the dierent aspects of your image on
ascale of 1 to 5 next to each statement by entering
the appropriate number, where 1 means “not at all”
and 5 “completely so”.
results
TESTING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
OF THE METHOD
To analyse factor validity, hierarchical cluster struc-
ture was tested using the Ward method in alinear co-
variance matrix among scale items scores (Figure 1).
ere were extracted six clusters of questions
representing 6 groups/types of sensations associated
with visualization – physiological sensations, senso-
ry modalities, ease/control, perspective, armations,
vision and general – that allow the variance of the
distance between the positions of the questionnaire
to be reduced by about 60%.
Figure 1. Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analysis of KWS.
Dendrogram Ward’s Method
1-Pearsons r
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
P21
P17
P20
P16
P6
P5
P34
P15
P14
P19
P13
P7
P18
P11
P4
P32
P33
P31
P48
P47
P46
P39
P45
P44
P26
P30
P29
P28
P27
P25
P24
P23
P22
P41
P40
P38
P43
P42
P37
P36
P35
P10
P9
P8
P12
P3
P2
P1
Clustering distance

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
72 current issues in personality psychology
In order to verify the internal consistency of each
of the 7 subscales of the KWS, Cronbach’s α was used
(Table 1).
e questionnaire in the rst version consisted
of 58. Aer removing items with the lowest Cron-
bach’s α the nal version consisted of 51 questions.
e nal version was further veried in the CFA mod-
el based on the data in the rst and second validation
sample.
e analysis was conducted using maximum like-
lihood estimation based on the covariance matrix
between the positions of the questionnaire on the as-
sumption that 7 latent variables distinguished in the
preceding step represent 6 subscales, and the seventh
is the result of apre-dened scale named general. In
addition, it was assumed that the residual variances
of individual items assigned to the scales (unique
variances) are not correlated, while individual sub-
scales could be correlated.
e results of the analysis indicated that the es-
timated model demonstrated satisfactory t to the
data and accurately reected relationships among
the ques tionnaire items: NC = 2416.63, df = 1203,
GFI = 0.944, AGFI = 0.944, CFI = 0.786, RMSEA = 0.056,
p (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.002 – rst study; NC = 2234.39,
df = 1203, GFI = 0.673, AGFI = 0.640, CFI = 0.691,
RMSEA = 0.069, p (RMSEA < 0.05) = 0.000 – second
study (Tables 2 and 3).
Results of the factor structure of all subscales from
the rst study indicate that all items are positively
and strongly related to the latent variable they have
been assigned. e highest factor loading was b = 0.76
for item number 28 assigned to the perspective sub-
scale and the smallest factor loading was b = 0.34 for
item number 13 assigned to modalities.
Results of the factor structure of all subscales from
the second study indicate that all items are also pos-
itively and strongly related to the latent variable they
have been assigned except for items numbered 11 as-
signed to modalities and 4, 5, 6, assigned to visual.
However, they can be considered as positively related
although the relation could not be as strong as for oth-
er items. e highest factor loading was b = 0.82 for
item number 16 assigned to the modalities subscale.
Sample questions included in each KWS subscale:
Physiological feelings (6 questions):
1. How clearly did you feel the emotions that you
experienced?
2. How clearly was the feeling of the movements ex-
ecuted by you?
3. How clearly did you feel your heart beat?
Modalities (7 questions):
1. How clearly did you hear the words that were spo-
ken in this situation?
2. You used taste in your image.
Easy/control (10 questions):
1. How easy is it to recall this episode from end to
beginning?
2. How easily can you change the tactics in your im-
agination?
Perspective (8 questions):
1. How easily can you correct the movements of your
body while visualizing?
2. How easy is it for you to change the perspectives of
looking at the situation – once looking with your
own eyes from inside your body, and once looking
from the side on you?
Armations (8 questions):
1. You tune in positively to asuccessful start.
2. You feel ready to win.
Visual (6 questions):
1. Were colours that occurred in this situation clear?
2. How sharp and clear was the picture in the whole
situation?
