VALIDATION OF THE SLOVENIAN VERSION OF THE MOVEMENT IMAGERY 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN (MIQ-C): A MEASUREMENT TOOL  
TO ASSESS THE IMAGERY ABILITY OF MOTOR TASKS IN CHILDREN 
Luka ŠLOSAR
 1,2     
, Katarina PUŠ
 1,2,3     
, Uroš MARUŠIČ
 1,2* 
1 
Science and Research Centre Koper, Institute for Kinesiology Research, Kozlovičeva 23, 6000 Koper, Slovenia
2 
Alma Mater Europaea – ECM, Department of Health Sciences, Slovenska 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
3 
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Gortanova 22, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Received: Oct 19, 2022
Accepted: Mar 17, 2023
Original scientific article
*Correspondence: uros.marusic@zrs-kp.si
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
113
VALIDACIJA SLOVENSKE RAZLIČICE VPRAŠALNIKA MOVEMENT IMAGERY 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN (MIQ-C):  
MERILNO ORODJE ZA OCENO SPOSOBNOSTI GIBALNIH PREDSTAV
© National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia. 
Šlosar L, Puš K, Marušič U. Validation of the Slovenian version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children (MIQ-C): A measurement tool to assess the imagery ability of motor 
tasks in children. Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120. doi: 10.2478/Sjph-2023-0016.
ABSTRACT
Keywords: 
Linguistic validation 
Mental practice 
Imagery ability
IZVLEČEK
Ključne besede: 
jezikovna validacija
mentalna vadba
sposobnost imaginacije
Purpose: The ability to perform motor imagery has been shown to influence individual athletic performance 
and rehabilitation. Recent evidence supports its potential as a training tool to improve motor skills in children. 
Although there is a standardized assessment of the imagery abilities in Slovenian-speaking adults, there is 
currently no validated instrument for use with Slovenian children. Therefore, the aim of the present study was 
to conduct a linguistic validation study of the movement imagery questionnaire for children (MIQ-C).
Methods: A total of 100 healthy children (mean age 10.3±1.3 years; 50 female) were assessed with a Slovenian 
version of the MIQ-C at Day 1 and Day 8. Inter-day agreement was examined using intraclass correlation 
coefficients (ICC). Construct validity and internal consistency were assessed using a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 
and exploratory – confirmatory factor analysis, respectively. 
Results: The test-retest ICC were very high for all three scales examined (ICCKI=0.90; ICCIVI=0.92; ICCEVI=0.90). 
Excellent internal consistency (up to 0.90) was found for kinaesthetic and both visual imageries. Confirmatory 
analysis confirmed a three-factorial structure of the MIQ-C.
Conclusions: The Slovenian version of the MIQ-C proved to be highly reliable and valid in assessing children’s 
motor imagery abilities, and as such for use with Slovene-speaking children. Moreover, this standardized 
instrument can be a helpful tool in training and rehabilitation practice with children aged 7-12 years.  
Namen: Dokazano je, da sposobnost izvajanja gibalnih predstav vpliva na posameznikovo športno zmogljivost in 
rehabilitacijo. Najnovejši dokazi potrjujejo, da lahko služi kot vadbeno orodje za izboljšanje gibalnih sposobnosti 
otrok. Čeprav obstaja standardizirano ocenjevanje zmožnosti gibalnih predstav odraslih, ki govorijo slovensko, 
trenutno ni potrjenega instrumenta za uporabo pri slovenskih otrocih. Zato je bil namen pričujoče študije 
izvesti jezikovno validacijsko študijo vprašalnika o gibalnih predstavah za otroke (MIQ-C).
Metode: Vzorec je predstavljalo 100 zdravih otrok (povprečna starost 10,3 ± 1,3 leta; 50 žensk), ki so bili 
ocenjeni s slovensko različico vprašalnika MIQ-C prvega in osmega dn. Ujemanje med dnevi je bilo preverjeno 
s koeficienti znotrajrazredne korelacije (ICC). Veljavnost konstrukcije in notranja skladnost sta bili ocenjeni z 
uporabo Cronbachovega testa alfa oziroma raziskovalno-potrditvene faktorske analize.
Rezultati: Rezultati ICC za vse tri pregledane lestvice so bili zelo visoki (ICCKI = 0, 90; ICCIVI = 0, 92 ; ICCEVI 
= 0,90). Odlična notranja konsistentnost (do 0,90) je bila ugotovljena pri kinestetičnih in obeh vizualnih 
predstavah. Potrditvena analiza je potrdila trifaktorsko strukturo MIQ-C.
Zaključki: Slovenska različica vprašalnika MIQ-C se je izkazala kot zelo zanesljiv in veljaven inštrument za 
oceno gibalne predstave in se kot tak uporablja pri slovensko govorečih otrocih. Poleg tega je ta standardizirani 
inštrument lahko koristno orodje v vadbeni in rehabilitacijski praksi z otroki, starimi od 7 do 12 let.

