Yhtomit

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20

Download by: [University of New Brunswick] Date: 01 December 2015, At: 07:17

Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Measurement of motivational imagery abilities in sport

Melanie Gregg & Craig Hall

To cite this article: Melanie Gregg & Craig Hall (2006) Measurement of motivational imagery abilities in sport, Journal of Sports Sciences, 24:9, 961-971, DOI: 10.1080/02640410500386167

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410500386167

Published online: 18 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1210

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Measurement of motivational imagery abilities in sport

MELANIE GREGG & CRAIG HALL

School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

(Accepted 3 October 2005)

Abstract Athletes report using imagery most often to successfully cope with and master challenging situations. This function of imagery is termed ‘‘motivational general-mastery’’ and includes imagining being focused, confident and in control in difficult circumstances. Also, athletes often use imagery to regulate their arousal levels (e.g. relaxing, psyching up) and this function of imagery is termed ‘‘motivational-general arousal’’. While most athletes report employing these two motivational functions of imagery, their ability to do so has not been examined. The aim of the present study was to develop a measure of motivational general sport imagery ability, the Motivational Imagery Ability Measure for Sport (MIAMS). This was accomplished through three phases. Across these phases, evidence was generated showing that the psychometric properties of the instrument are adequate. In addition, the relationship of scores on the MIAMS to demographic variables, including sex, sport type and competitive standard, were examined. It was found that athletes participating at a competitive level scored higher on the MIAMS than athletes participating at a recreational level.

Keywords: Imagery ability, measurement tool, motivational functions

Introduction

Hundreds of researchers have examined the relation-

ship between mental imagery and sport performance.

Based on reviews of these studies (e.g. Driskell,

Copper, & Moran, 1994; Martin, Moritz, & Hall,

1999), it has been concluded that imagery is an

effective performance enhancement technique.

Paivio’s (1985) analytic framework for the functions

of imagery use proposes that athletes employ imagery

for cognitive and motivational purposes. Further-

more, each function operates at a general and

specific level. Cognitive-general (CG) imagery

involves mentally rehearsing plans and strategies of

play. Cognitive-specific (CS) imagery is the mental

rehearsal of specific skills. Motivational general

imagery has been further categorized as motivational

general-arousal (MG-A) and motivational general-

mastery (MG-M) functions of imagery (Hall, Mack,

Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998). MG-A imagery in-

volves imaging the arousal and anxiety associated

with performing. MG-M imagery is used to imagine

being in control and feeling confident. Motivational-

specific (MS) imagery entails imaging goal achieve-

ment and accomplishment (see Hall et al., 1998).

Martin et al. (1999) have argued that for imagery

use to be most effective, the function of imagery used

must match the intended outcome. For example, if

the intended outcome is to increase sport con-

fidence, then the athlete should employ MG-M

imagery (e.g. Callow, Hardy, & Hall, 2001; Moritz,

Hall, Martin, & Vadocz, 1996; Vadocz, Hall, &

Moritz, 1997). Martin et al. (1999) also proposed

that imagery ability – individual differences in the

capacity to use imagery – moderates the relationship

between imagery use and intended outcomes, and

support for this proposal has also been generated.

Researchers examining the acquisition of motor skills

through the use of cognitive-specific imagery (i.e. the

mental rehearsal of specific skills) have demonstrated

that participants with high imagery ability experience

greater performance improvements than participants

scoring low on imagery ability (Goss, Hall, Buckolz,

& Fishburne, 1986; Isaac, 1992; Ryan & Simons,

1981).

Rodgers, Hall and Buckolz (1991) found that

athletes were able to improve their imagery ability

with practice, suggesting that imagery is both an

ability and a skill. This finding fits with Paivio’s

(1986) argument that individual differences in the

Correspondence: M. Gregg, School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Sports Sciences, September 2006; 24(9): 961 – 971

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02640410500386167

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

capacity to use imagery are a product of genetic

variability interacting with experience. It appears that

imagery use is most effective for those individuals

who are better imagers – that is, those higher in

imagery ability (Martin et al., 1999; Murphy, 1994).

Moreover, Vadocz et al. (1997) suggested that

athletes who are higher in imagery ability are more

likely to use imagery. Given that imagery ability

significantly impacts athletes’ use of imagery, it is

important to consider imagery ability when conduct-

ing sport imagery research. To do so, valid and

reliable instruments for assessing imagery ability are

required.

