Stephen A. McIntyre , Jessica Richardson , Susan Carroll , Saava O'Kirwan , Chloe Williams , Victoria Pile
{"title":"Measures of mental imagery in emotional disorders: A COSMIN systematic review of psychometric properties","authors":"Stephen A. McIntyre , Jessica Richardson , Susan Carroll , Saava O'Kirwan , Chloe Williams , Victoria Pile","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Dysfunctional imagery processes characterise a range of emotional disorders. Valid, reliable, and responsive mental imagery measures may support the clinical assessment of imagery and advance research to develop theory and imagery-based interventions. We sought to review the psychometric properties of mental imagery measures relevant to emotional disorders.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review registered on the Open Science Framework was conducted using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. Five databases were searched. COSMIN tools were used to assess the quality of study methodologies and psychometric properties of measures.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-three articles describing twenty-one self-report measures were included. Measures assessed various imagery processes and were organised into four groups based on related emotional disorders. Study methodological quality varied: measure development and reliability studies were generally poor, while internal consistency and hypothesis testing studies were higher quality. Most measurement properties assessed were of indeterminate quality.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Imagery measures were heterogenous and primarily disorder specific. Due to a lack of high-quality psychometric assessment, it is unclear whether most included imagery measures are valid, reliable, or responsive. Measures had limited evidence of content validity suggesting further research could engage clinical populations to ensure their relevance and comprehensiveness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 102470"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000916/pdfft?md5=bff16207715181cacf3ac62cb3e88260&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000916-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000916","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Dysfunctional imagery processes characterise a range of emotional disorders. Valid, reliable, and responsive mental imagery measures may support the clinical assessment of imagery and advance research to develop theory and imagery-based interventions. We sought to review the psychometric properties of mental imagery measures relevant to emotional disorders.
Methods
A systematic review registered on the Open Science Framework was conducted using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. Five databases were searched. COSMIN tools were used to assess the quality of study methodologies and psychometric properties of measures.
Results
Twenty-three articles describing twenty-one self-report measures were included. Measures assessed various imagery processes and were organised into four groups based on related emotional disorders. Study methodological quality varied: measure development and reliability studies were generally poor, while internal consistency and hypothesis testing studies were higher quality. Most measurement properties assessed were of indeterminate quality.
Conclusion
Imagery measures were heterogenous and primarily disorder specific. Due to a lack of high-quality psychometric assessment, it is unclear whether most included imagery measures are valid, reliable, or responsive. Measures had limited evidence of content validity suggesting further research could engage clinical populations to ensure their relevance and comprehensiveness.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