1 INTRODUCTION
Motor imagery (MI) is a cognitive phenomenon of creating 
a mental simulation of a motor action without visible body 
movement or muscular activation (1, 2). There is ample 
evidence showing that the mental simulation of a motor 
task can elicit very similar brain activity patterns to actual 
task execution. This congruent activation of cortical and 
subcortical motor areas during motor imagery is very likely 
the reason why this non-physical training is an effective 
means when learning a motor task (3). MI can be divided 
into two main modalities – kinaesthetic imagery (KI) and 
visual imagery, which further divides into internal (IVI) 
and external (EVI) visual perspective (4, 5). 
Evidence suggests that MI training could be an effective 
tool for learning of general motor performance (6) and 
that performing MI just before the movement improves 
the execution of the athletic gesture (7), such as in tennis 
(8). In addition, it can promote the rehabilitation of injured 
people (9) and adult patients after a stroke (10). Although 
a recent meta-analysis (11) shows the positive effect of MI 
on improving children’s motor learning, especially when 
combined with physical practice, there is still no evidence 
on the age at which a child can use MI and the level of 
vividness it can achieve. 
To date, MI in children has been researched using three 
main instruments: mental rotation, mental chronometry, 
and self-report questionnaires. The latter have been the 
most suitable instruments so far, as they are inexpensive 
and of short duration (4, 12). When examining a wider 
age range of participants, studies have found that few 
children between the age of 5 and 7 years are able to use 
MI, while this ability stabilizes in most children between 
the ages of 10 and 12 years (13-15). Moreover, Dey et al. 
(16) show that participation in sports improves mental 
representation in children, but it is not yet clear which 
modality (KI, IVI or EVI) was used and contributed the 
most. Dhouibi et al. (17) found that adolescent athletes 
use the visual MI more frequently than non-athletes and 
that this ability is more vivid, pronounced and evoked than 
KI. The development of KI ability is a gradual process that 
can take many years to reach completion. This is because 
the creation of a complete kinaesthetic image for a 
movement requires genuine sensory information that may 
not be fully achieved in the early stages of development 
(18). Parker and Lovell (19) have shown that children have 
more difficulties with KI than with VMI, which presents 
a challenge when considering the use of kinaesthetic 
practice techniques with children. Nevertheless, studies 
have shown that children who participate in youth sports 
have better KI ability than peers who do not participate 
in sports (14, 20), highlighting the role of actual physical 
activity in the development of the KI ability (21). 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
114
In adapting a movement imagery questionnaire for 
children to better assess their mental representational 
abilities and therefore be able to detect differences in 
imagery abilities for the three different modalities, 
Martini et al. (12) validated a 12-item questionnaire, the 
Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children (MIQ-C). 
This can be used as an assessment tool in research, sports 
or rehabilitation to identify children who may benefit from 
imagery intervention and to determine the modality that 
most needs improvement. It is therefore very important 
that the MIQ-C is translated into Slovenian and validated 
for further use in clinical and research settings, which was 
the aim of the present work.
2 METHODS
The translation process, including adaptation and 
validation, was performed following the methodology 
guidelines provided in Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (22). 
 