Various tools have been developed to measure

imagery ability for motor skills. Using the Vividness

of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973) as

a foundation, Isaac, Marks and Russell (1986)

developed the Vividness of Movement Imagery

Questionnaire (VMIQ). The VMIQ requires indivi-

duals to rate the vividness of their imagery on a 5-point

rating scale (1¼perfectly clear and as vivid as normal vision, 5¼no image at all, you only ‘‘know’’ that you are thinking of the movement) for 24 different

movements or actions for both an external (i.e.

watching somebody else) and an internal (i.e. doing

it yourself) perspective. The VMIQ assesses strictly

visual movement imagery ability (Campos & Perez,

1990) and possesses adequate psychometric proper-

ties (Atienza, Balaguer, & Garcia-Merita, 1994).

Scores on the VMIQ have been linked to improve-

ments in motor skills (Isaac, 1992).

The Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ;

Hall & Pongrac, 1983) was designed to assess kinae-

sthetic as well as visual movement imagery ability.

Individuals are required to rate the ease of imaging

nine different arm, leg or whole-body movements.

Ratings are made on a 7-point scale where 1¼very easy to picture/feel and 7¼very difficult to picture/ feel. Hall and Martin (1997) later revised the MIQ by

developing a shortened version (8 items) that is easier

to administer (Movement Imagery Questionnaire-

Revised; MIQ-R). The MIQ has acceptable psycho-

metric properties (Atienza et al., 1994; Hall, Pongrac,

& Buckolz, 1985), while the psychometric properties

of the MIQ-R have yet to be determined. Researchers

have indicated that the MIQ and MIQ-R are useful

measures of movement imagery ability (e.g. Goss

et al., 1986; Hall & Martin, 1997).

The VMIQ, MIQ and MIQ-R provide a very

general picture of how good an individual is at

imaging specific movements, or how good they are at

using cognitive specific imagery. However, these

instruments are limited in their utility for measuring

an athlete’s ability to use other functions of imagery.

As Martin et al. (1999) suggested and as stated

explicitly by Denis (1985), ‘‘it is important to ensure

that the specific dimension on which subjects are

classified corresponds to the kind of imagery ability

that is requested in the learning of the task’’ (p. 11S).

In addition, these instruments assess imagery ability

of movements in general and were not designed

specifically to examine images related to sport. Hall

(1998) has argued that if researchers want to fully

measure the imagery abilities of athletes, additional

instruments need to be developed that consider

athletes’ abilities to imagine other imagery functions

(i.e. CG, MG-M, MG-A and MS imagery). Given

that previously researchers have reported that ath-

letes use the motivational functions of imagery most

frequently (Beauchamp, Bray, & Albinson, 2002;

Hall et al., 1998), it would be appropriate to tailor

imagery ability measures to reflect this preference.

In an attempt to overcome these limitations, Watt

(2003) recently developed the Sport Imagery Ability

Measure (SIAM). Watt’s aim was to validate a multi-

modal, multi-dimensional test of imagery ability with

content focusing on sport rather than movement-

related images. Participants image a sport-specific

scene for 60 s and then respond to items that assess

five imagery dimensions (vividness, control, ease of

generation, speed of generation, duration), involve-

ment of the senses (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic,

olfactory, gustatory tactile) and the experience of

emotion. Participants make their responses on 10 cm

visual analogue scales. While there was some support

for the psychometric characteristics of the SIAM,

factor analyses of the instrument have produced

conflicting findings, thus not supporting the

12-factor structure of the questionnaire. As a result,

sport psychology research is still in need of a valid,

reliable tool that measures imagery abilities within a

sport context beyond those assessed by the VMIQ,

MIQ, MIQ-R (i.e. the ability to image specific

movements) and the SIAM.

The aim of the present study was to develop a valid

and useful instrument for assessing motivational

general imagery abilities in sport. Three experimen-

tal phases were involved in developing and assessing

both a measure of motivational general-mastery

imagery ability and a measure of motivational

general-arousal imagery ability.

Phase 1

The purpose of Phase 1 was to determine if it was

feasible to develop MG-M imagery scenarios and

identify suitable rating scales to measure MG-M

imagery ability.

Methods

Participants. The participants were students in an

introductory sport psychology course. Of the 607

participants, 412 (67.9%) were female and 195

962 M. Gregg & C. Hall

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

(32.1%) were male. The participants ranged in age

from 17 to 45 years (mean 19.80, s¼2.17 years). A wide variety of sports were represented by the

sample, with primary participation in 52 different

sports being reported. Participation in the sport of

soccer was reported most frequently (16%), followed

by basketball (12%) and volleyball (11%). Level of

participation was most often recreationally (70.8%),

followed by varsity (24.9%). Only a few national

(3.1%) and international (0.8%) level athletes were

included in the sample.

