Post-test questionnaires are the most frequently used measure of presence. Many different questionnaires have been developed. These vary widely in scope and appearance, depending on the author’s conceptualisation of presence and their context of application. Some studies have used only one general item addressing presence, while others have tried to develop questionnaires reflecting the multidimensional structure of presence presumed by the authors. Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, & Davidoff (2001) have identified several criteria for presence questionnaires:

• Understanding of presence should not be assumed by directly asking respondents how present they feel.
• Questions should avoid addressing 2 issues in 1 question
• Response options should ideally be consistent across items
• Presence is likely to be a multidimensional construct; questionnaires should reflect this and tap a range of characteristics.
• Questions should not make reference to specific media system and content properties.
• A general presence measure should be piloted on participants of a range of media systems/contents.
• Questionnaires should be piloted with a sufficient number of subjects.

This part of the compendium is divided into three subsections. We will start with questionnaires addressing physical presence, continue with questionnaires measuring both physical and social presence, and finally describe social presence questionnaires. Within these subsections, questionnaires are ordered alphabetically. If available, the questionnaire items are listed in Appendix A.

Barfield et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
Virtual presence and telepresence were termed by the authors as “ego-presence”: the sense of feeling present in a virtual or remote environment. The development of questions was guided by criteria for mental workload measures defined by Jex (1988). The questionnaire contains a subscale measuring virtual presence consisting of 2 or 3 items accompanied by a 10-point scale. Items address “sense of being there”, “sense of inclusion in the virtual world”, and “sense of presence in the virtual world”. Depending on the study and experimental conditions, items on interactivity and realism are included in the questionnaire. Two of the presence items are listed in the Hendrix & Barfield (1996) paper, and can be found in appendix A.

Research

The 3- item version of the questionnaire was used in an experiment by Barfield & Weghorst (1993). Participants (n=86, between-subjects design) experienced one of three VEs differing in spatial landmarks and abstractness. Correlations of the individual presence items with other questionnaire items, such as display comfort, comfort with computers, being lost, and overall enjoyment, are reported. The 3 presence items were found to be highly intercorrelated. All 3 items were found to significantly predict overall enjoyment. The 2-item version of the questionnaire was used in an experiment (n=12, within-subjects design) by Hendrix & Barfield (1996) comprising 3 sub-studies investigating the effects of monoscopic versus stereoscopic displays, head tracking (present/absent), and geometric field of view (10/50/90º). In each sub-study, subjects were asked to explore 2 or 3 VEs and consequently fill out the questionnaire about each VE. Results showed significant positive effects of all 3 manipulated variables. A significant positive correlation was found between presence and realism. The 2 presence items produced consistent results. Subjects were also consistent when answering the same question across different studies using similar VEs.

Sensitivity: questionnaire discriminated between different conditions
Reliability: intercorrelation between 3 items, consistency across items and studies
Validity: correlation with realism and other related constructs, effects of manipulation of variables (stereoscopy, head tracking, field of view) on the scores were as predicted by theory and previous findings in presence research.

Primary Sources

• Barfield, W., & Weghorst, S. (1993). The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework. In G. Salvendy & M. Smith (Eds), Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies (pp.699-704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5, 274 - 289.

Cho et al. Questionnaire

• Cho, D., Park, J., Kim, G., Hong, S., Han, S., & Lee, S. (2003). Dichotomy of presence elements: The where and what. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2003, 273-274. [pdf, 132 KB]

Dinh et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
The questionnaire consists of 14 items: 1 overall presence rating (0-100) and 13 shorter items (scale not reported) which were adapted from two existing presence questionnaires (Hendrix & Barfield, 1996; Fontaine, 1992). Items are listed in Appendix A.

Research

In a study (n=322, within-subjects design with 18 participants per condition), the level of visual detail, olfactory stimulation, ambient auditory stimulation and tactile stimulation were varied (2 levels, high-low or absent-present) in a VE depicting an office. Dependent variables were presence, recall of spatial layout and recall of object location. Both the overall presence rating and the 13 items showed significant effects for auditory and tactile cues, a non-significant trend for olfactory cues and no effect for visual cues.