2.1 Translation procedure
The questionnaire was translated by two independent 
bilingual translators, one of whom was a researcher with 
experience in the field of MI. An additional independent 
translator and the research team resolved any discrepancies 
between the two versions. The last Slovene version was 
retranslated into English by a native English-speaker 
working in Slovenia for over 30 years and later compared 
with the original MIQ-C (12) by the research team. 
2.2 Study sample
The questionnaire was administered to 100 children (50 
females, 50 males, average age 10.3±1.3 years, range 
7-12 years). Parents and children were given detailed 
information regarding the study, its purpose, and design 
before written consent was obtained. When signing the 
consent form the parents were asked to provide the 
following personal information about their children: age, 
gender , and current athletic status (athlete or non-athlete), 
defined as at least half-year of regular participation in 
a structured activity designed to develop specific skills 
or achieve specific goals and involving consistent and 
frequent attendance on a predetermined schedule, such 
as weekly attendance at classes or sessions that involve 
guided instruction or coaching and are aimed at improving 
specific skills. Participants were recruited from the local 
primary schools. According to the original article’s age 
limitations (12), participants aged 7 to 12 years were 
included in the study. Excluded were participants with 
injuries, long-term physical impairments and cognitive 
disorders. The study was approved (ID: 0624-65/22) by the 
Science and Research Centre Koper Ethics Committee. 

10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
115
2.3 Procedure
A team of three researchers conducted cognitive 
interviews with the participants on Day 1 and Day 8 (±2 
days). Team members followed the same protocol, and 
all participants were placed in identical conditions, i.e., 
a calm and silent room with optimal temperature. At Day 
8, participants were interviewed by the same researcher 
as on Day 1. Children were asked to continue their daily 
activities between tests in order to minimize potential 
disruption of their MI ability. 
As described in the original study (12), the MIQ-C was 
developed to adapt the Movement Imagery Questionnaire 
3 (MIQ-3) for children aged 7-12 years. Using visual imagery 
from an IVI or EVI perspective, as well as KI, both MIQ-C 
and MIQ-3 assess the ability of individuals to image the 
following four movements: leg raising and jumping, 
arm adduction, and standing hip flexion. To make its 12 
items appropriate for use with children, the MIQ-C was 
modified by adapting their wording and instructions. 
While performing the questionnaire, children self-rated 
their imagery ability using a 7-point Likerts scale, ranging 
from 1 (”very hard”) to 7 (”very easy”) (questionnaire in 
the Appendix). A mean score for each assessed imagery 
perspective (IVI, EVI, and KI) was obtained, with higher 
score indicating better mental imagery ability. On average 
the researchers needed 14 minutes (range 11–22 minutes) 
to complete the MIQ-C of each participant.
2.4 Expert evaluation 
A panel of selected experts (from the author’s affiliated 
institutions with expertise in mental representation and 
the target population) evaluated the Slovenian version 
of the MIQ-C with regard to item quality, instruction 
comprehensiveness, and response format clarity, i.e., 
face validity. A clear vs. unclear rating was assigned to 
each evaluated aspect and the inter-rater agreement was 
determined (80% is considered acceptable). In the case 
of unclear responses, suggestions on how to improve the 
statements were provided. A total of seven evaluations 
were submitted to the research team. 
2.5 Psychometric testing 
The Slovenian MIQ-C questionnaire was revised and refined 
by evaluating the internal consistency, repeatability, and 
the construct-related validity of its items. This study 
attempted to reach the recommended sample size of 10 
subjects per item as proposed by Sousa and Rojjanasrirat 
(22), i.e. a total of 120, but this process ended at 100 
subjects due to resource constraints. 
2.5.1 Determining the internal consistency of the MIQ-C 
(Slovenian version)
A standardized Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to 
evaluate the internal consistency of the questionnaire. 
It is generally considered acceptable when the internal 
consistency coefficient is above 0.7, good when it is 0.8, 
and excellent when it is 0.9.
2.5.2 Determining the test-retest reliability of the 
MIQ-C (Slovenian version)
We assessed the repeatability of the ratings on each of 
the scales (visual and kinaesthetic) by comparing the 
ratings on Day 1 and Day 8. Reliability was estimated 
using the intraclass correlations coefficient (ICC) (with 
95% confidential intervals). ICC values were interpreted as 
proposed by Malcata, Vandenbogaerde, and Hopkins (23) 
as follows: >0.99, extremely high; 0.99–0.90, very high; 
0.75–0.90, high; 0.50–0.75, moderate; 0.20–0.50, low; 
<0.20, very low. In order to determine absolute reliability 
and within subject variation, the Standard Error of 
Measurement (SEM) and the Coefficient of Variation (CV) 
were calculated (24). In addition, a minimal detectable 
change (MDC) was calculated to address further concerns 
about reliability. The MDC represents a measure of minimal 
change unrelated to variations in the assessment (25). 
2.5.3 Construct validity of the MIQ-C (Slovenian version)
Validity was tested first by exploratory factor analysis 
and later by confirmatory factor analysis, comparing 
the obtained models with those of a previous study 
(26). The following adjustment indexes were further 
used to measure the matching between the obtained 
data and expected models: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 
and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) – for both values >0.90 
is considered acceptable; Root Mean Square Error of 
Approximation (RMSEA), Root Mean square Residual (RMR) 
and the Standardized RMS (SRMR) – values around .05 
generally indicate close fit of a model to data whereas .08 
show a reasonable fit.    
2.6 Statistical analysis
Averages, standard deviations and 95% confidence 
intervals are provided for all data. Statistical tests 
were all performed with SPSS 25.0 (IBM, Chicago, USA). 
All dependent variables (IMI, EVI, KI) were tested for 
homogeneity of variance using Levene’s test, while 
normality was confirmed by visual inspection and the 
Shapiro-Wilk test. Significance was set at p<0.05. 
3 RESULTS
3.1 Face validity
The experts agreed that the translations correctly 
and exhaustively defined the task that needed to be 
completed. They found the MIQ-C easy to administer 
and a helpful tool for assessing children’s MI abilities. A 
consensus of experts was reached regarding the clarity of 
each of the twelve descriptions.