Table 1
Internal consistency of each of 7 subscales of the KWS
Name
of subscale
Number
of items
Cronbach’s α Mean of
items’ total
correlations
Number of
items aer
removal of low
discrimination
items
Cronbach’s α
aer removal
of low
discrimination
items
Mean of
items’ total
correlations
aer removal
of low
discrimination
items
1. Feelings 60.75 0.34 60.75 0.34
2. Modalities 90.66 0.18 70.69 0.24
3. Ease/Control 10 0.79 0.27 10 0.79 0.27
4. Perspective 80.74 0.26 80.74 0.26
5. Airmations 80.79 0.32 80.79 0.32
6. Visual 70.65 0.21 60.64 0.23
7. General 10 0.69 0.19 60.79 0.39

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
73
volume (), 4
Table 2
Standardised and unstandardised path coeicients of CFA model in study 1
Estimate S.E. C.R. P β
gen1 GENERAL 0.636 0.045 14.099 *** 0.735
gen2 GENERAL 0.715 0.054 13.289 *** 0.704
gen3 GENERAL 0.657 0.054 12.073 *** 0.654
gen4 GENERAL 0.501 0.056 8.868 *** 0.507
gen7 GENERAL 0.573 0.049 11.763 *** 0.640
gen8 GENERAL 0.570 0.049 11.707 *** 0.638
p21 FEELINGS 0.831 0.064 12.994 *** 0.703
p17 FEELINGS 0.836 0.069 12.095 *** 0.664
p20 FEELINGS 1.091 0.128 8.540 *** 0.497
p16 FEELINGS 0.804 0.081 9.927 *** 0.565
p6 FEELINGS 0.756 0.067 11.346 *** 0.632
p5 FEELINGS 0.643 0.060 10.638 *** 0.599
p15 MODALITIES 0.650 0.082 7.956 *** 0.468
p14 MODALITIES 0.553 0.093 5.967 *** 0.360
p19 MODALITIES 0.635 0.069 9.221 *** 0.532
p13 MODALITIES 0.352 0.064 5.524 *** 0.335
p18 MODALITIES 0.969 0.070 13.930 *** 0.743
p11 MODALITIES 0.955 0.075 12.756 *** 0.694
p4 MODALITIES 0.876 0.074 11.765 *** 0.651
p32 EASE/CONTROL 0.565 0.057 9.988 *** 0.546
p33 EASE/CONTROL 0.613 0.060 10.155 *** 0.553
p31 EASE/CONTROL 0.529 0.064 8.326 *** 0.466
p48 EASE/CONTROL 0.625 0.059 10.646 *** 0.576
p47 EASE/CONTROL 0.711 0.054 13.143 *** 0.680
p46 EASE/CONTROL 0.601 0.051 11.826 *** 0.627
p39 EASE/CONTROL 0.689 0.064 10.704 *** 0.579
p45 EASE/CONTROL 0.720 0.058 12.354 *** 0.649
p44 EASE/CONTROL 0.708 0.052 13.634 *** 0.699
p26 EASE/CONTROL 0.676 0.062 10.832 *** 0.583
p30 PERSPECTIVE 0.679 0.075 9.011 *** 0.512
p29 PERSPECTIVE 0.703 0.077 9.151 *** 0.518
p28 PERSPECTIVE 0.983 0.066 14.880 *** 0.761
p27 PERSPECTIVE 0.887 0.064 13.763 *** 0.719
p25 PERSPECTIVE 0.540 0.066 8.149 *** 0.468
p24 PERSPECTIVE 0.591 0.065 9.026 *** 0.512
p23 PERSPECTIVE 0.611 0.063 9.704 *** 0.545
p22 PERSPECTIVE 0.720 0.064 11.198 *** 0.613
p41 AFFIRMATIONS 0.702 0.062 11.417 *** 0.619
(Table 2 continues)

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
74 current issues in personality psychology
General (6 questions):
1. Do you generally create ideas easily?
2. Do you imagine the events waiting for you?
ANALYSIS OF TEMPORAL STABILITY
In order to verify the assumption that the question-
naire KWS maintains stability over time, the test-re-
test method was used. e results are presented in
the table below.
e highest correlation was observed in the scale
of armations (r = 0.74), and the lowest in the scale
of perspective (r = 0.55). ese results indicated that
the questionnaire is stable over time (Table 4).