Sensitivity: the questionnaire discriminated between conditions
Reliability: not reported.
Validity: out of 4 factors which are hypothesized to be presence-enhancing, 2 significantly increased and one marginally increased the questionnaire scores.

Primary Source

• Dinh, H. Q., Walker, N., Song, C., Kobayashi, A., & Hodges L.F. (1999). Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 1999, 222-228. [doc, 420 KB]

Gerhard et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
The questionnaire was based on the work of Witmer and Singer (1998), who identified involvement and immersion as necessary conditions for experiencing presence in a VE. Gerhard, Moore, and Hobbs (2001) extended these with two measures to cover issues in multi-user VEs: awareness and communication.
The questionnaire contains 19 items on a 7-point scale measuring immersion, communication, awareness, nature of the environment itself, and user interface. It also contains open questions to reveal attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. The items are listed in Appendix A.

Research

The questionnaire was used in a study investigating the influence of the appearance of avatars on presence. Subjects (n=27, between-subjects design) performed a collaborative judgment task. Avatars were basic shapes, animated cartoon-style or animated humanoid. The results showed that animated cartoon-style and humanoid avatars gave rise to higher levels of presence than basic shape avatars. This was supported by user comments elicited by the open questions.

Sensitivity: questionnaire scores discriminated between different conditions
Reliability: not reported.
Validity: convergence between presence scores and qualitative data (user comments).

Primary Source

• Gerhard, M., Moore, D., & Hobbs, D. (2001). Continuous presence in collaborative virtual environments: Towards the evaluation of a hybrid avatar-agent model for user representation. In A. de Antonio, R. Aylett, & D. Ballin (Eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 137-153, Madrid, Spain. [pdf, 320 KB]

Other Literature

• Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225-240. [pdf, 100 KB]

Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ)

Concept: Physical presence.
Schubert, Friedmann, & Regenbrecht (2000) argued that presence develops from the construction of a spatial-functional mental model of the VE. Two cognitive processes contribute to this model: construction, or the representation of bodily actions as possible actions in the VE, and suppression of incompatible sensory input. It is hypothesized that the conscious sense of presence reflects these two components as spatial presence and involvement.
To construct the first version of the IPQ, 75 items from previously published questionnaires (including Witmer & Singer, Hendrix, Slater-Usoh-Steed), items from the authors' own past research and newly designed items were combined into one questionnaire. The final version of the IPQ consists of 14 items rated on a 5-point scale. Items are reported in Appendix A. Items and accompanying scale anchors can be downloaded at http://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq.

Research

In a first study (n=246, between-subjects design), participants of all forms of VEs (users of VR or CAVE-like systems, desktop VR, players of 3D games and text-based VE’s) were asked to complete the initial, 75-item version of the questionnaire, which was posted on the Internet. The participants were instructed to remember one of the last times they used a VE and to answer all questions with reference to that single episode only. Other participants completed the questionnaire after experiencing a VE by HMD in a laboratory. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 8 factors, 3 of which were identified as Presence Factors:

1. Spatial presence: sense of being there in the VE
2. Involvement: attention to real and virtual environment
3. Realness: reality judgment of the VE

Primary Source

• Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10, 266-281.

ITC Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI)

• Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., Davidoff, J. (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10, 282-298. [pdf, 308 KB]

Kim & Biocca Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
Kim & Biocca (1997) compared telepresence to “being transported”: a media user is phenomenally transferred to a mediated environment, resulting from low accessibility to the unmediated information and high accessibility to the mediated information. It is hypothesized that the sensation of presence is unstable; from moment to moment the user may feel present in the physical, virtual, or imaginary environment.
The questionnaire was based on Barfield & Weghorst and Slater, Usoh & Steed. It contains 8 items rated on a Likert scale. Items can be found in Appendix A.

Research

The questionnaire was developed in the context of a study (n=96, between-subjects design) investigating the effects of telepresence in a television viewing situation on memory and persuasion. Unmediated visual stimuli (active or suppressed) and viewing angle (low, medium, or high) were manipulated.
Exploratory factor analyses revealed that the 8 items could be grouped into 2 factors, which were labeled “departure” and “arrival”. The manipulation of unmediated visual stimuli and viewing angle did not have an effect on either departure or arrival.

