This study investigates the psychometric characteristics of Gordon’s Advanced Measures of Music Audiation (AMMA) in a region with strong non-Western music tradition. It also examines the possibility of measuring audiation with the modern psychometric theory. The AMMA test was administered to 513 students in the city of Ioannina and a number of villages in the region of Epirus in northwestern Greece. Nonlinear factor analysis based on tetrachoric correlation coefficients confirmed a tone and rhythm structure in AMMA according to the theory of Gordon. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the tone and rhythm factor scores were .70 and .61 correspondingly. The Kuder and Richardson’s (KR-20) reliability coefficient for the 30 items was .55. A Rasch measurement model has a good fit. The analysis of the Rasch residuals has showed that the dimensions of AMMA do not distort the estimation of Rasch parameters. Further analysis of the 30 AMMA items has shown that they can be ordered in 10 levels of difficulty. The authors present items’ difficulty and persons’ level of audiation on the same interval scale and discuss the usefulness of the music ability tests that are based on aural stimuli.
ApelW. (1972). Harvard dictionary of music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
BailesF. A. (2002). Musical imagery: Hearing and imagining music (PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK). Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3452/
3.
BonettD.PriceR. (2005). Inferential methods for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(2), 213–225.
4.
BouvierE. A.PerryN. C.MichaelW. B. (1954). A study of the error in the cosine-phi approximation to the tetrachoric coefficient of correlation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14(4), 690–699.
5.
BroughtonS.EllinghamM. (1999). World music: The rough guide. London, UK: Rough Guides.
6.
BrowneM. (1972). Orthogonal rotation to a partially specified target. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 25(1), 115–120.
7.
CarminesE. G.ZellerR. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CaryH. (1923). Are you a musician? Professor Seashore’s specific psychological tests for specific musical abilities. Scientific American, 127(6), 326–327.
9.
ChristensenK.EngelhardG.SalzbergerT. (2012). Ask the experts: Rasch vs Factor Analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 26(3), 1373–1378.
10.
ComeauG. (2009). Piano pedagogy: A research and information guide. New York: Routledge.
11.
CortinaJ. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
DebelakR.TranU. (2013). Principal Component Analysis of smoothed tetrachoric correlation matrices as a measure of dimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 63–77.
14.
DziubanC. D.ShirkeyE. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361.
15.
EngelhardG. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Routledge.
16.
GessaroliM.de ChamplainA. (2005). Test dimensionality: Assessment of. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 2014–2020). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
17.
GinsborgJ. (2014). Musical aptitude, tests of. In ThomsonW. (Ed.), Music in the social and behavioral sciences: An encyclopedia (pp. 783–787). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
GordonE. (1979). Primary measures of music audiation. Chicago: GIA.
20.
GordonE. (1982). Intermediate measures of music auiation. Chicago: GIA.
21.
GordonE. (1985). Advanced measures of music audiation. Chicago: GIA.
22.
GordonE. (1986). A factor analysis of the Musical Aptitude Profile, the Primary Measures of Music Audiation, and the Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 87, 17–25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40317975
GordonE. (1999). All about audiation and music aptitudes. Music Educators Journal, 86(2), 41–44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3399589
25.
GreenS.LissitzR.MulaikS. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(4), 827–838.
26.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
HallamS. (2010). 21st century conceptions of musical ability. Psychology of Music, 38(3), 308–330.
28.
HarrisonC. (1987a). The long-term predictive validity of the Musical Aptitude Profile relative to criteria of grades in music theory and applied music. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(4), 1107–1112.
29.
HarrisonC. (1987b). The validity of the Musical Aptitude Profile for predicting grades in freshman music theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 477–482.
30.
HoulahanM.TackaP. (2015). Kodaly today: A cognitive approach to elementary music education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
HumphreysJ. T. (1998). Musical aptitude testing: From James McKeen Cattell to Carl Emil Seashore. Research Studies in Music Education, 10(1), 42–53.
32.
IramaneeratC.SmithE.SmithR. (2008). An introduction to Rasch measurement. In OsborneJ. (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 50–71). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
JakendoffR. (2009). Parallels and nonparallels between language and music. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 195–204.
34.
KaiserH. (1970). A second-generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrica, 35(4), 401–415.
35.
Kaliakatsos-PapakostasM.ZacharakisA.TsougrasC.CambouropoulosE. (2014, June). Harmony in the polyphonic songs of Epirus: Representation, statistical analysis and generation. In 4th International Workshop on Folk Music Analysis (FMA 2014), Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/276140/files/fma2014-epirusSongs.pdf
36.