ANALYSIS OF CONCURRENT AND CONSTRUCT
VALIDITY
In order to verify the assumption that the KWS mea-
sures the ability to visualize in sport the relationships
between the KWS subscales and the SIAM (Sport
Imagery Ability Measure) in Polish adaptation (Bud-
nik-Przybylska, Karasiewicz, Morris & Wa, in press)
were examined. e sample consisted of 472 people
(combined results of study Iand II – missing data were
recorded). Results are presented in the table below.
e results of the analysis indicated that the cor-
relations between the scales of the KWS and the cor-
responding scales of the questionnaire SIAM are rela-
tively low or at most moderate (0.11 – 0.47) but all are
in the expected direction. e strongest correlation
was observed between the modality subscale and the
subscale kinaesthetic (r = 0.342), the least (correlation
irrelevant) gustatory and armations (Table 5).
In the next step, construct validity, which is the
ability to dierentiate the results of the KWS with fac-
tors related to gender, level of sport and age of the re-
spondents, was estimated. Independent samples t-test
and correlation analysis were used. e above analyses
were performed on agroup originating from the two
studies (total sample N = 479, 186 females, 293 males).
Results of the independent samples t-test to examine
gender dierences in the KWS subscales revealed sig-
nicant dierences in the following variables: easy/
control (t(477) = –2.57, p = 0.01), armations (t(476) =
= –2.55, p = 0.01) and vision (t(477) = –2.03, p = 0.04),
where males’ scores were higher than those of fe-
males. Further analysis concerned the participation
level: athletes more advanced (N = 258) had statis-
tically signicantly higher scores than the less ad-
vanced (N = 122) in all subscales except modality.
Finally, the KWS results were analysed according
to age. No signicant correlation between the KWS
subscales and age was observed (Tables 6 and 7).
discussion
e aim of the study was to create avalid and reliable
sport imagery ability measure which combines both
features of visualization: imagery ability – the capac-
ity to generate and use images (Hall, 1998, p. 165);
and aspects of imagery use – how athletes use their
imagery. e KWS satised those conditions.
e rst step was to create the instruction of the
questionnaire and aset of questions. Aer verica-
Estimate S.E. C.R. P β
p40 AFFIRMATIONS 0.524 0.062 8.497 *** 0.483
p38 AFFIRMATIONS 0.496 0.063 7.927 *** 0.454
p43 AFFIRMATIONS 0.806 0.059 13.745 *** 0.714
p42 AFFIRMATIONS 0.817 0.060 13.667 *** 0.711
p37 AFFIRMATIONS 0.669 0.055 12.052 *** 0.646
p36 AFFIRMATIONS 0.815 0.055 14.809 *** 0.754
p35 AFFIRMATIONS 0.712 0.061 11.682 *** 0.631
p10 VISUAL 0.528 0.069 7.677 *** 0.457
p9 VISUAL 0.524 0.060 8.756 *** 0.515
p8 VISUAL 0.539 0.090 5.977 *** 0.364
p3 VISUAL 0.636 0.067 9.507 *** 0.552
p2 VISUAL 0.689 0.053 12.875 *** 0.708
p1 VISUAL 0.693 0.064 10.776 *** 0.612
Table 2
(Table 2 continued)

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
75
volume (), 4
Table 3
Standardised and unstandardised path coeicients of CFA model in study 2
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
b
gen1 GENERAL 0.403 0.043 9.293 *** 0.671
gen2 GENERAL 0.491 0.058 8.435 *** 0.621
gen3 GENERAL 0.480 0.063 7.617 *** 0.571
gen4 GENERAL 0.316 0.067 4.689 *** 0.371
gen5 GENERAL 0.394 0.051 7.789 *** 0.581
gen6 GENERAL 0.473 0.068 6.983 *** 0.530
p5 FEELINGS 0.614 0.070 8.803 *** 0.640
p6 FEELINGS 0.477 0.073 6.527 *** 0.488
p14 FEELINGS 0.957 0.093 10.334 *** 0.712
p15 FEELINGS 0.926 0.090 10.235 *** 0.707
p18 FEELINGS 1.029 0.087 11.833 *** 0.785
p19 FEELINGS 0.853 0.079 10.823 *** 0.737
p4 MODALITIES 0.975 0.102 9.585 *** 0.716