Sensitivity: not reported
Reliability: not reported
Validity: manipulations that were hypothesized to influence presence did not have an effect on the questionnaire scores

Primary Source

• Kim, T., & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (2). [html]

See also

• Barfield et al. Questionnaire
• Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (SUS)

Krauss et al. Questionnaire

• Krauss, M., Scheuchenpflug, R., Piechulla, W., & Zimmer, A. (2001). Measurement of presence in virtual environments. In A. Zimmer, K. Lange, K.-H. Bäuml, R. Loose, R. Scheuchenpflug, O. Tucha, H. Schnell & R. Findl (Eds), Experimentelle Psychologie. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. [pdf, 320 KB]

See also

• Presence Questionnaire
• Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ)
• Kim & Biocca Questionnaire

MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MECSPQ)

Primary Source

• Vorderer, P, Wirth, W., Saari, T., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Jäncke, F., Böcking, S., Hartmann, T., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, L. B., Rebeiro, N., Sacau, A., Baumgartner, T. & Jäncke , P. (2004). Development of the MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ). Unpublished report to the European Community, Project Presence: MEC (IST-2001-37661). Hannover, Munich, Helsinki, Porto, Zurich.

Other Literature

• Tellegen, A. & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268-277.
• Vorderer, P, Wirth, W., Saari, T., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Jäncke, F., Böcking, S., Hartmann, T., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, L. B., Rebeiro, N., Sacau, A., Baumgartner, T. & Jäncke , P. (2003). Constructing Presence: Towards a two-level model of the formation of Spatial Presence. Unpublished report to the European Community, Project Presence: MEC (IST-2001-37661). Hannover, Munich, Helsinki, Porto, Zurich.

See also

• Secondary Task Performance

Murray et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
The approach to presence measurement taken by Murray, Arnold, & Thornton (2000) was based on Gilkey and Weisenberger’s (1995) argument for the importance of sound for the sense of presence.
The questionnaire contains 5 items related to presence. The items focus on the influence of hearing loss on the sense of presence. Presence items were based on existing questionnaires such as the SUS, and on written accounts of participants of an earlier study wearing earplugs. Other items in the questionnaire address ability to hear others, balance, alertness, awareness, touch, movement, disorientation, conspicuousness, use of peripheral vision, unconnectedness, use of hand gestures, isolation, vision, hearing blood flowing, self-consciousness, and hearing breathing. Only the presence items are reported in the paper. These are listed in Appendix A.

Research

The questionnaire was used in a pilot study (n=10) in which participants wore earplugs while performing daily activities. The authors reported that participants had difficulties understanding what some of the items meant. Questionnaire results are not discussed in the paper.

Sensitivity: not reported
Reliability: not reported
Validity: not reported

Primary Source

• Murray, C., Arnold, P., & Thornton, B. (2000). Presence accompanying induced hearing loss: Implications for immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 137-148.

Other Literature

• Gilkey, R. H., & Weisenberger, J. M. (1995). The sense of presence for the suddenly deafened adult. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4, 357-363.

Nichols et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence.
The questionnaire contains 9 items, accompanied by 7 point rating scales. The questionnaire contains 3 items taken from Slater et al. (1994), 5 items that are also related to other aspects of the virtual experience, and 1 about exhilaration. The items are reported in Appendix A.

Research

An experiment (n=24, mixed design) was conducted using this questionnaire to compare alternative performance measures and investigate the influence of a headset and auditory simuli. Independent variables were display medium (headset vs. desktop, within subjects) and sensory information (visual vs. audio + visual, between subjects). Three presence measures were used: reflex response (to a “startle event”), background awareness (recall of background music) and the questionnaire. The VE used was an adaptation of a duck shoot fairground stall.
The results showed that the 3 SUS items intercorrelated significantly. Two SUS items correlated with reflex response, and one correlated with background awareness. Of the other items, only one (about flatness of VE) correlated (negatively) with all 3 SUS items and with reflex response. Two SUS items were higher in the headset condition.

Sensitivity: two of the SUS items distinguished between conditions, not reported for other items
Reliability: intercorrelation between SUS items
Validity: correlation with reflex responses

Primary Source

• Nichols, S., Haldane, C., & Wilson , J. R. (2000) Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 52, 471-491.