10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
116
3.2 Motor imagery scores
At Day 1 and Day 8 (Table 1), internal visual imagery had 
the highest overall score (IVI–Day 1: 5.32±1.09; Day 8: 
5.26±1.10); in contrast, the kinaesthetic imagery score 
was the lowest in both assessments (KI– Day 1: 4.67±1.28; 
Day 8: 4.59±1.24; p≤0.001). The external visual imagery 
score was slightly higher at the test (5.26±1.32) compared 
to the re-test (5.15±1.16). The same trend is observed for 
IVI and KI, suggesting that no learning effect occurred. 
Considering each scale separately, no differences were 
found between scores at Day 1 and Day 8 (all ps>0.05). 
No differences in mean IMI, EVI, and KI values were found 
between gender and athletic status (Table 2). 
Day 1 (test)
KI
IVI
EVI
VI-comb
Day 8 (re-test)
KI
IVI
EVI
VI-comb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
KI
 
 
 
IVI
 
 
 
EVI
 
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
KI
IV
EVI
KI
IV
EVI
KI
IV
EVI
KI
IV
EVI
1.62
1.59
1.62
1.55
1.70
1.55
1.66
1.36
1.70
1.62
1.27
1.67
4.50
5.04
5.30
4.75
4.95
5.33
4.76
5.60
5.13
4.67
5.70
5.30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Gender
females 
males
Athlete or 
non-athlete
athlete 
non-athlete
Gender
females 
males
Athlete or 
non-athlete
athlete 
non-athlete
Gender
females 
males
Athlete or 
non-athlete
athlete 
non-athlete
 
4.67
5.32
5.26
5.29
4.59
5.26
5.15
5.21
 
50 
50
 
39 
61
50 
50
 
39 
61
50 
50
 
39 
61
 
4.49±1.35 
4.84±1.21
 
4.91±1.31 
4.50±1.24
5.36±1.07 
5.28±1.13
 
5.34±1.02 
5.25±1.13
5.16±1.34 
5.38±1.32
 
5.23±1.21 
5.21±1.37
 
1.28
1.09
1.32
1.08
1.24
1.10
1.16
0.95
 
 
0.970
 
 
0.083
 
0.388
 
 
0.661
 
0.890
 
 
0.964
Dimensions
Items
Dimensions
n
Scale Standard deviation Mean score Minimum score Maximum score
Category 
Mean
Number of 
subjects
Mean±SD
Standard deviation 
P value 
between 
groups
Table 1.
Table 3.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for the motor imagery scores: 
kinaesthetic and visual (internal and external) scales 
at Day 1 and Day 8.
Analysis of the means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores for each item at Day 1 (n=100 subjects).
Legend: KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated subjects; IVI – internal visual imagery; EVI – external visual imagery
Table 2. Differences in imagery ability scores for 
kinaesthetic and visual (internal and external) scales 
considering participants’ gender and athletic status. 
Data were presented as Means ± Standard Deviations 
(SD) for all participants assessed in Day 1 (n=100).
Legend: KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated 
subjects; IVI – internal visual imagery; EVI – external visual 
imagery
Legend: KI – kinaesthetic imagery; n – number of investigated 
subjects; IVI – internal visual imagery; EVI – external visual 
imagery; VI-comb – combined results of both the IVI and EVI
3.3 Internal consistency
The highest Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, i.e., 0.92, was 
obtained for IVI, whereas the same coefficients of 0.90 
were obtained for both KI and EVI. The results indicate 
the excellent internal consistency of the Slovenian version 
of the MIQ-C.
A summary of the mean scores, the standard deviations, 
and the minimum and maximum scores of the 100 
participants at Day 1 is shown in Table 3.

