Russian-language version of the MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ): adaptation, validation and normative data for virtual reality environments

Context and relevance. Spatial presence is a key construct in media psychology, denoting the subjective sensation of “being there” in a virtual or media environment despite physical location in reality (Wirth et al., 2007). The theoretical model of spatial presence formation by P. Vorderer and colleagues proposes a two-level process: at the first level, a spatial situation model (SSM) arises through attention allocation and visual spatial imagery (VSI); at the second level, key components such as self-location — the sensation of shifting one's location to the media environment — and possible actions — the sensation of potential actions in that environment — are involved. The MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ), designed to measure these components and predictors (Vorderer et al., 2004), has been validated on Swedish, German, Portuguese, and Finnish samples; however, the lack of an adapted Russian-language version limits virtual reality (VR) research in Russia, where interest in the topic is growing. Objective. To adapt the MEC-SPQ for a Russian-speaking sample, evaluate its psychometric properties (structure, reliability, validity), and calculate normative data. Hypotheses. The two-factor structure of the Russian adaptation will be confirmed with high reliability and validity; the influence of predictors (SSM, attention, VSI, suspension of disbelief (SoD), cognitive involvement, domain-specific interest (DSI)) will reproduce the original model; the level of spatial presence will be sensitive to experimental manipulations (distraction and motivation). Methods and materials. The study involved 320 respondents (age 17–56 years; M = 23,48; SD = 8,33; 87,2% women), randomized into groups: baseline VR (n = 91), motivation (n = 106), distraction (n = 123). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to test the structure; Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω for reliability; structural equation modeling (SEM) for model testing; Kruskal–Wallis criterion with Dunn’s post-hoc test and Spearman–Brown coefficient for testing convergent validity. Data were processed in JASP (version 0.19.3). Results. The two-factor structure was confirmed: factor loadings > 0,449; CFI = 0,942; RMSEA = 0,100; high reliability coefficients α > 0,85; the predictor model reproduces the original with good fit (CFI = 0,942; RMSEA = 0,069); scales are sensitive to manipulations (distraction reduces presence by 0,301–0,554; p < 0,05; motivation shows a trend without significant differences). Conclusions. The Russian-language version of the MEC-SPQ is valid for measuring spatial presence in VR, filling a gap in domestic psychometrics. Further validation in various immersive environments (games, films, text) and on heterogeneous samples is recommended to expand its application in media psychology, education, and therapy.

1. Карпук, В.А. (2025). Русскоязычная версия опросника пространственного присутствия (MEC-SPQ): Адаптация, валидация и нормативные данные для VR-среды: Набор данных. RusPsyData: Репозиторий психологических исследований и инструментов. Москва. https://doi.org/10.48612/MSUPE/1bfk-hft6-3227
   Karpuk, V.A. (2025). Russian-Language Version of the MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ): Adaptation, validation, and normative data for VR environment: Dataset. RusPsyData: Repository of Psychological Research and Tools. Moscow. (in Russ.).  https://doi.org/10.48612/MSUPE/1bfk-hft6-3227
2. Марцинковская, Т.Д., Карпук, В.А. (2023). Адаптация опросника погружения в виртуальное пространство: подход к проблеме. Новые психологические исследования, 3(1), 93.
   Martsinkovskaya, T.D., Karpuk, V.A. (2023). Adaptation of the questionnaire of immersion in virtual space: An approach to the problem. Novye Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 3(1), 93. (in Russ.).
3. Наследов, А.Д. (2012). Математические методы психологического исследования. Речь.
   Nasledov, A.D. (2012). Mathematical methods of psychological research. Rech. (in Russ.).
4. Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for research. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 5—22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00810.x
5. Böcking, S., Gysbers, A., Wirth, W., Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., Schramm, H., ... Vorderer, P. (2004). Theoretical and empirical support for distinctions between components and conditions of spatial presence. In Proceedings of the VII. International Workshop on Presence–Presence (pp. 224—231).
6. Brink, M. (2025). Behutsam atmen in Virtual Reality: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines VR-basierten Entspannungskonzepts am Fallbeispiel einer Buteyko-Atemübung der Asthma-App [Master's thesis]. Stuttgart Media University. URL: https://hdms.bsz-bw.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/7279 (viewed: 19.09.2025).
7. Hartmann, T., Wirth, W., Schramm, H., Klimmt, C., Vorderer, P., Gysbers, A., ... Sacau, A. (2015). The spatial presence experience scale (SPES): A short self-report measure for diverse media settings. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(1), 1—15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000137
8. Kahrl, N., Prilla, M., Blunk, O. (2021). The influence of spatial representation on remote peer consultation: A study on mixed reality remote support for choosing furniture. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2021 (pp. 236—247). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473856.3473868
9. Lombard, M., Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 3(2), JCMC321.
10. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T.S., Mayer, R.E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
11. Pausch, R., Proffitt, D., Williams, G. (1997). Quantifying immersion in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 13—18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/258734.258744
12. Schubert, T.W., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266—281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
13. Sheridan, T.B. (2016). Recollections on presence beginnings, and some challenges for augmented and virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 25(1), 75—80. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_e_00247
14. Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Ritterfeld, U. (2004). Enjoyment: At the heart of media entertainment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 388—408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00321.x
15. Vorderer, P., Wirth, W., Gouveia, F.R., Biocca, F., Saari, T., Jäncke, L., ... Klimmt, C. (2004). Mec spatial presence questionnaire. Retrieved Sept, 18(2004), 2015.
16. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., ... Jäncke, P. (2003). Constructing presence: A two-level model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F.R., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jäncke, L., Baumgartner, T., Jäncke, P. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493—525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079