FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1985220610> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1985220610 endingPage "90" @default.
• W1985220610 startingPage "79" @default.
• W1985220610 abstract "Definitions of musical aptitude as well as musical aptitude tests frequently are criticized for low ecological validity. In many cases, however, the demand for ecological validity can actually make a test worse as a measure of musical aptitude because a maximally ecologically valid test is necessarily multidimensional. A test that is devised to measure a psychological construct such as musical aptitude should be reasonably homogeneous. Defining musical aptitude as auditory structuring ability is suggested as a compromise between homogeneity and explanatory power. Central aspects of construct validation of an auditory structuring test are presented as examples of theory-driven validation where ecological validity is not the first criterion. These aspects show that the test (a) measures a music-related property, (b) is not much dependent of training in music, and (c) measures sound structuring instead of hearing absolute qualities of sound. (ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes obscured text omitted.) Construct Validity as an Ideal Definitions of musical aptitude and consequently, musical aptitude tests, frequently are strongly criticized. According to the criticism, tests often have very low validity or do not measure musical aptitude at all (Choksy, 2003). A usual complaint is that tests of musical aptitude do not predict real-world musical skills or behaviors well; that is, they have poor predictive or ecological validity (Demorest, 1995; Hallam & Shaw, 2002; Kinarskaya & Winner, 1997; Mota, 1997). In many cases, this criticism is warranted. However, the purpose and possibilities of musical aptitude measures often are misunderstood and consequently, unrealistic demands are made on them. Tests may be better or worse, of course, but difficulties in predicting realworld musical performances do not automatically mean flaws in a test or the theory behind it. Psychological tests are devised to measure psychological constructs such as personality, intelligence or musical aptitude. A test is valid to the extent it measures the target construct. In other words, validity should be understood as construct validity (Cronbach, 1984). This principle has important consequences. Gembris (1997) sees three distinct phases in the definition of musicality. The first is the phenomenological approach that was the main trend in the 19th century, although traces of it are present also in the 20th century. This approach had a close link to the music and aesthetics of its time; understanding of musical beauty was an important ingredient in the concept of musicality, for instance. The second phase, the psychometric approach, was dominant in most of the 20th century. Its main interests were objective definition of musicality and standardized tests to measure it. According to Gembris, the third phase, the musical meaning approach, is the most important one today. It views the psychometric approach as narrow and mechanistic and stresses the importance of the ability to generate meaning in music. The purpose of the present article is to (a) show that problems observed in the psychometric approach often are not real but rather consequences of misunderstanding central aspects of construct definition and test validity, and (b) describe the validation of a musical aptitude test as a concrete example of the preferred theory-driven validation process. The sources of problems in validation roughly can be seen in two groups: first, using composite validity criteria as if they were unidimensional, and second, using subject groups that do not represent the whole distribution of the construct in question. Maximizing ecological validity usually demands the use of composite measures as validity criteria. When a composite of several constructs is predicted, the best predictor also is multidimensional. In such a case, the predictor and the criterion contain the same properties in the same proportions. Using success in music studies as a validity criterion for a musical aptitude test can be taken as an example (Karma, 1982). …" @default.
• W1985220610 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1985220610 creator A5003950691 @default.
• W1985220610 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W1985220610 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
• W1985220610 title "Musical aptitude definition and measure validation: Ecological validity can endanger the construct validity of musical aptitude tests." @default.
• W1985220610 cites W1481431443 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W1496649696 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W1839788135 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W1965220957 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W1996589088 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2014305627 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2015391954 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2020205043 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2029741908 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2036525010 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2037777627 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2061853138 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2062391310 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2128886798 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2149095485 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2164418819 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2242303102 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W249093188 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2562266440 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W304208041 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W332902921 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W42662591 @default.
• W1985220610 cites W2042815666 @default.
• W1985220610 doi "https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094033" @default.
• W1985220610 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1985220610 type Work @default.
• W1985220610 sameAs 1985220610 @default.
• W1985220610 citedByCount "39" @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102012 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102013 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102014 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102015 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102016 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102017 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102018 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102019 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102020 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102021 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102022 @default.
• W1985220610 countsByYear W19852206102023 @default.
• W1985220610 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1985220610 hasAuthorship W1985220610A5003950691 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C2780009758 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C2780801425 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C48561166 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C49453240 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C558565934 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C124101348 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C138496976 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C142362112 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C153349607 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C15744967 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C171606756 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C180747234 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C18903297 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C199360897 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C2780009758 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C2780801425 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C41008148 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C48561166 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C49453240 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C558565934 @default.
• W1985220610 hasConceptScore W1985220610C86803240 @default.
• W1985220610 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1985220610 hasLocation W19852206101 @default.
• W1985220610 hasOpenAccess W1985220610 @default.
• W1985220610 hasPrimaryLocation W19852206101 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2067674665 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2071253394 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2134476313 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W215288896 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2380760656 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W3135512811 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W4380136770 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W4380568662 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2279151839 @default.
• W1985220610 hasRelatedWork W2344990811 @default.
• W1985220610 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W1985220610 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1985220610 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1985220610 magId "1985220610" @default.

• next