Measures of mental imagery in emotional disorders: A COSMIN systematic review of psychometric properties

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102470

{"title":"Measures of mental imagery in emotional disorders: A COSMIN systematic review of psychometric properties","authors":"","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":null,"pages":null},"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.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

情绪障碍中的心理想象测量：COSMIN 心理测量学特性系统回顾

背景功能失调的意象过程是一系列情绪障碍的特征。有效、可靠且反应灵敏的心理意象测量方法可支持对意象的临床评估，并推动研究以发展理论和基于意象的干预措施。我们试图对与情绪障碍相关的心理意象测量方法的心理计量特性进行回顾。方法采用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）指南，在开放科学框架下进行了系统回顾。共检索了五个数据库。COSMIN 工具用于评估研究方法的质量和测量方法的心理测量特性。结果共纳入 23 篇文章，描述了 21 种自我报告测量方法。这些测量方法评估了各种意象过程，并根据相关的情绪障碍分为四组。研究方法的质量参差不齐：测量开发和可靠性研究普遍较差，而内部一致性和假设检验研究的质量较高。大多数评估的测量属性质量不确定。由于缺乏高质量的心理测量学评估，目前尚不清楚大多数被纳入的意象测量是否有效、可靠或反应灵敏。测量内容有效性的证据有限，这表明进一步的研究可以让临床人群参与进来，以确保其相关性和全面性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

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.