See also

• Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (SUS)

Object Presence Questionnaire (OPQ)

• Stevens, B., Jerrams-Smith, J., Heathcote, D., & Callear, D. (2002). Putting the virtual into reality: Assessing object-presence with projection-augmented models. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11, 79-92. [pdf, 100 KB]

See also

• Presence Questionnaire (PQ)

Presence Questionnaire (PQ)

Research

The first version of the PQ was used in 4 experiments (n=152 in total). In 2 experiments, participants performed psychomotor tasks in a simple VE. In the other 2 experiments participants learned complex routes through a virtual office. Item-total correlations were calculated, most of which were significant. Internal consistency was calculated, a = .88, after reducing the number of items from 32 to 19. Cluster- analysis revealed 3 subscales: Involved/Control (11 items), Natural (3 items), and Interface Quality (3 items). PQ scores were correlated with measures for constructs associated with presence. PQ scores were found to be significantly correlated with Simulator Sickness Questionnaire scores across experiments. Significant correlations with performance of psychomotor tasks and spatial knowledge was found in some experiments, but not in others. No effect of natural interaction (head tracking) was found. A significant correlation was found with the Immersive Tendency Questionnaire.
Usoh, Catena, Arman, and Slater (2000) argued that each presence questionnaire should be subject to a “reality test”: compare data obtained in a VE to data obtained in the real world. In such a study (n=20, between-subjects design), they tested the PQ. It did not distinguish between real and virtual experiences.
Yougblut and Perrin (2002) gave an extensive overview of research that has been conducted with the PQ. The PQ gave consistent results (in two or more studies) for the factors display field of view, head tracking, task-related experience, and gender. An experiment using the PQ and SUS questionnaire was conducted to investigate the relation between presence and task performance. Participants (n=40, between-subjects design) had to perform an aircraft maintenance procedure in a virtual world. The amount of practice was varied. An effect of practice was found only on the PQ Interface Quality subscale. The Involved/Control subscale correlated negatively with the number of errors. A significant correlation (r = .51) was found between PQ and SUS total scores, also between all subscales. The authors concluded that their data supported the argument that PQ and SUS measured the same construct, but there was not enough evidence to draw a conclusion about their validity.

Sensitivity: the PQ discriminated between conditions in several experiments (see Yougblut & Perrin, 2002)
Reliability: internal consistency a = .88
Validity: inconclusive (see Youngblut & Perrin, 2002)

Primary Source

• Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225-240. [pdf, 100 KB]

Other Literature

• Held, R., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence:Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 109-112.
• Sheridan, T. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 120-126.
• Slater, M. (1999). Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 560-565. [pdf, 60 KB]
• Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 497-503. [pdf, 124 KB]
• Youngblut, C., & Perrin, B. M. (2002). Investigating the relationship between presence and performance in virtual environments. Paper presented at IMAGE 2002 Conference, Arizona.

Questionnaire on Presence and Realism

Concept: Physical presence.
This questionnaire was used as part of a virtual task analysis tool for the creation and evaluation of virtual art exhibits. It contains 10 items with 4 point rating scale. The items are based on Hendrix & Barfield (1996). Items are listed in Appendix A.

Research

Not reported.

Primary Source

• Parent, A. (1998). A virtual environment task analysis workbook for the creation and evaluation of virtual art exhibits. Technical Report NRC 41557 ERB-1056, National Research Council Canada. [pdf, 320 KB]

See also

• Barfield et al. Questionnaire

Reality Judgment and Presence Questionnaire

Research

Participants (n=124, between-subjects design) were immersed in one of 3 different VEs, involving either a claustrophobic scenario, a body image scenario or a spider scenario. The results of a factor analysis were used for item selection (see description). A significant correlation was found between Factor 1 and 2 (r=.33) and between Factor 1 and 3 (r=.25). Internal consistency was found to be a=.82.

Sensitivity: not reported
Reliability: internal consistency a=.82
Validity: not reported

Primary Source

• Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., Villa, H., Perpina, C., & Alcaniz, M. (2000). Presence and reality judgment in virtual environments: A unitary construct? CyberPsychology and Behaviour, 3, 327-335.

