Abuses of VVIQ rapidly increasing

This post addresses an issue which relates to the unwarranted ‘medicalisation’ of low visual mental imagery vividness scores.

This trend follows an unfortunate labelling of people with low VVIQ scores as “aphantasic’ by a neurologist Adam Zeman at Exeter University in 2015.

Added today to the VVIQ and VVIQ-2 instructions:

Warning 

Neither the original 16-item VVIQ nor the extended version, VVIQ-2, are intended to be used as a screening tool for clinical/neurological conditions. Any score including the minimum and maximum is a measure of an individual difference in a distribution. To assume otherwise would be an illegitimate abuse of this instrument. 

This warning has been added by the tests’ author to address a concerning trend in the use of the VVIQ and VVIQ-2.

---

1. VVIQ is not a Clinical Screening Tool

The Point:

The questionnaire was designed as a psychometric measure for research on individual differences in the general population. It was never intended to be used to diagnose medical or neurological conditions.

The Problem it Addresses:

The rise of aphantasia awareness has led many testees to use VVIQ scores with low or minimum scores as self-diagnosis for a “condition”. This warning explicitly states the instrument is not validated for this purpose. A low score on the VVIQ indicates an extreme individual difference—an absence of, or low capacity for, voluntary visual mental imagery—but a VVIQ score is not a formal diagnosis of a neurological condition, which would require a broader clinical assessment.

2. The VVIQ is a Measure of Individual Differences in a Distribution

The Point:

Imagery vividness is a continuum in the population, like height or IQ. The scores fall along a bell curve (normal or near-normal distribution), with aphantasia (score 16) and hyperphantasia (score 80) representing the extreme ends of this natural variability.

The Problem this Warning Addresses:

The warning counters the tendency to “neurologise” or “medicalise” the extremes of the scale. The VVIQ score is a point on the scale of a near-normal distribution. Having a low or high score is simply where you fall in the general population’s capacity for voluntary imagery, not a sign of a pathological state or disease.

3. Illegitimate Abuse of the Instrument

The Point:

This phrase highlights the unethical and non-scientific misuse of a validated research instrument. Using a VVIQ score to assume, assert or claim a specific clinical/neurological status is deemed an “illegitimate abuse.”

Commentary on the Overall Warning:

This newly added warning is the strongest statement yet against the way the VVIQ is being interpreted in the public sphere. It serves as a critical message to the public, especially individuals who have taken the test, and academic researchers:

• To the Public: Do not ever use your VVIQ score as a stand-alone, definitive diagnosis of a clinical condition. It is a self-report measure of your visual mental imagery capacity and nothing else.
• To Researchers/Clinicians: Do not use the VVIQ as a single-point screening tool to define a clinical group without incorporating objective measures and a full clinical assessment.

This is a necessary clarification to ensure that users of the VVIQ and VVIQ-2 maintain scientific integrity in using measures of individual differences in visual mental imagery vividness which should not be improperly elevated to the status of a diagnostic clinical test for people alleged to have a newly-described neurological condition.