Measure. Four scenarios were developed based on

definitions of the MG-M imagery function (Hall et al.,

1998), previous research examining the functions of

imagery use (e.g. Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Wein-

berg, 2000) and points made by Holmes and Collins

(2001) in their PETTLEP model of motor imagery

(e.g. personalized and multi-sensory imagery). The

aim was to create scenarios of situations that occur in

a variety of sports and that could easily be identified

by athletes. The rating scales were developed based

on the SIAM rating scales and the qualitative findings

of Munroe et al. (2000) regarding the content of

athletes’ imagery. It should be noted that visual and

kinaesthetic imagery were not specifically included as

rating scales since they pertain to the imaging of

specific movements and not more abstract constructs

such as confidence and psyching up. Content validity

was then assessed by six athletes at various compe-

titive levels and by two imagery experts. Their

feedback on the content, format, wording and rating

scales of the measurement tool was helpful for

modifying the initial scenarios and rating scales.

The Phase 1 Motivational Imagery Ability Measure

for Sport (MIAMS) consisted of four MG-M imagery

scenarios (items) that were each rated on five scales.

Three steps were involved in rating each item. In step

1 the participants read a MG-M imagery scenario. An

example MG-M imagery scenario is as follows:

Imagine that following a break in the competition

you are having a difficult time ‘‘getting back into

it’’, have made some errors and are having a

difficult time overcoming these feelings. You clear

your mind and let that mental tension leave you.

You then return your focus to the competition and

feel more aware of your surroundings. You see

your opponents and the competition setting and

feel in control of the situation.

In step 2 the participants were instructed to create

and experience their image of the scenario, and in

step 3 they rated the image they experienced. Each

scenario was rated on a 7-point Likert scale for

each of: clarity (1¼no image, 7¼perfectly clear image); ease (1¼not at all easy to see, 7¼very easy to see); emotion (1¼no emotion, 7¼very strong emotion); feel of the movements (1¼no feeling, 7¼very strong feeling); and control (1¼no control over image, 7¼complete control over image).

Procedure. The protocol was approved by the

University of Western Ontario research ethics board

for non-medical research involving human partici-

pants. Participants completed the MIAMS as part of

their laboratory experience for an introductory sport

psychology class. The participants were given a letter

of information and consent form. If they agreed to

have their results included in the analysis, the

students placed their signed consent form in a box

that remained sealed until after the final grades for

the class had been submitted. The students com-

pleted the questionnaire at their leisure and handed it

in during regular class time. The questionnaire took

approximately 15 min to complete.

Results and discussion

Table I shows the means and standard deviations for

MG-M imagery ability for each rating scale. In

addition, bivariate correlations between the rating

scales (i.e. clarity, ease, emotion, feel of the move-

ments and control) are provided. All five rating scales

were significantly correlated with each other. The

correlations between ease and clarity, emotion and

feel of the movements, and control and clarity were

moderate. Cronbach alpha coefficients (see Table I)

were calculated for the MIAMS for each of the rating

scales; the internal consistencies were all acceptable

(alpha 40.70) with the exception of ease (Nunnally, 1978).

Table I. Phase 1 scale means (+ s), bivariate correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Mean + s Clarity Ease Emotion Feel movements Alpha

Clarity 5.30 + 0.791 0.739 Ease 5.29 + 1.08 0.688* 0.472 Emotion 4.72 + 1.08 0.487* 0.373* 0.780 Feel movement 4.34 + 1.11 0.452* 0.360* 0.645* 0.767 Control 5.06 + 0.966 0.572* 0.501* 0.391* 0.433* 0.815

*P 5 0.01.

Imagery ability 963

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

Phase 1 of the study was exploratory and indicated

the feasibility of measuring MG-M imagery ability. It

was important to determine that MG-M imagery

ability could be assessed through a method such as

the MIAMS before expanding to other functions of

imagery use, specifically MG-A imagery. High

correlations between the rating scales and low

internal consistency for the ease rating scale indi-

cated that the MIAMS required modifications.

Thus, the encouraging findings from this phase of

the research, as well the limitations with the initial

rating scales employed, led to Phase 2 of the study.

Phase 2

Since Phase 1 indicated that MG-M imagery ability

could be assessed using the types of scenarios

included in the initial version of the MIAMS,

additional scenarios were developed to measure

MG-A imagery ability. Given the correlations among

the rating scales in Phase 1, the instrument was

shortened to include only three rating scales: emo-

tion, control and a modified version of the ease scale.

The latter was retained since various imagery ability

researchers have argued for the inclusion of ease of

image formation (Hall, 1998; Watt, 2003).