See also

• Presence Questionnare (PQ)

Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (SUS)

Research

The original, 3-item SUS was used in an experiment (n=24, between-subjects design) studying the influence of representation system, stacking of environments, gravity, virtual actors, and virtual cliff on presence (Slater et al, 1994). Based on participants'responses to a questionnaire, they were scored for their visual (V), auditory (A) and kinesthetic (K), and perceptual position (P1). Participants experienced either 2, 4, or 6 different VEs. VEs were either “stacked” requiring participants to put on a virtual HMD to get to the next environment, or not stacked, meaning that participants could simply go through a door.
Results showed a positive relation between presence (as measured by the SUS) and V and K, and a negative relation between presence and A. Presence was positively associated with depth when the VE’s were “stacked” using a virtual HMD, and negatively associated when participant went through a door. No other factors were significant. The extended version of the SUS was used in two studies comparing different methods of locomotion (Slater et al., 1995; Usoh et al., 1999) (n=16, between-subjects design;n=33, between-subjects design). Real walking was compared to virtual walking-in-place and push-button-flying. Results showed that subjective presence was higher for virtual walkers than for flyers, and higher for real walkers than for virtual walkers, although this difference decreased when oculomotor discomfort was taken into account.
Usoh, Catena, Arman, and Slater (2000) argued that each presence questionnaire should be subject to a “reality test”: compare data obtained in a VE to date obtained in the real world. In such a reality test,(n=20, between-subjects design), they found that only 2 SUS items showed significant differences.

Yougblut and Perrin (2002) extensively discussed research that has been conducted with the SUS. The SUS-Questionnaire gave consistent results (in 2 or more studies) for immersive tendencies. An experiment was conducted to investigate the relation between presence and task performance, using the PQ and SUS. Participants (N = 40) performed an aircraft maintenance procedure in a virtual world, with varying amounts of practice. No effect of practice was found on SUS scores. SUS scores correlated negatively with the number of errors. A significant correlation (r = .51) was found between PQ and SUS total scores, also between all subscales. The authors concluded that their data supported the argument that PQ and SUS measured the same construct, but there was not enough evidence to draw conclusions about their validity.
Sensitivity: questionnaire distinguished between different conditions and individual differences in several experiments (see Youngblut & Perrin, 2002)
Reliability: not reported
Validity: inconclusive (see Youngblut & Perrin, 2002)

Primary Sources

• Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3, 130-144.
• Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1995) Taking steps: The influence of a walking metaphor on presence in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 2(3), 201-219.
• Usoh, M. , Arthur, K., Whitton, M. C., Bastos, R., Steed, A., Slater, M., et al. (1999). Walking > Walking-in-Place >Flying, in Virtual Environments. Computer Graphics, Annual Conference Series: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 1999, 359–364. [pdf, 109 KB]

Other Literature

• Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 497-503. [pdf, 124 KB]
• Youngblut, C., & Perrin, B. M. (2002). Investigating the relationship between presence and performance in virtual environments. Paper presented at IMAGE 2002 Conference, Arizona.

Swedish User-Viewer Presence Questionnaire (SVUP)

Concept: Physical presence.
The SVUP comprises 150 items covering various aspects of VE experience. A publication about the construction of this questionnaire is in preparation.
In the studies described here, only 19 items were used, covering VE interaction, presence (4 items), awareness of external factors, enjoyment, sound quality, and simulation sickness. These items are reported in Larsson, Västfjäll, and Kleiner (2001a) and can be found in Appendix A.

Research

The SVUP was used in a study (Larsson et al., 2001a) investigating the hypothesis that actors feel more present in a VE than observers. Participants (n=32, between-subjects design) either actively performed tasks in a VE wearing a HMD, or merely observed another person performing these tasks on a projection screen. Results showed that actors reported higher degrees of presence, enjoyment and simulator sickness. Observers reported more distraction by external events.
A second paper (Larsson, Västfjäll, & Kleiner, 2001b) reported two experiments (n=40 in both cases, between-subjects design) testing the hypotheses that 1) participants experience more presence in a bimodal (auditory-visual) VE than in a unimodal (visual) VE, and 2) more accurate, congruent sound rendering increases presence. The VE was a digital model of a church with singing as the audio stimulus. Results showed that presence, enjoyment, and external awareness were rated higher in the bimodal condition than in the unimodal condition (experiment 1), and presence was rated higher in the condition with better sound rendering (experiment 2).