KamataA.BauerD. J. (2008). A note on the relation between factor analytic and Item Response Theory models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 136–153.
37.
KuderG.RichardsonM. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.
38.
LinacreJ. (2002). What do infit and outfit mean square and standardized mean?Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
Lorenzo-SevaU.FerrandoP. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioural Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91.
44.
Lorenzo-SevaU.FerrandoP. J. (2013). Manual of the program Factor. Tarragona, Spain: Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Retrieved from http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/
45.
McGillM. (2009). An investigation of unidimensional testing procedures under Latent Trait Theory using Principal Component Analysis. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic and State University. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/29699?show=full
46.
McMullenE.SaffranJ. (2004). Music and language: A developmental comparison. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 289–311.
47.
MessolorasI. R. (2008). East meets West: Arranging traditional Greek fork songs for modern chorus. Los Angeles: UCLA.
ÖzekeS.HumphreysJ. (2007). Comparative study of Turkish and American music education students’ musical aptitude and attitude toward teaching. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 26, 167–175. Retrieved from http://ejer.com.tr/0DOWNLOAD/pdfler/eng/1698048283.pdf
50.
PapakonstantinouT. (1995). Andromeda. In In Andromeda and on Earth [CD]. Athens, Greece: Lyra.
ReckaseM. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics4, 4(3), 207–230.
53.
ReiseS.CookK.MooreT. (2015). Evaluating the impact of multidimensionality on unidimensional Item Response Theory model parameters. In ReiseS.RevickiD. (Eds.), Handbook of Item Response Theory modeling (pp. 13–40). New York: Routledge.
54.
RellosT.AntoniouK.MaratosA.KanellosT.PolychroniouA.AristopoulouM.… HadjinikolaouV. (1998). Pikrodafni. In Mode Plagal - II [CD]. Athens, Greece: Lyra.
55.
ReveszG. (1953). Introduction to the psychology of music. London, UK: Longmans.
56.
RunfolaM.SwanwickK. (2002). Developmental characteristics of music learners. In ColwellR.RichardsonC. (Eds.), The new handbook of research in music teaching and learning: A project (pp. 372–397). Oxford, UK: The National Association for Music Education.
57.
SamsonJ. (2013). Music in the Balkans. Boston, MA: Brill.
58.
SaundersD. (1962). Integrating the implementation of quartimax, varimax, oblimax, and related rotational methods. Psychological Reports, 10, 241–242.
59.
SchellenbergE. G.WeissM. (2013). Music and cognitive abilities. In DeutschD. (Ed.), The psychology of music (3rd ed., pp. 499–550). London, UK: Elsevier.
ShevlinM.MilesJ. N. V. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 85–90.
62.
SijtsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120.
63.
SmithE. (2001). Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: A Rasch measurement perspective. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2(3), 205–231.
64.
SmithE. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and Principal Component Analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(2), 205–231.
65.
SmithR.SchumackerR.BushJ. (1995, April). Using item mean squares to evaluate fit to the Rasch mode. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
66.
SpathasJ.TourkogiorgisA.TrantalidesG. (1976). Mountains. In Phos [CD]. Athens, Greece: PolyGram.
67.
StamouL.SchmidtC.HumphreysJ. (2010). Standardization of the Gordon Primary Measures of Music Audiation in Greece. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(1), 75–89.
68.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
69.
TrobiaA. (2008). Cronbach’s alpha. In LavrakasP. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research Methods (pp. 169–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
70.
WaltersD. (2010). Edwin Gordon’s music aptitude work. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 2(1–1), 64–72.
71.
WardR. M. (2010). True score. In SalkindN. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1549–1552). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
72.
WaughR.ChapmanE. (2005). An analysis of dimensionality using factor analysis (true-score theory) and Rasch measurement: What is the difference? Which method is better?Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(1), 80–99.
73.
WendtH.BosW.GoyM. (2011). On applications of Rasch models in international comparative large-scale assessments: A historical review. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(6), 419–446.
74.
WingH. (1941). A factorial study of musical tests. British Journal of Psychology, 31(4), 341–355.
75.
WingH. (1948). Test of musical ability and appreciation: An investigation into the measurement, distribution, and development of musical capacity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
76.
WrightB. (1977). Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(2), 97–116.
77.
WrightB. (1984). Despair and hope for educational measurement. Contemporary Education Review, 3(1), 281–288. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/memo41.htm
78.
WrightB.PanchapakesanN. (1969). A procedure for sample-free item analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29(1), 23–48.
79.
ZinielS. (2008). Split-half. In LavrakasP. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 834–835). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