p10 MODALITIES 0.871 0.097 8.964 *** 0.651
p11 MODALITIES 0.117 0.093 1.259 .208 0.103
p12 MODALITIES 0.371 0.122 3.034 .002 0.244
p13 MODALITIES 0.529 0.107 4.961 *** 0.390
p16 MODALITIES 0.995 0.084 11.914 *** 0.816
p17 MODALITIES 0.434 0.091 4.747 *** 0.374
p24 EASE/CONTROL 0.567 0.075 7.599 *** 0.549
p29 EASE/CONTROL 0.531 0.081 6.567 *** 0.485
p30 EASE/CONTROL 0.489 0.070 7.022 *** 0.514
p31 EASE/CONTROL 0.502 0.069 7.292 *** 0.530
p36 EASE/CONTROL 0.419 0.077 5.413 *** 0.408
p41 EASE/CONTROL 0.518 0.053 9.690 *** 0.668
p42 EASE/CONTROL 0.623 0.061 10.245 *** 0.697
p43 EASE/CONTROL 0.559 0.061 9.202 *** 0.642
p44 EASE/CONTROL 0.648 0.060 10.723 *** 0.721
p45 EASE/CONTROL 0.566 0.061 9.333 *** 0.649
p21 PERSPECTIVE 0.525 0.074 7.094 *** 0.528
p20 PERSPECTIVE 0.549 0.078 6.990 *** 0.522
p22 PERSPECTIVE 0.543 0.078 6.950 *** 0.519
p23 PERSPECTIVE 0.794 0.088 8.997 *** 0.643
p25 PERSPECTIVE 0.856 0.083 10.252 *** 0.711
p26 PERSPECTIVE 0.973 0.091 10.666 *** 0.732
p27 PERSPECTIVE 0.636 0.102 6.236 *** 0.473
p28 PERSPECTIVE 0.626 0.098 6.390 *** 0.483
p32 AFFIRMATIONS 0.400 0.062 6.446 *** 0.488
(Table 3 continues)

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
76 current issues in personality psychology
Estimate S.E. C.R. P
b
p33 AFFIRMATIONS 0.566 0.056 10.101 *** 0.705
p34 AFFIRMATIONS 0.469 0.050 9.320 *** 0.663
p35 AFFIRMATIONS 0.407 0.076 5.321 *** 0.411
p37 AFFIRMATIONS 0.415 0.071 5.858 *** 0.448
p38 AFFIRMATIONS 0.437 0.069 6.298 *** 0.478
p39 AFFIRMATIONS 0.699 0.067 10.498 *** 0.726
p40 AFFIRMATIONS 0.619 0.061 10.158 *** 0.708
p1 VISUAL 0.816 0.083 9.828 *** 0.735
p2 VISUAL 0.687 0.070 9.761 *** 0.731
p3 VISUAL 0.564 0.087 6.461 *** 0.510
p4 VISUAL 0.102 0.099 1.033 0.302 0.075
p5 VISUAL 0.049 0.068 0.716 0.474 0.051
p6 VISUAL 0.180 0.074 2.427 0.015 0.184
Table 3
(Table 3 continued)
Table 4
Time stability correlation values for 7 subscales of KWS
N = 32 II feelings II modalities II ease/
control
II perspective II airmations II visual II general
Feelings 0.72*
Modalities 0.62*
Ease/Control 0.68*
Perspective 0.55*
Airmations 0.74*
Visual 0.62*
General 0.72*
Note. *p < 0.05
tion and removal of ambiguities the rst version of
the questionnaire was used in the rst study. Cluster
analysis was used, which allowed the following sub-
scales to be extracted: physiological feelings, sensory
modalities, ease/control, perspective, armations,
visual, general.
e next step was to check the internal consist-
ency of the measure. Aer removing afew questions
Cronbach’s α of each subscale ranged from 0.64 for
the visual to 0.79 for the ease/control, armations
and general. ose indices conrmed that the meas-
ure was internally consistent. e second improved
version was used in the second study.
Two conrmatory factor analyses (CFA) were
then conducted to verify whether the estimated mod-
el showed asatisfactory t to the data. e results
from both studies were used separately for this pur-
pose. e proposed model achieved satisfactory t
values in both studies.
Test-retest reliability analyses indicated that
the KWS subscales maintained good stability over
a3-week period. e highest correlation was observed
in the scale of armations (r = 0.74), the lowest in the
scale of adoption of the perspective (r = 0.55).
e next step was to analyse the concurrent and
construct validity. For this purpose, the relationships
between KWS subscales and e Sport Imagery Abil-
ity Measure (SIAM) (Wa et al., 2004) were exam-
ined. Although there is a relationship between the
questionnaires they measure dierent variables.
Relevant demographic characteristics including
gender, age, and competitive skill level were exam-
ined for dierences as an indication of the construct
validity of the KWS.