Sensitivity: questionnaire distinguished between different conditions
Reliability: not reported
Validity: questionnaire results concur with the authors’ theory of presence

Primary Sources

• Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., & Kleiner, M. (2001a). The actor-observer effect in virtual reality presentations. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4, 239-246.
• Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., & Kleiner, M. (2001b). Do we really live in a silent world? The (mis)use of audio in virtual environments. Paper presented at AVR II and CONVR 2001, Chalmers, Sweden. [pdf, 78 KB]

Lombard & Ditton Questionnaire

• Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). [html]

Nowak & Biocca Questionnaire

Research

The questionnaire was used in an experiment (n=134, between-subjects design) investigating the effects of agency and anthropomorphism. Participants engaged in a virtual meeting, and were either told they were interacting with a human (avatar condition) or a bot (agent condition). The representation of the other was highly anthropomorphic, low anthropomorphic or there was no image (control).
Internal consistency of the scales was a=.88, .90, .78, .82 respectively. No significant effects were found between agency and any presence scale. Higher levels of telepresence were reported for conditions showing an image compared to control condition; however, contrary to expectations, telepresence was higher for the low-anthropomorphic image than for the high-anthropomorphic image. Similar results were found for social presence and copresence.

Sensitivity: questionnaire was sensitive to manipulation of anthropomorphism, though not in the expected direction.
Reliability: internal consistency a=.88 (telepresence), .90 (perceived other's copresence), .78 self-reported presence), .82 (social presence)
Validity: not reported

Primary Source

• Nowak, K.L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 2-35.

Other Literature

• Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

See also

• Lombard & Ditton Questionnaire
• Semantic Differential

Schroeder et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Physical presence and Social presence.
The questionnaire contains 11 items, addressing collaboration (3 items), contribution to task (3 items), presence (3 items), and co-presence (2 items). Items were based on earlier work by Slater et al (2000) and Wideström et al (2000). The items are listed in Appendix A.

Research

The questionnaire was used in a study (n=132, between-subjects design) comparing the user's experience while solving a puzzle in 3 different collaborative environments: IPT-to-IPT, IPT-to-desktop, or face-to-face (IPT: immersive projection technology). Results showed differences in scores for both presence and co-presence between participants using the different environments.

Sensitivity: questionnaire discriminated between different systems
Reliability: not reported
Validity: not reported

Primary Source

• Schroeder, R., Steed, A., Axelsson, A-S., Heldal, I., Abelin, A., Wideström, et al. (2001). Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: as good as being there together? Computer & Graphics, 25, 781-788.

Thie & Van Wijk Questionnaire

Thie, S., & Van Wijk, J., (1998). A general theory on presence: Experimental evaluation of social virtual presence in a decision making task. Paper presented at Presence in Shared Virtual Environments Workshop, University College London, 10 - 11 June 1998. [html]

Bailenson et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Social presence.
The questionnaire contains 5 items, accompanied by a 7-point scale, measuring social presence. Items can be found in Appendix A.

Research

The questionnaire was used in an experiment investigating the personal space. Participants (n=50, within-subjects design) were immersed in a virtual room in which a virtual male agent stood. In each trial they were asked to walk up to the agent and remember certain features and labels on the front and back of the agent’s shirt. Position and orientation of participants were tracked. Photographic realism of the agent’s face and the degree of mutual gaze between agent and participant were varied. After the experience was over, participants once more put on the HMD to rate the 2 different avatar types for social presence. A Likert-type scale (-3 to +3) was shown over the agent’s head. Participants looked at the agent and the scale while the experimenter read out the questions. Internal consistency was calculated, a=.83. For women, a significant correlation was found between degree of gaze and social presence, but not for men. No effect of realism was found. The same pattern of results was found for interpersonal distance.

Sensitivity: questionnaire scores discriminated between different conditions (degrees of gaze)
Reliability: internal consistency a=.83
Validity: results obtained with the questionnaire were similar to an interpersonal distance measure. Correlation between the measures is not reported

Primary Source

• Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., & Loomis, J.M. (2001). Equilibrium revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10, 583-598. [pdf, 640 KB]

Basdogan et al. Questionnaire

Concept: Social presence.
This questionnaire consists of 8 items rated on a 7-point scale. It aims to measure “the sense of being together”. Items are reported in Appendix A. The overall score is constructed as the number of high (6 or 7) responses out of the 8 items. This avoids the problem of averaging ordinal responses, and allows the use of logistic regression.

