A 15–20 minute, ungraded check of mental imagery and spatial reasoning, for the start, middle or end of a course. No chemistry needed.
Part 1 is the original 16-item Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973), given with eyes open and then eyes closed, with its original instructions and five-point scale (only layout words such as “next page” are changed, and a reminder about eyes open or closed is added). Marks states that the original VVIQ may be used without permission and asks that the original wording and format be kept so results stay comparable. For reporting, ratings are reversed (5 = perfectly clear) and summed to 16–80, as in Zeman et al. (2020), who used 16–23 for aphantasia, 51–63 for the midrange and 75–80 for hyperphantasia. The page places students in a range using the higher of their two totals. Marks cautions that the VVIQ is not a clinical screening tool, so treat these ranges as descriptions, not diagnoses.
Part 2 uses the hole-punch format of the ETS Paper Folding Test (VZ-2; Ekstrom et al., 1976): 2 practice items and then 10 items with 1–3 folds and five answer choices. Its distractors reflect common errors, such as leaving one fold undone, unfolding along the wrong line, or choosing a mirror image or a rotation of the answer. Part 3 uses same-or-mirror trials with 10-cube figures, as in Shepard & Metzler (1971): 3 practice trials and then 16 timed trials (rotation in depth of 40°, 80°, 120° or 160°, half of them mirror images). It reports accuracy, the median response time for correct answers, and the slope of response time against angle.
The rotation and folding items were written for this page and follow published formats, but they are not normed and are not the copyrighted MRT, PSVT:R or ETS items. Use them to compare students within your class, or before and after a unit, not against published norms. Imagery vividness and spatial ability are different things: people with aphantasia are usually as accurate at mental rotation (Pounder et al., 2022). In chemistry, spatial ability relates to performance on 3D tasks, and students often succeed with analytic and diagrammatic strategies (Stieff, 2007; Harle & Towns, 2011). Spatial skills respond well to training (Uttal et al., 2013).
Collecting results through Canvas (recommended). Each student gets a one-row CSV (every item response and time) to download, plus the same data as a copyable results code for when a browser or embedded page blocks downloads.
#instructor to this page’s address) and drop in the .zip. It reads uploaded files and text entries, adds each student’s Canvas name and user ID from the file names, skips duplicates, and gives you one combined CSV with a class summary. It also reads a Canvas quiz or survey Student Analysis report if you collect the code as an essay answer (use an anonymous survey if you want de-identified data).The combiner runs entirely in your browser. Nothing is uploaded; to open a .zip it downloads only the JSZip reader from cdnjs.
Automatic collection (optional). The included Google Apps Script adds each submission to a Google Sheet. Paste the web-app URL into data-submit-url="" on this page’s <body> tag. Use only your university Google account, and check with UIT before using it for identifiable student data. Canvas keeps the data in a system that is already approved.
Protecting student data. Results linked to a student are education records under FERPA. Keep them in university-approved systems (Canvas, university Box, the university’s Google Workspace), not personal accounts or unencrypted laptops. Collect only what you need: when students hand in through Canvas, they can leave the name field blank. Make the activity voluntary and ungraded, share results only with the teaching team, report the class in aggregate, and delete the files at the end of the term. Imagery scores describe experience, not a diagnosis, so don’t label individual students. If you might publish, get IRB approval before you collect.