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
77
volume (), 4
Table 5
Bivariate correlations between the KWS subscales and SIAM subscales
N = 443 Feelings Modalities Ease/
Control
Perspective Airma-
tions
Visual General
SubCont
Pearson’s
correlations 0.197** 0.207** 0.283** 0.308** 0.227** 0.278** 0.230**
p0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SubEase
Pearson’s
correlations 0.171** 0.159** 0.250** 0.279** 0.207** 0.248** 0.204**
p0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SubSpeed
Pearson’s
correlations 0.134** 0.136** 0.216** 0.243** 0.185** 0.223** 0.171**
p0.005 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SubDurat
Pearson’s
correlations 0.108*0.157** 0.146** 0.190** 0.101*0.152** 0.113*
p0.023 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.035 0.001 0.017
SubVisul
Pearson’s
correlations 0.065 0.093 0.129** 0.153** 0.078 0.165** 0.090
p0.171 0.050 0.006 0.001 0.100 0.000 0.059
SubAudit
Pearson’s
correlations 0.219** 0.329** 0.160** 0.184** 0.125** 0.170** 0.147**
p0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.002
Subkinas
Pearson’s
correlations 0.338** 0.342** 0.244** 0.258** 0.209** 0.254** 0.230**
p0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SubOlfac
Pearson’s
correlations 0.151** 0.284** 0.092 0.118*0.071 0.098*0.095*
p0.001 0.000 0.054 0.013 0.137 0.040 0.046
SubGusta
Pearson’s
correlations 0.093 0.215** 0.041 0.081 0.024 0.039 0.034
p 0.053 0.000 0.388 0.092 0.623 0.420 0.474
SubTact
Pearson’s
correlations 0.246** 0.298** 0.214** 0.247** 0.176** 0.235** 0.195**
p0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SubEmot
Pearson’s
correlations 0.223** 0.262** 0.161** 0.147** 0.116*0.165** 0.144**
p0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.014 0.000 0.002
TOTSIAM
Pearson’s
correlations 0.252** 0.326** 0.245** 0.280** 0.191** 0.258** 0.210**
p0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Note.*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
In the current results there were three out of
seven dierences between women and men, where
men presented a higher level of imagery, which
was in accordance with some previous studies that
have identied gender dierences in imagery ability
(e.g., Campos, Pérez-Fabello & Gómez-Juncal, 2004;
Williams & Cumming, 2011). ose results were in
contrast to previous imagery studies for gender that

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
78 current issues in personality psychology
Table 6
Dierences between males and females for 7 subscales of KWS – results from both studies
Females
N = 186
Males
N = 293
tdf p
MSD MSD
Feelings 20.83 5.52 20.77 5.36 0.12 477.00 0.91
Modalities 19.61 5.85 19.10 5.75 0.94 477.00 0.35
Ease/Control 37.34 7.72 39.05 6.63 –2.57 477.00 0.01
Perspective 26.89 6.50 27.82 6.29 –1.56 477.00 0.12
Airmations 31.66 6.47 33.02 5.06 –2.55 476.00 0.01
Visual 22.42 4.43 23.24 4.19 –2.03 477.00 0.04
General 25.15 4.09 25.02 3.65 0.34 475.00 0.73
Table 7
Dierences between novices and more skilled athletes for 7 subscales of KWS – results from both studies
Novices
N = 122
More skilled athletes
N = 258
tdf p
M SD MSD
Feelings 19.62 5.33 21.14 5.30 –2.60 378.00 0.01
Modalities 18.65 5.72 19.38 5.86 –1.14 378.00 0.26
Ease/Control 36.39 7.21 39.02 7.17 –3.33 378.00 0.00
Perspective 26.07 6.81 27.61 6.26 –2.19 378.00 0.03
Airmations 30.57 5.70 33.18 5.67 –4.17 377.00 0.00
Visual 21.63 4.11 23.44 4.24 –3.93 378.00 0.00
General 24.02 4.08 25.43 3.65 –3.37 376.00 0.00
reported no dierence in the level of imagery ability
for males and females (Bhasavanija et al., 2011; Hall,
2001; Richardson, 1994; Richardson, 1999).
e explanation of those results may be the large
group size. According to the law of large numbers
the statistical signicance could be sharpened to 0.01.
None of the dierences between males and females
achieved signicance below 0.01, which may indicate
the gender invariance.