KI
IVI
EVI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
4.67±1.28
5.32±1.09*
5.26±1.32*
4.928
1.487
1.029
0.975
0.693
0.642
0.560
0.460
0.405
0.370
0.260
0.191
0.296
0.308
0.132
41.068
53.461
62.039
70.167
75.938
81.289
85.954
89.784
93.159
96.242
98.405
100.000
4.59±1.24
5.26±1.10*
5.15±1.16*
41.068
12.392
8.578
8.128
5.772
5.350
4.665
3.830
3.375
3.083
2.163
1.595
10.5
7.0
6.4
4.928
1.487
1.029
0.40
0.31
0.39
41.068
53.461
62.039
0.56 points
0.44 points
0.55 points
41.068
12.392
8.578
0.90 (0.86-0.94)
0.92 (0.87-0.94)
0.90 (0.85-0.93)
Variable
Component
Day 1
Total
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
P
ANOVA
Cumulative %
Day 8
% of Variance
CV (%)
CV (%)
SEM
Cumulative %
MDC
% of Variance
ICC (95% CI)
Table 4.
Table 5.
Between Day 1 and Day 8 reliability analysis of the kinaesthetic and visual (internal and external) motor imagery scales.
Results of exploratory factor analysis for the Slovenian version of the MIQ-C.
Legend: P
ANOVA 
- P value of repeated measures analysis of variance; CV – within subject coefficient of variation; MDC – minimal 
detectable change; SEM – standard error of estimate; ICC (95% CI) – intra-class correlation coefficient with 95% confidence intervals; * 
significantly different from KI
3.4 Test-retest reliability
The ICC (relative reliability analysis; Table 4) revealed a very 
high reliability for all three evaluated scales (ICCKI=0.90; 
ICCIVI=0.92; ICCEVI=0.90). The average coefficient of 
variation ranged from 6.4% (EVI) to 10.6% (KI). 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
117
3.5 Construct validity
After exploratory factor analysis, three factors can be 
distinguished that explain 62% of the variance (Table 5). 
To further confirm our findings, the three-factor models 
were tested with confirmatory factor analysis. MODEL 1 
represents the correlated trait-correlated uniqueness 
model with IVI, EVI, and KI as separate factors, whereas 
MODEL 2 corresponds to the correlated trait-correlated 
uniqueness model with external and internal visual 
imagery perspectives on one factor and KI on the other. 
MODEL 3 shows the correlated trait-correlated uniqueness 
model with IVI and KI on one factor and external visual 
imagery on the other. Detailed results are presented in 
Table 6. Similar results were found in a previous study 
conducted among Slovenian-speaking adults (25). In both 
studies, MODEL 1 with IVI, EVI, and KI as separate factors 
produced the best model fits. While the fit indices were 
lower in some cases (e.g., RMSEA), the results still depict 
a reasonable approximation fit. Both the first and second 
models are represented graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Exploratory factor analysis for the Slovenian version 
of the MIQ-C. MIQ-C confirmatory factor analysis 
goodness-of-fit indices for the models with a proper 
solution. The graphic representation of two models 
tested by the confirmatory factor analysis: A) MODEL 
1 is the correlated trait– correlated uniqueness model 
with IVI, EVI, and KI all as separate factors and B) 
MODEL 2 is the correlated trait–correlated uniqueness 
model with EVI and IVI perspectives as one factor 
and KI as another. The numbers in the rectangles 
represent the number of items in the questionnaire, 
and in the ellipses are the names of the factors. Best 
model fits were achieved with Model 1 (three-factor 
model with IVI, EVI and KI all as separate factors).
4 DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to validate the Slovenian 
translation of the MIQ-C for use with Slovenian-speaking 
children aged 7-12 years. Our results show excellent 
internal consistency (≥0.90) and very high reliability (all 
ICCs≥0.90) for all three evaluated scales (i.e., IVI, EVI, and 
KI). The construct validity of the MIQ-C confirmed its three-
dimensional structure, with the best model representing 
each factor separately as IVI, EVI, and KI. In addition, the 
results reveal no differences between gender, athletic 
status, and time (i.e., Day 1 and Day 8).
Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three-factor 
model produced the best model fit. The same results were 
obtained in adult assessments (26, 27) suggesting that IVI, 
EVI, and KI are distinct constructs in both primary school-
aged children and adults. Compared with the model fit of 
Paravlic’s MIQ-3 (26) and Williams et al.’s MIQ-R (27), the 
model fit of MIQ-C was slightly worse, but still excellent. 
Our findings support previous research with children 
(12) and point to the benefits of using the MIQ-C as a 
comprehensive assessment of MI abilities.
Consistent with the original validation study of the 
MIQ-C (12), children achieved the lowest scores when 
using KI when compared to IVI and EVI, supporting the 
notion that including kinaesthetic aspects in the mental 
representation is difficult. The same results were obtained 
in children with developmental coordination disorders (28, 
29), highlighting the relationship between the maturation 
process (as a limiting factor) and the kinaesthetic MI 
modality, regardless of the child’s health status. The 
maturation process theory is also supported by a meta-
analysis showing that the neural network is more involved 
in action sensing compared to visual representation (30). 
Neural plasticity resulting from motor skill training appears 
to influence the development of KI (31). Accordingly, our 
results suggest that children who participate in a regular 
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
118
Present Study
MODEL 1 (EVI vs. IVI vs. KI)
MODEL 2 (EVI and IVI vs. KI)
MODEL 3 (IVI and KI vs. EVI)
Previous Study (25)
MODEL 1 (EVI vs. IVI vs. KI)
MODEL 2 (EVI and IVI vs. KI)
MODEL 3 (IVI and KI vs. EVI)
94.924
115.028
135.022
75.403
91.36
191.10
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.015
0.001
<0.001
51
53
53
51
53
53
0.90
0.86
0.81
0.94
0.91
0.67
0.114
0.130
0.162
0.108
0.120
0.332
0.87
0.82
0.77
0.93
0.89
0.59
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.18
Model Chi
2
p df CFI RMR/SRMR TLI RMSEA
Table 6. MIQ-C confirmatory factor analysis goodness-of-fit indices for the models with a proper solution.
Legend: KI – kinaesthetic imagery; IMI – internal visual imagery; EVI external visual imagery; Chi
2
 – chi-squared test; df – degrees of 
freedom; p – statistical significance of test; CFI – Comparative Fit Index; TLI – Tucker-Lewis index; RMR/SRMR – Root Mean square 
Residual and Standardized RMR; RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