Methods

Participants. The participants were a convenient

sample of 72 undergraduate kinesiology students

who had similar demographics to those who partici-

pated in Phase 1 of the study: 48 (65.8%) females, 25

(34.2%) males, mean age 21.18, s¼3.57 years. A variety of sports was represented by the sample, with

20 different sports reported. Similar levels of

participation were also indicated: recreational

(76.7%), varsity (19.2%) and national (4.1%).

Measure. Using the results of Phase 1 as a basis,

motivational general-arousal scenarios (i.e. imaging

oneself regulating arousal levels) were developed

based on definitions of the MG-A imagery function

(Hall et al., 1998), the MG-A imagery literature (e.g.

Hall et al., 1998; Munroe et al., 2000; White &

Hardy, 1998), recommendations made by Holmes

and Collins (2001), as well as input from national

level athletes and several imagery experts. These

scenarios were designed to be plausible representa-

tions of situations that occur in a variety of sports

where an athlete could engage in MG-A imagery use.

They were designed in such a way as to be

personalized by each athlete. The content validity

of the scenarios was assessed by three research

experts in the area of sport psychology and by five

elite athletes. As with Phase 1, these scenarios were

modified for content, format and wording based on

their recommendations. An example MG-A imagery

scenario is as follows:

Imagine yourself about to begin a competition in

your sport. As you finish your preparations in the

final few minutes before the competition begins

you notice the feeling of some ‘‘butterflies in your

stomach’’. You notice your palms are a bit sweaty

and your heart is beating a little quickly. You know

these symptoms indicate that you are a little bit

excited, this is good, and that you are ready to

compete.

These scenarios were added to the four MG-M

scenarios developed in Phase 1. Thus, the MIAMS

now consisted of eight items.

Procedure. Participants were given a letter of informa-

tion and completion of the questionnaire indicated

consent. As in Phase 1, participants read each

scenario, then imaged the scenario and rated their

image of the scenario. The four MG-A scenarios,

together with the original MG-M scenarios, were rated

on a 7-point Likert scale for three characteristics:

emotion (1¼no emotion, 7¼very strong emotion); control (1¼no control over image, 7¼complete control over image); and ease (1¼not at all easy to form, 7¼very easy to form). Note that the ease rating scale was modified from Phase 1 to emphasize forming

an image that incorporated more than only visual

aspects of imagery. Mean scores for each of the three

rating scales were calculated across scenarios. Higher

ratings indicate better imagery ability.

Results and discussion

Table II shows the means, standard deviations

and Cronbach alpha coefficients for the MG-M

and MG-A subscales of the MIAMS for each of the

rating scales. The alpha coefficients were acceptable

or close to being acceptable for all three rating scales

(alpha 40.70). Bivariate correlations for MG-M and

Table II. Phase 2 scale means (+ s), bivariate correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Scale Mean + s Emotion Control Alpha

MG-M

Emotion 4.74 + 0.958 0.758 Control 5.08 + 0.778 0.211 0.682 Ease 5.27 + 0.919 0.329* 0.748* 0.692

MG-A

Emotion 5.08 + 0.969 0.744 Control 5.23 + 0.868 0.358* 0.682 Ease 5.53 + 0.933 0.427* 0.754* 0.732

*P 5 0.01.

964 M. Gregg & C. Hall

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

MG-A imagery ability for each of the rating scales

also are reported in Table II. Ease and control were

highly related for both MG-M and MG-A imagery

ability. Emotion and control had a low correlation

for MG-A imagery, but this relationship was not

significant for MG-M imagery.

These findings indicate that the MIAMS can be

employed to assess MG-M and MG-A imagery

ability for sport. However, correlations between the

control and ease scales for both MG-M and MG-A

items, together with the lower internal consistencies

for the control and MG-M ease scales, suggested

some further modifications to the instrument would

be helpful. Therefore, a third phase was undertaken

in an attempt to finalize the MIAMS and to examine

its psychometric properties.

Phase 3

Some minor modifications were made to the MIAMS

based on the results of Phase 2. The primary purpose

of Phase 3 was to assess the factor structure of this

revised version of the MIAMS using confirmatory

techniques. Another purpose was to examine the

influence of several demographic variables, including

gender, competitive level and sport type, on motiva-

tional imagery abilities. Only minor differences have

been found between the sexes for both imagery use

(Munroe, Hall, Simms, & Weinberg, 1998; Salmon,

Hall, & Haslam, 1994) and the ability to image

specific movements (Vadocz et al., 1997). However,

the relationship between sex and motivational ima-

gery ability had not been examined previously. It was

expected that sex would not influence motivational

imagery ability scores. Vadocz et al. (1997) found that

roller skaters placed high in their event had signifi-

cantly higher scores on a measure of kinaesthetic

imagery ability than athletes who were placed lower in

their event. Therefore, it was expected that athletes

competing at a higher level (i.e. provincial, national or

international) would score higher on the MIAMS

than those who participated at lower competitive

levels (i.e. recreational). Hall and colleagues’ (1998)

research indicated that team sport athletes use the

motivational functions of imagery more often than

individual sport athletes. Given these differences in

imagery use and that imagery ability is a skill that

improves with practice (Rodgers et al., 1991), it was

hypothesized that team sport athletes would be more

proficient at using imagery for motivational functions

(i.e. score higher on the MIAMS) than would

individual sport athletes.