Signicant imagery ability dierences were also
observed between novices and more skilled athletes
in all but one subscales (modalities), which was con-
sistent with previous research (Elfving, Riches, Lin-
tunen, Wa & Morris, 2001; Wa & Morris, 2001;
Cumming & Hall, 2002; Oishi & Maeshima, 2004;
Gregg & Hall, 2006; Arvinen-Barrow, Weigand,
o mas, Hemmings & Walley, 2007; Roberts et al.,
2008; Bhasavanija et al., 2011; Williams & Cumming,
2011). No signicant correlation between age and
the results of the measure was found, which was in
accordance with previous studies (Bhasavanija et al.,
2011).
Alimitation of the current research was some in-
complete data, which caused discrepancies in num-
bers in descriptive analysis.
Future research will concern further validation of
the KWS by using it for aspecic group of athletes:
for example one discipline. Another example of fu-
ture research would be observation of psychophysi-
ological variables such as heart rate, muscle innerva-
tion, respiration or brain waves during visualization
of the tasks from the KWS.
conclusions
e results of the present study support the psycho-
metric properties of the KWS. e KWS has the po-
tential to be avaluable tool for researchers and applied
sport psychologists interested in measuring imagery
ability. In research and applied work the KWS may be
used for various purposes, including ascreening tool
for imagery interventions and amethod of validating
the eectiveness of the mental training interventions.

Dagmara Budnik-Przybylska
79
volume (), 4
References
Arbuckle, J. (2006). AMOS 7: A structural equation
modeling program. Smallwaters, Chicago.
Arvinen-Barrow, M., Weigand, D., Thomas, S., Hem-
mings, B. & Walley, M. (2007). Elite and novice
athletes’ imagery use in open and closed sports.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 93-104.
Bhasavanija, T., Vongjaturapat, N., Morris, T. & Muan-
gnapo, P. (2011). Validation of the Sport Imagery
Ability Measure in Thai for golf. Thai Journal of
Sports Sciences, 8, 1-18.
Budnik-Przybylska, D., Karasiewicz, K., Morris, T.,
Wa, A. Reliability, Factor Structure, and Criteri-
on Validity of the Polish Version of the Sport Im-
agery Ability Measure. In press.
Campos, A., Pérez-Fabelo, M.J. & Gómez-Juncal, R.
(2004). Gender and age dierences in measured
and self-perceived imaging capacity. Personality
and Individual Dierences, 37, 1383-1389.
Cox, R.X. (2007). Sport Psychology. Concept and Ap-
plications (6th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Cumming, J. & Hall, C. (2002). Deliberate imagery
practice: The development of imagery skills in
competitive athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences,
20, 137-145.
Elfving, T., Riches, D., Lintunen, T., Wa, T. & Mor-
ris, T. (2001). Reliability, factor structure and crite-
rion validity of the Sport Imagery Ability Measure
(SIAM) in athletes from Finland. In: A. Papaioan-
nou, M. Goudas & Y. Theodorakis (eds.). Proceed-
ing of the Xth World Congress of Sport Psychology,
2, 49-51. Athens, Greece: ISSP.
Gawain, S. (2001). Twórcza wizualizacja [Creative vi-
sualization]. Konstancin-Jeziorna: Medium.
Gregg, M. & Hall, C. (2006). Measurement of motiva-
tional imagery abilities in sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 24, 961-971.
Hall, C.R. (2001). Imagery in sport and exercise. In:
R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas & C.M. Janelle (eds.).
Handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 529-549). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hall, C.R. & Martin, K.A. (1997). Measuring move-
ment imagery abilities: A revision of the move-
ment imagery questionnaire. Journal of Mental
Imagery, 21, 143-154.
Hall, C.R. (1998). Measuring imagery abilities and
imagery use. In: J.L. Duda (ed.). Advances in sport
and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 165-
172). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Tech-
nology.
Hall, C.R., Pongrac, C. & Buckolz, E. (1985). The mea-
surement of imagery ability. Human Movement
Science, 4, 107-118.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M.R. (2008).
Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for De-
termining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cuto criteria for fit
indices in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Isaac, A.R., Marks, D.F. & Russell, D.G. (1986). An
instrument for assesing imagery of movement:
The vividness of Movement Imagy estionnaire
(VMIQ). Journal of Mental Imagery, 10, 23-30.
