Four methodological criticisms of the 1986 Chara and Verplanck and the 1988 Chara and Hamm studies recently raised by McKelvie in 1990 are examined and disputed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BettsG. H. (1909) The distribution and functions of mental imagery. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Univer.
2.
CharaP. J.Jr.HammD. A. (1988) A semantic analysis of the imagery questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 113–114.
3.
CharaP. J.Jr.HammD. A. (1989) An inquiry into the construct validity of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 127–136.
4.
CharaP. J.Jr.VerplanckD. A. (1986) The imagery questionnaire: An investigation of its validity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 915–920.
5.
MarksD. F. (1973) Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17–24.
6.
McKelvieS. J. (1990) The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire: Commentary on the Marks-Chara debate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 551–560.