training process tend to score higher on KI. Although not 
significant, the trend visibly differs from that of the IVI 
and EVI. The fact that athletes can more easily imagine 
things from a kinaesthetic perspective has already been 
demonstrated using the MIQ-3 questionnaire (32), but no 
previous attempt to apply this instrument has yet been 
conducted with children. Our results are the first to 
suggest that regular training provides a variety of motor 
experiences that allows children to develop their abilities 
to efficiently perceive kinaesthetic sensations. Further 
studies using neurophysiological measures in children 
(e.g., fMRI) should support our behavioral findings. 
Of the two visual modalities, IVI was found to be the 
easiest, although no significant difference was found 
between them. In contrast to the results of the present 
study, Martini et al. (2) found a significant difference 
between IVI and EVI, with children reporting that they 
visualized more easily with the external modality. When 
commenting on the different visual modalities, a large 
number of children noted similarities between IVI and 
first-person shooter games. Rapid advances in gaming 
technology, particularly in the last five years, may explain 
why the internal MI modality was easier to elicit. Consistent 
with previous studies conducted with adults (26, 27) and 
children (12), we found no gender differences in MIQ-C 
scores, regardless of the imagery modality. Unfortunately, 
in the current study no light could be shed on age as a 
differentiating factor in reported imagery experiences, 
as the group was very homogeneous. Only eight children 
were assessed in the 7- to 8-year-old age group, while most 
children aged were aged 9 years or older. 
Several limitations are acknowledged in the study. Since 
our study did not examine a sufficient number of 7- to 
8-year-old children, the validation of our results for this 
age group needs to be viewed critically due to the small 
sample size. In addition, the cutoff of six months based 
on athletic status may not indicate the time required to 
gain the practice-based experience necessary to improve 
MI ability. For the same reason, we were unable to 
assess age-related differences between the different MI 
modalities. Future studies should therefore recruit a more 
heterogeneous sample to obtain valid age-related findings 
on MI performance. 
5 CONCLUSIONS
MI has been shown to improve motor skill learning and 
performance. In order to effectively assess MI ability 
in Slovenian-speaking children, the present authors 
conducted a linguistic validation study of the MIQ-C. 
The Slovenian translation of the MIQ-C proved to be a 
valid, reliable, and accurate instrument for assessing the 
abilities of MI in Slovenian-speaking children aged 7-12 
years. Furthermore, we have shown that the MIQ-C is 
able to distinguish between different MI modalities which 
supports its application for further testing and use in 
(mental) rehabilitation and training practice. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
We are sincerely grateful to the children and their 
parents for generously giving their time to participate in 
this study. We also want to thank Dr. Miloš Kalc for his 
valuable suggestions on statistical analysis, which greatly 
contributed to the quality of our research.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest exist.
FUNDING
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the 
Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. 
P5-0381). This study was also supported by the European 
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 
under grant agreement no. 952401 (TwinBrain – TWINning 
the BRAIN with machine learning for neuro-muscular 
efficiency).
ETHICAL APPROVAL
Research has been performed in accordance with the 
Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved 
(ID: 0624-65/22) by the Science and Research Centre Koper 
Ethics Committee.
AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS
The data and materials utilized in this study were 
collected, anonymized, and securely stored in a coded 
access personal computer at the facilities of the Science 
and Research Centre Koper. Requests for data availability 
should be discussed with the project team and will be 
considered on a reasonable basis.
REFERENCES
1. Decety J, The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery. Behav Brain 
Res. 1996;77:45-52. doi: 10.1016/0166-4328(95)00225-1.
2. Marusic U, Grosprêtre S. Non-physical approaches to counteract 
age-related functional deterioration: Applications for rehabilitation 
and neural mechanisms. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18:639-649. doi: 
10.1080/17461391.2018.1447018.
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
119