Research

The questionnaire was used in a study investigating the influence of haptic feedback on task performance and sense of togetherness of participants in a shared virtual environment (SVE). Participants (n=10, within-subjects design) carried out a collaborative task in a SVE with an expert. Haptic feedback was varied as a within-participants factor. A performance measure was based on time and errors. Results showed that haptic feedback increased both performance and feeling of togetherness.
Sensitivity: the questionnaire distinguished between two conditions
Reliability: not reported
Validity: similar pattern in togetherness and performance scores. Correlation between the measures is not reported

Primary Source

• Basdogan, C., Ho, C., Srinivasan, M. A., & Slater, M. (2000) An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 7(4), 443-460. [pdf, 204 KB]

CMC Questionnaire / Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (SPPQ)

GlobalEd Questionnaire

Concept: Social presence.
Gunawerda and Zittle (1997) set out to measure social presence in a CMC context from a group perspective. They based their questionnaire on the immediacy aspect of social presence as defined by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976).
The questionnaire contains 61 items on a 5-point rating scale measuring the variables social presence (14 items), satisfaction (10), technical skills and CMC experience (3), attitude towards CMC(2), technical barriers (2), active participation (1), capability of mastering CMC (1), equal opportunities (1), and training (1). The questionnaire items relating to social presence and satisfaction are listed in the paper; the 14 items relating to social presence can be found in Appendix A.

Research

The GlobalEd questionnaire was developed to evaluate a virtual conference. For validation purposes it also contained 17 semantic differential items taken from Short, Williams and Christie. Participants (n=50) of the conference filled out the questionnaire. Internal consistency of the social presence scale was a=.88. Strong positive correlations (varying between .52 and .87) were found between the social presence scale and the semantic diffential items, supporting validity. Social presence was found to be a strong predictor of user satisfaction.

Sensitivity: not reported
Reliability: internal consistency a=.88
Validity: high correlations with another measure for social presence (semantic differential)

Primary Source

• Gunawerda, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.

Other Literature

• Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

IPO Social Presence Questionnaire (IPO-SPQ)

• De Greef, P., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2001). Social presence in a home tele-application. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 307-316. [html]

See also:

• Semantic Differential Technique

Networked Minds Questionnaire

Research

The questionnaire was used in an experiment comparing face-to-face interaction with audio-video teleconferencing (n=76, within-subjects design). A purely verbal, non-emotional ranking task was chosen. A factor analysis was carried out on the obtained questionnaire scores. The identified factors were:

1. Co- presence: Isolation/Inclusion (2 items) and Mutual Awareness (6 items)
2. Psychological involvement: Mutual Attention (8 items), Empathy (6 items), Mutual Understanding (6 items)
3. Behavioral engagement: Behavioral Interaction (6 items), Mutual Assistance (4 items), Dependent Action (2 items)

Primary Sources

• Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Gregg, J. (2001) The Networked Minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at Presence 2001, Philadelphia, USA, 9-11 October 2001. [pdf, 81 KB]
• Biocca, F., & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory and measure. In F.R. Gouveia, and F. Biocca (Eds). Proceedings of Presence 2002, 7-36.

Other Literature

• Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. (2004). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 456-480.

Para-Social Presence Questionnaire

Concept: Social presence.
The construct para-social presence was developed to capture the relational component between a web site and its customers. The web site was seen as a social actor.
The questionnaire is based on 5 sub-components of relational communication identified by Burgoon & Hale (1987): Immediacy/Intimacy, Sense of understanding, Positivity, Involvement, Dominance. Each dimension is measured by 6-8 items (a larger pool of items was refined using card sorting techniques). Items are listed in Appendix A.

Research

Research is currently being conducted to assess reliability/validity.

Primary Source

• Kumar, N., & Benbasat, I(2002). Para-social presence and communication capabilities of a website: A theoretical perspective. e-Service Journal, 1(3), 5-24. [html]

Other Literature

• Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

Semantic Differential Technique

• IPO Social Presence Questionnaire (IPO-SPQ)