Methods

Participants. In Phase 3 of the study, 315 participants

completed the MIAMS; 202 (64.1%) were female

and 112 (35.6%) were male, while one did not

indicate his or her sex. The participants had a mean

age of 19.10 (s¼1.65) years. The sample partici- pated in 52 team and individual sports, mainly at the

recreational (68.9%) level, but also at various

competitive levels: varsity (21.9%), national (5.1%)

and international (4.1%).

Measure. The MIAMS (see Appendix) consisted of

the four MG-M and four MG-A imagery scenarios

developed in the previous phases. Each scene was

rated on a 7-point Likert scale for two characteristics:

emotion (1 ¼ no emotion, 7 ¼ very strong emotion) and ease (1 ¼ not at all easy to form, 7¼very easy to form). The control rating scale was not included

since it correlated strongly with the ease rating scale

in Phase 2, and had slightly lower Cronbach alphas

than the ease scale.

Procedure. Participants were given a letter of informa-

tion and completion of the questionnaire indicated

consent. As in the first two phases of the study, there

were three steps to complete each item. Participants

read the scenario, formed an image of the scenario

and rated that image on the two scales.

Results and discussion

Means and standard deviations for the MG-M and

MG-A sub-scales are reported in Table III. Partici-

pants gave higher ratings for ease than for emotion.

Bivariate correlations are also presented in Table III

and indicate the ease and emotion rating scales were

moderately related for both MG-M and MG-A sub-

scales. For both the ease and emotion ratings, the

MG-M and MG-A imagery ability subscales had

acceptable internal consistencies (see Table III), all

exceeding, or being equal to, a Cronbach alpha

coefficient of 0.70.

Confirmatory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor

analysis was used to assess the factor structure of

the MIAMS. A two-factor model of motivational

general imagery ability, MG-M and MG-A, was

Table III. Phase 3 scale means (+ s), bivariate correlations and Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Scale Mean + s Emotion Alpha

MG-M

Emotion 5.01 + 0.960 0.698 Ease 5.29 + 1.03 0.561* 0.729

MG-A

Emotion 5.06 + 1.03 0.743 Ease 5.33 + 1.06 0.645* 0.734

*P 5 0.01.

Imagery ability 965

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

hypothesized. A number of fit indices were used to

evaluate the model. The w2/degrees of freedom (Q) ratio was used as an index of absolute model fit

(Kelloway, 1998). The w2 statistic, however, has been criticized for being overly sensitive to sample size, and

being ambiguous in terms of how close the implied

and observed covariance matrices must be to indicate

that the model fits the data (Kelloway, 1998). Due to

these limitations, the comparative fit index (CFI) and

the relative fit index (RFI) were employed given their

suitability as indicators of a global model in research

with small sample sizes (West, Finch, & Curran,

1995). The root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) was also considered to assess the discre-

pancy between the implied and observed correlation

matrices (Kelloway, 1998). Fit indices greater than

0.90 for the comparative fit index and the relative fit

index and less than 0.10 for the root mean square

error of approximation are considered indicative of

acceptable model fit.

For purposes of testing the model, the two factors

were allowed to covary with one another, items were

loaded exclusively on relevant factors and the

variance for each latent factor was fixed at one.

Maximum likelihood estimation was employed to

estimate the model for both ease and emotion ratings.

For the ease ratings, support was generated for

the hypothesized model: Q¼2.78, CFI¼0.996, RFI¼0.987 and RMSEA¼0.075. Q represents a reasonable fit to the data (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985).

Both the comparative fit index and relative fit index

had values close to 1, indicating a very good fit

(Bentler, 1990; Bollen, 1989). The root mean square

error of approximation of 0.08 or less suggests a

reasonable error of approximation (Browne &

Cudeck, 1993). The overall fit of the structural

model was corroborated by the moderate to strong

standardized parameter loadings (l ranged from 0.610 to 0.682). These values indicate each item

had a meaningful contribution to its respective

subscale (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).

When the model was tested for the emotion

ratings, the acceptable fit indices (Q¼2.75, CFI¼0.996, RFI¼0.987, RMSEA¼0.075) and the moderate to strong standardized parameter

loadings (l¼0.533 to 0.703) again indicated that the measurement model was tenable.

