作者:B. L. Wilson、D. S. Smith
DOI:10.1093/jmt/37.2.95
日期:2000.6.1
The present investigation was undertaken in response to music therapists working in school settings for information relating to the availability of music therapy assessments and the feasibility of standardizing an assessment instrument for music therapists to use in school settings. Five research questions were identified, and the music therapy literature was surveyed to compile responses to those questions. Three different online data bases (ERIC, PsycINFO, and Article 1st) were used, covering articles published between 1980 and 1997. Individual hand searches were done of the Arts in Psychotherapy, Journal of Music Therapy, Journal of Research in Music Education, Journal of the International Association of Music for the Handicapped, Music Therapy and Music Therapy Perspectives. The questions and responses were as follows: 1. Which music-based assessment tools are being used with children with disabilities? Little commonality in assessment tools being used by music therapists and researchers was discovered. Of the total 41 studies, 20 (49%) reported using a “named” or “titled” assessment tool, and in the remaining 51% of studies, the authors reported using an untitled, and usually experimenter-designed, original assessment tool. 2. Have certain assessments been used in more than one study? Very limited replication of existing assessments was found. Of the 16 “named” assessments, only 3 were found to be used in more than one research study. 3. Are the actual assessments published along with the articles describing their use? Only 3 of the 20 studies using named assessments were published along with the journal article. Of the remaining 21 studies using original, experimenter-designed assessment tools, only 6 (28%) had the assessment instrument published with the article. 4. What is the primary purpose for using the assessment? Six primary purposes emerged from the review of the literature: to compare with data obtained from other assessment measures or from other populations (39%), as a baseline or pretest measure (29%), to determine eligibility for services or the receipt of treatment (12%), to determine the psychometric properties of the assessment (7%), suitability of the instrument for the given population (7%), and the identification of musical preferences (5%). 5. What are the musical or nonmusic elements being assessed? Musical elements were: music perception (37%), musical aptitude (29%), musical preferences (12%), and attention to/enjoyment of music (2%). Nonmusical behaviors/responses were: self-expression (10%), motor responses (10%), behavioral responses (7%), cognitive development (2%), and acts of communication (2%). 6. What subject populations are being assessed? Subject populations were: children with developmental disabilities/mental retardation (44%), children with autism (10%), children with hearing impairments (17%), “psychiatric” clients or emotionally disturbed (22%), individuals described as “handicapped” (5%), individuals with physical disabilities (2%), and a student with a speech impairment (2%). Nondisabled individuals were also included in 12 of the aforementioned studies.
在学校环境中工作的音乐治疗师需要了解有关音乐治疗评估的可用性以及为音乐治疗师在学校环境中使用的评估工具标准化的可行性的信息,本调查就是为了响应这一需求而开展的。我们确定了五个研究问题,并对音乐治疗文献进行了调查,以汇编对这些问题的答复。我们使用了三个不同的在线数据库(ERIC、PsycINFO 和 Article 1st),涵盖了 1980 年至 1997 年间发表的文章。对《心理治疗中的艺术》、《音乐治疗杂志》、《音乐教育研究杂志》、《国际残疾人音乐协会杂志》、《音乐治疗》和《音乐治疗展望》进行了手工检索。问题和答复如下1.残疾儿童正在使用哪些基于音乐的评估工具?发现音乐治疗师和研究人员使用的评估工具几乎没有共性。在总共 41 项研究中,有 20 项(49%)报告使用了 "命名 "或 "标题 "评估工具,而在其余 51% 的研究中,作者报告使用了无标题的、通常由实验者设计的原始评估工具。2.某些评估是否在不止一项研究中使用过?对现有评估的复制非常有限。在 16 项 "已命名 "的评估中,只有 3 项被用于不止一项研究。3.实际评估是否与描述其使用情况的文章一起发表?在 20 项使用命名评估的研究中,只有 3 项与期刊文章一起发表。在其余 21 项使用实验者设计的原始评估工具的研究中,只有 6 项(28%)的评估工具与文章一起发表。4.使用评估的主要目的是什么?文献综述中总结出六个主要目的:与其他评估方法或其他人群中获得的数据进行比 较(39%),作为基线或测试前的测量方法(29%),确定接受服务或治疗的资格(12%), 确定评估的心理测量特性(7%),评估工具是否适合特定人群(7%),以及确定音乐偏好 (5%)。5.评估的音乐要素或非音乐要素是什么?音乐要素包括:音乐感知(37%)、音乐能力(29%)、音乐偏好(12%)以及对音乐的关注/享受(2%)。非音乐行为/反应包括:自我表达(10%)、运动反应(10%)、行为反应(7%)、认知发展(2%)和交流行为(2%)。6.6. 评估的对象人群有哪些?受测人群包括:发育障碍/智力迟钝儿童(44%)、自闭症儿童(10%)、听力障碍儿童(17%)、"精神病 "患者或情感障碍者(22%)、被描述为 "残障 "的个人(5%)、肢体残障人士(2%)和一名有语言障碍的学生(2%)。在上述 12 项研究中,还包括非残疾人。