3. Lacourse MG, Orr ELR, Cramer SC, Cohen MJ. Brain activation 
during execution and motor imagery of novel and skilled sequential 
hand movements. NeuroImage. 2005;27:505-519. doi: 10.1016/j.
neuroimage.2005.04.025. 
4. McAvinue LP, Robertson IH. Measuring motor imagery ability: A review. 
Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2008;20:232-251. doi: 10.7600/jpfsm.1.103.
5. Yang YJ, Jeon JE, Kim SJ, Chung CK. Characterization of kinesthetic 
motor imagery compared with visual motor imageries. Sci Rep. 
2021;11:3751. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82241-0.
6. Gentili R, Papaxanthis C, Pozzo T. Improvement and generalization of 
arm motor performance through motor imagery practice. Neuroscience. 
2006;137:761-772. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.10.013.
7. Mizuguchi N, Nakata H, Uchida Y, Kanosue K. Motor imagery and sport 
performance. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2012;1:103-111. doi: 10.7600/
jpfsm.1.103.
8. Robin N, Dominique L, Toussaint L, Blandin Y, Guillot A, Her LM. 
Effects of motor imagery training on service return accuracy in tennis: 
The role of imagery ability. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;5:175-186. 
doi: 10.13140/2.1.3274.5925.
9. Lebon F, Guillot A, Collet C. Increased muscle activation following 
motor imagery during the rehabilitation of the anterior cruciate 
ligament. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2012;37:45-51. doi: 
10.1007/s10484-011-9175-9.
10. Sharma N, Pomeroy VM, Baron JC. Motor imagery: A backdoor to the 
motor system after stroke? Stroke. 2006;37:1941-1952. doi: 10.1161/01.
STR.0000226902.43357.fc.
11. Behrendt F, Zumbrunnen V, Brem L, Suica Z, Gaumann S, Ziller C, et 
al. Effect of motor imagery training on motor learning in children and 
adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res 
Public Health. 2021;18:9467. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18189467.
12. Martini R, Carter JM, Yoxon E, Cumming J, Ste-Marie D. Development 
and validation of the movement imagery questionnaire for children 
(MIQ-C). Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016;22:190-201. doi: 10.1016/j.
psychsport.2015.08.008.
13. Spruijt S, van der Kamp K, Steenbergen B. Current insights in the 
development of children’s motor imagery ability. Front Psychol. 
2015;6:787. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00787.
14. Smits-Engelsman BCM, Wilson PH. Age-related changes in motor 
imagery from early childhood to adulthood: Probing the internal 
representation of speed-accuracy trade-offs. Hum Mov Sci. 
2013;32:1151-1162. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2012.06.006.
15. Caeyenberghs K, Wilson PH, van Roon D, Swinnen PS, Smits-
Engelsman BCM. Increasing convergence between imagined and 
executed movement across development: Evidence for the emergence 
of movement representations. Dev Sci. 2009;12:474-483. doi: 
10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00803.x.
16. Dey A, Barnsley N, Mohan R, McCormick M, McAuley HJ, Moseley LG. 
Are children who play a sport or a musical instrument better at motor 
imagery than children who do not? Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:923-926. 
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090525.
17. Dhouibi MA, Miladi I, Racil G, Hammoudi S, Coquart J. The effects 
of sporting and physical practice on visual and kinesthetic motor 
imagery vividness: A comparative study between athletic, physically 
active, and exempted adolescents. Front Psychol. 2021;12:776833. doi: 