Multivariate analysis of variance. Separate 26262 multivariate analyses of variance were performed for

the MG-M and MG-A subscales. The independent

variables were competitive level (recreation or compe-

titive), sex (male or female) and sport type (individual

or team sport). The dependent variables were the ease

and emotion ratings for each subscale. For the MG-M

subscale, there was a significant multivariate effect

for competitive level (Wilk’s l¼0.969, F2,305¼4.82,

P 5 0.01, effect size¼ 0.031). There was no signifi- cant effect for sex or sport type, and none of the

interactions proved to be significant (P 40.05). Follow-up univariate tests using a Bonferroni adjust-

ment to control for Type 1 errors (P 5 0.025) indicated significant effects of competitive level on

both the emotion (F1,314¼8.12, P 5 0.01, effect size¼0.026) and ease scales (F1,314¼6.76, P 5 0.01, effect size¼0.022). Athletes participating at a competitive level scored higher than athletes

participating at a recreational level on both the ease

and emotion scales for MG-M ability (see Table IV).

For the MG-A subscale, there was a significant

multivariate effect only for competitive level

(Wilk’s l¼0.970, F2,305¼4.66, P 5 0.01, effect size¼0.030). Follow-up univariate tests again using the same Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant

effect for emotion (F1,314¼9.27, P 5 0.01, effect size¼0.029), but not ease (P 40.025). Athletes participating in their sport at a competitive level had

higher mean scores on emotion than athletes parti-

cipating at a recreational level (see Table IV).

Overall, the two-factor model for the measurement

of motivational general imagery ability was supported

through confirmatory factor analysis. The results of

multivariate analysis of variance from Phase 3

provide some support for using the MIAMS with

athletes of various competitive levels.

General discussion

Various functions of imagery are employed by

athletes, but imagery use for motivational general

purposes (including mastery and arousal) is typically

the most frequently used (Beauchamp et al., 2002;

Hall et al., 1998). Martin et al. (1999) propose that

imagery ability moderates the use of motivational

general imagery; however, this proposal has not been

empirically examined. To do so, it is necessary to

have measurement tools that assess athletes’ motiva-

tional general imagery abilities (i.e. assess how

well athletes can imagine mastery and arousal

Table IV. Mean (+ s) values by competitive level.

Scale Competitive level Mean + s

MG-M

Emotion Recreational 4.88 + 0.888 Competitive 5.29 + 1.05

Ease Recreational 5.16 + 1.04 Competitive 5.57 + 0.949

MG-A

Emotion Recreational 4.92 + 1.02 Competitive 5.39 + 0.996

Ease Recreational 5.21 + 1.06 Competitive 5.60 + 0.995

966 M. Gregg & C. Hall

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

experiences in sport). Tools currently available are

limited because they only measure individuals’

abilities to image specific motor tasks and not their

ability to image sporting experiences, such as

mastering a difficult situation and getting psyched

up to compete. In an attempt to overcome this

limitation, the MIAMS was developed in the present

research.

The confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-

factor instrument consisting of MG-M and MG-A

imagery, with each factor assessed on two rating

scales, emotion and ease. In addition, favourable

internal consistencies for the items designed to assess

each factor were found. Thus, the present research

provides some evidence that the MIAMS has

acceptable psychometric properties and may be a

useful instrument for the assessment of motivational

general imagery abilities.

As hypothesized, there were no differences be-

tween the sexes for motivational general imagery

abilities. Team sport athletes were expected to score

higher on the MIAMS subscales than individual

sport athletes, indicating higher ability for both

MG-M and MG-A imagery. These differences did

not materialize, possibly because of the sport

categories selected. It is difficult to categorize sports

simply on the basis of individual versus team. Some

sports incorporate both individual and team aspects.

For example, a rower may compete in singles, pairs,

quads and eights, and a tennis player may participate

in both singles and doubles. Additional research is

certainly warranted on whether type of sport

influences motivational general imagery abilities.

Athletes participating in their sports at a compe-

titive level scored higher than athletes participating at

a recreational level on both the ease and emotion

rating scales for MG-M imagery ability and on the

emotion rating scale for MG-A imagery ability. This

was as expected, as athletes of a higher competitive

level have reported using the MG-M and MG-A

functions of imagery more frequently than athletes of

a lower competitive level (Hall et al., 1998). More-

over, imagery is a skill that improves with practice

(Rodgers et al., 1991). Thus, it is logical for athletes

to have high imagery ability for a specific function of

imagery (i.e. motivational general) that they engage

in or practise frequently. The present results are in

line with previous findings demonstrating that

athletes of higher competitive levels are better able

to use kinaesthetic aspects of imagery than their

lower level counterparts (Vadocz et al., 1997).