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing
(2nd ed.). London: Routledge (Cite in Cruise, S.M.,
Lewis, C.A. & McGuckin, C. (2006). Test-retest re-
liability of self-estimated intelligence: Temporal
stability over four time periods. Social Behavior
and Personality, 34, 1179-1188).
Kłodecka-Różalska, J. (1996). Przekraczanie umysłem
możliwości ciała. [Exceeding body limitations
with your mind]. Warszawa: RCMSKFiS iIS, Bib-
lioteka Trenera.
Martens, R. (1982). Imagery in sport. Paper presented
at he conference on Medical and Scientific As-
pects of Elitism in Sport. Brisbane, Australia.
Martin, K.A., Moritz, S.E. & Hall, C.R. (1999). Imagery
use in sport: Aliterature review and applied mod-
el. Sport Psychologist, 12, 245-268.
Morris, T., Spile, M. & Wa, A. (2005). Imagery in
Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Morris, T. & Summers, J. (1998). Psychologia sportu.
Strategie i techniki [Sport Psychology. Strategies
and techniques]. Warszawa: Biblioteka Trenera.
Nordin, S.M. & Cumming, J. (2008). Types and func-
tions of atheltes’ imagery: Testing prediction from
the applied model of imagery use by examining
eectiveness. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 6, 189-206.
Nowicki, D. (2004). Poprzez psychologiczny trening
sportowy do mistrzostwa [Through psychological
sport training to mastery]. In: Krawczyński, M. &
Nowicki, D. Psychologia sportu w treningu dzie-
ci i młodzieży [Sport psychology in the training
of children and youth] (pp. 117-144). Warszawa:
COS.
Oishi, K. & Maeshima, T. (2004). Autonomic nervous
system activities during motor imagery in elite
athletes. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 21,
170-179.
Orlick, T. (2008). In pursuit of excellence. How to win
in sport and life through mental training (4th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: Adual cod-
ing approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paul-Cavallier, F.J. (1992). Wizualizacja [Visualization].
Poznań: Dom Wydawniczy Rebis.
Richardson, A. (1994). Individual dierences in imag-
ing: Their measurement, origins, and consequences.
Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1999). Imagery. Hove: Psychology
Press.

The Imagination in Sport estionnaire
80 current issues in personality psychology
Roberts, R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Markland, D. &
Bringer, J. (2008). Movement imagery ability: De-
velopment and assessment of a revised version
of the vividness of movement imagery question-
naire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30,
200-221.
Sheehan, P.W., Ashton, R. & White, K. (1983). As-
sessment of mental imagery. In: A.A. Sheikh (ed.).
Imagery: Current theory, research, and application
(pp. 189-221). New York: Wiley.
Short, S.E., Monsma, E.V. & Short, M.W. (2004). Is
what you see really what you get? Athletes’ per-
ceptions of imagery’s functions. The Sport Psy-
chologist, 18, 341-349.
Vealey, R. & Greenleaf, C.A. (1998). Seeing is believ-
ing: Understanding and Using imagery in sport.
In: J.M. Williams (ed.). Applied sport psychology:
Personal growth to peak performance (3rd ed., pp.
247-283). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Vealey, R.S. (1986). Imagery training for performance
enhancement. In: J.M. Williams (ed.). Applied
sport psychology: Personal growth to peak perfor-
mance (1st ed., pp. 209-231). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Vealey, R.S. & Walter, S.M. (1993). Imagery training
for performance enhancement and personal de-
velopment. In: J.M. Williams (ed.). Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(2nd ed., pp. 200-224). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Wa, A.P. & Morris, T. (2001). Criterion validity of
the Sport Imagery Ability Measure (SIAM). In:
A. Papaioannou, M. Goudas & Y. Teodorakis. Pro-
ceedings of the 10th World Congress of Sport Psy-
chology (Vol. 2., pp. 60-62). Skiathos: Greece.
Wa, A.P., Morris, T. & Andersen, M.B. (2004). Issues
in the development of ameasure of imagery abili-
ty in sport. Journal of Mental Imagery, 28, 149-180.
Williams, J.M. (ed.) (2006). Applied Sport Psychology.
Personal growth to peak performance. New York:
Mc Graw Hill.
Williams, S.E. & Cumming, J. (2011). Measuring Ath-
lete Imagery Ability: The Sport Imagery Ability
estionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-
ogy, 33, 416-440.