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776833.
18. Hardy L, Callow N. Efficacy of external and internal visual imagery 
perspectives for the enhancement of performance on tasks in which 
form is important. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1999;21:95-112. doi: 10.1123/
jsep.21.2.95.
19. Parker JK, Lovell GP. Age differences in the vividness of youth sport 
performers’ imagery ability. J Imag Res Sport Phys. 2012;7. doi: 
10.1515/1932-0191.1069.
20. Coleman R, Piek JP, Livesey DJ. A longitudinal study of motor ability 
and kinaesthetic acuity in young children at risk of developmental 
coordination disorder. Hum Mov Sci. 2001;20:95-110. doi: 10.1016/
s0167-9457(01)00030-6.
21. Guillot A, Collet C. Construction of the motor imagery integrative 
model in sport: A review and theoretical investigation of motor 
imagery use. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;1:31-44. doi: 
10.1080/17509840701823139.
22. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of 
instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: 
A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17:268-274. 
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.
23. Malcata RM, Vandenbogaerde Tj, Hopkins WG. Using athletes’ world 
rankings to assess countries’ performance. Int J Sports Physiol 
Perform. 2014;9:133-138. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0014.
24. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. 
Sports Med 2000; 30:1-15. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001.
25. Donath L, Wolf P. Reliability of force application to instrumented 
climbing holds in elite climbers. J Appl Biomech. 2015;31:377-382. doi: 
10.1123/jab.2015-0019.
26. Paravlić A, Pišot S, Mitić P. Validation of the Slovenian version of 
motor imagery questionnaire 3 (MIQ-3): Promising tool in modern 
comprehensive rehabilitation practice. Zdr Varst. 2018;57:201-210. 
doi: 10.2478/sjph-2018-0025.
27. Williams SE, Cumming J, Ntoumanis N, Nordin-Bates SM, Ramsey R, 
Hall C. Further validation and development of the movement imagery 
questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;34:621-646. doi: 10.1123/
jsep.34.5.621.
28. Wilson PH, Maruff P, Butson M, Williams J, Lum J, Thomas PR. 
Internal representation of movement in children with developmental 
coordination disorder: A mental rotation task. Dev Med Child Neurol. 
2004;46:754-759. doi: 10.1017/s001216220400129x.
29. Chang SH, Yu NY. Comparison of motor praxis and performance in 
children with varying levels of developmental coordination disorder. 
Hum Mov Sci. 2016;48:7-14. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2016.04.001.
30. Hétu S, Gregoire M, Saimpont A, Coll MP, Eugene F, Michon PM, et al. 
The neural network of motor imagery: An ALE meta-analysis. Neurosci 
Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:930-949. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.03.017.
31. Tymofiyeva O, Gaschler R. Training-induced neural plasticity in youth: 
A systematic review of structural and functional MRI studies. Front 
Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:497245. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.497245.
32. Robin N, Coudevylle GR, Dominique L, Rulleau T, Champagne R, 
Guillot A, et al. Translation and validation of the movement imagery 
questionnaire-3 second French version. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;28:540-
546. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2021.09.004.
10.2478/sjph-2023-0016 Zdr Varst. 2023;62(3):113-120
120