Several limitations of the present study need to be

acknowledged. First, the samples were somewhat

homogeneous in nature, in that they consisted of

predominantly university-aged athletes. It would

seem prudent for future research to investigate

the veracity of these findings in more diverse

samples. Second, this research was correlational

and cross-sectional in design and there is a need

for longitudinal research examining the dynamic

(skill) nature of motivational general imagery abil-

ities. Third, no attempt was made to link scores on

the MIAMS with the use of the various functions of

imagery and this certainly needs to be undertaken,

possibly employing the model of imagery use pro-

posed by Martin et al. (1999).

The MIAMS has the potential to be a valuable

tool for researchers and applied sport psychologists

interested in measuring motivational general ima-

gery abilities. An applied sport psychologist may

use the MIAMS for various purposes, including a

screening tool for imagery interventions and a

method of validating the effectiveness of their

interventions. Further psychometric analysis of the

MIAMS should be undertaken, including replica-

tion of the present findings, further construct

validation, an assessment of test – retest reliability,

and an assessment of concurrent validity. The need

to assess motivational imagery abilities has been

recognized for some time (Hall, 1998). Using the

MIAMS in conjunction with existing measures of

cognitive specific imagery ability (e.g. MIQ-R,

VMIQ) should provide a relatively comprehensive

assessment of athletes’ imagery abilities and hope-

fully facilitate the implementation of more effective

imagery interventions.

References

Atienza, F., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. A. (1994). Factor

analysis and reliability of the Movement Imagery Question-

naire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1323 – 1328.

Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., & Albinson, J. G. (2002). Pre-

competition imagery, self-efficacy and performance in collegiate

golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 697 – 705.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural

models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 – 246.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.

New York: Wiley.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of

assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing

structural equation models (pp. 136 – 162). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Callow, N., Hardy, L., & Hall, C. (2001). The effect of a

motivational general-mastery imagery intervention on the sport

confidence of high-level badminton players. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 72, 389 – 400.

Campos, A., & Perez, M. J. (1990). A factor analytic study of two

measures of mental imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71,

995 – 1001.

Denis, M. (1985). Visual imagery and the use of mental practice in

the development of motor skills. Canadian Journal of Applied

Sport Sciences, 10, 4S – 16S.

Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental

imagery enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,

481 – 491.

Goss, S., Hall, C., Buckolz, E., & Fishburne, G. (1986). Imagery

ability and the acquisition and retention of movements. Memory

and Cognition, 14, 469 – 477.

Imagery ability 967

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

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 In-

formation Technology.

Hall, C., Mack, D., Paivio, A., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Imagery

use by athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Ques-

tionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 73 – 89.

Hall, C. R., & Martin, K. A. (1997). Measuring movement

imagery abilities: A revision of the Movement Imagery

Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 21, 143 – 154.

Hall, C., & Pongrac, J. (1983). Movement Imagery Questionnaire.

London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

Hall, C., Pongrac, J., & Buckolz, E. (1985). The measurement of

imagery ability. Human Movement Science, 4, 107 – 118.

Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to

motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport

psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 60 – 83.

Isaac, A. R. (1992). Mental practice – does it work in the field? The

Sport Psychologist, 6, 192 – 198.

Isaac, A., Marks, D., & Russell, E. (1986). An instrument for

assessing imagery of movement: The Vividness of Movement

Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ). Journal of Mental Imagery, 10,

23 – 30.

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation

modelling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of

pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17 – 24.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory

factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-

order factor models and their invariance across groups.

Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562 – 582.

Martin, K., Moritz, S., & Hall, C. (1999). Imagery use in sport:

A literature review and applied model. The Sport Psychologist,

13, 245 – 268.

Moritz, S. E., Hall, C. R., Martin, K. A., & Vadocz, E. (1996).

What are confident athletes imaging? An examination of image

content. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 171 – 179.

Munroe, K. J., Giacobbi, P. R., Jr., Hall, C., & Weinberg, R.

(2000). The four w’s of imagery use: Where, when, why, and

what. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 119 – 137.

Munroe, K., Hall, C., Simms, S., & Weinberg, R. (1998). The

influence of type of sport and time of season on athletes’ use of

imagery. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 440 – 449.

Murphy, S. M. (1994). Imagery interventions in sport. Medicine

and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 486 – 494.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Paivio, A. (1985). Cognitive and motivational functions of imagery

in human performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport

Sciences, 10, 22S – 28S.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckolz, E. (1991). The effect of an

imagery training program on imagery ability, imagery use, and

figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

3, 109 – 125.

Ryan, E. D., & Simons, J. (1981). Cognitive demand, imagery,

and frequency of mental practice as factors influencing the

acquisition of motor skills. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3,

35 – 45.

Salmon, J., Hall, C., & Haslam, I. (1994). The use of imagery

by soccer players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6,

116 – 133.

Vadocz, E. A., Hall, C. R., & Moritz, S. E. (1997). The

relationship between competitive anxiety and imagery use.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 241 – 253.

Watt, A. (2003). Development and validation of the Sport Imagery

Ability Measure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Victoria

University of Technology, Victoria, Australia.

West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural

equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and

remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:

Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56 – 75). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

White, A., & Hardy, L. (1998). An in-depth analysis of the uses of

imagery by high-level slalom canoeists and artistic gymnasts.

The Sport Psychologist, 12, 387 – 403.

Appendix

Motivational Imagery Ability Measure for Sport

Age: _________ Gender: _________

Primary Sport: (indicate one only) _________

Current Level of Participation in Primary Sport: (tick appropriate box)

Recreational/Club ¤ Varsity/Provincial ¤

National ¤ International ¤

This questionnaire involves creating images of eight situations in sport. After you image each scene, you

will rate the imagery on two scales. Your ratings will be made on a 7-point scale, where 1 indicates

difficulty forming the image or no emotional experience, and 7 is an easily formed image or a very strong

emotional experience. Images that fall between these two extremes should be rated accordingly along the

scale. There are no right or wrong ratings. Be as accurate as possible and take as long as you feel necessary

to arrive at the proper ratings for each scene.

The two scales are: emotional – emotions experienced while imaging the scene

ease – the ease of forming the image

968 M. Gregg & C. Hall

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

Scene 1 (MG-M)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine you are participating in an important competition for your sport, you feel very

fatigued physically and mentally, but can imagine yourself overcoming these feelings and giving your full

effort. Your muscles feel heavy and tired, but you feel yourself starting to become more energized. See yourself

pick up the pace and perform with extra effort. Notice how your mood lifts and you observe more of your

surroundings.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 2 (MG-A)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine yourself about to begin a competition in your sport. As you finish your preparations in

the final few minutes before the competition begins you notice the feeling of some ‘‘butterflies in your stomach’’.

You notice your palms are a bit sweaty and your heart is beating a little quickly. You know these symptoms

indicate that you are a little bit excited, this is good, and that you are ready to compete.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 3 (MG-M)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine that following a break in the competition you are having a difficult time ‘‘getting

back into it’’, have made some errors and are having a difficult time overcoming these feelings. You clear

your mind and let that mental tension leave you. You then return your focus to the competition and feel

more aware of your surroundings. You see your opponents and the competition setting and feel in control

of the situation.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

Imagery ability 969

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 4 (MG-M)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine you are performing a drill during practice in your sport that is very difficult. Notice your

frustration as you attempt to do the drill properly. Now imagine yourself starting to complete the drill

successfully. Notice your satisfaction as you see and feel yourself performing the entire drill correctly.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 5 (MG-A)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine yourself performing your warm-up in preparation for a competition in your sport. As

you notice the sites and sounds of the competition venue you feel yourself becoming excited. The anticipation of

competing makes your muscles twitch. You’re feeling ‘‘psyched up’’ and ready.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 6 (MG-A)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine yourself competing in your sport. During a break in the competition you observe how

loose and relaxed you feel. Your breathing is deep and rhythmical. Mentally you feel at ease and are focused

only on what you have to do. See yourself re-entering the competition, relaxed and ready to go.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

970 M. Gregg & C. Hall

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 7 (MG-A)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine yourself participating in an important competition for your sport. You feel as though

your arousal is at an optimal level. You sense excitement and anticipation within yourself, yet feel calm and in

control.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scene 8 (MG-M)

STEP 1 (read): Imagine yourself at a competition in your sport. Your opponents have been successful in the

past and you will need to be ‘‘on’’ to beat them. As you look around the competition venue you see others that

you have competed against in the past when you were successful. As you remind yourself that you deserve to be

in the competition you feel your back straighten and your head being held high as you regain your confidence in

yourself.

STEP 2: Now create and experience your image of the scene in your mind.

STEP 3: Next, complete the two scales below.

1. How strong was your emotional experience created by the image?

No emotion Very strong emotion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. How easy was it to form the image?

Not at all easy Very easy

to form to form

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Imagery ability 971

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

it y

of N

ew B

ru ns

w ic

k] a

t 07

:1 7

01 D

ec em

be r

20 15