Can we measure musically active people’s music skills and achievement selfconcept? Structure and invariance of CAMU, a Spanish questionnaire.

Music self-concept measurement tools are essential at all music educational levels in all contexts. Until now, the lack of a validated music self-concept questionnaire in Spanish-speaking countries has been noticeable. The aim of this study is to validate the Musical Self-Concept Questionnaire (CAMU) (Zubeldia, 2015), which is an abbreviated and culturally adapted Spanish language version of the Music Self-Perception Inventory (MUSPI), developed by Vispoel (1993a, 1993b). Participants comprised 407 students from mid-level music studies from conservatories located in different autonomous regions of Spain. The confirmatory factor analysis supports the hierarchical view of the music self-concept. Furthermore, the study also tests the scalar invariance across genderdifferentiated subgroups, which is a prerequisite to compare factor mean differences between groups. This is the final step in the validation of the CAMU, which enables cross-cultural research into this construct. The educational implications for music students are discussed. Keywords: music self-concept, Spanish questionnaire, internal structure, music active people. Introduction Self-concept is the image that each individual form of him or herself based on their experiences and relations with their environment, and is made up of a set of hierarchically-organized self-perceptions; the most representative model of the hierarchical and multidimensional conception of self-concept, proposed by Shavelson, Hubner and Stanton (1976), has given rise to a wealth of research aimed at identifying Can we measure musical active people’s music self-concept? Structure and invariance of CAMU, a Spanish questionnaire 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Goñi, E., Zubeldia, M., Díaz-Gómez, M., & Fernández-Lasarte, O. (2020). Can we measure musically active people’s music skills and achievement self-concept? Structure and invariance of CAMU, a Spanish questionnaire. Music Education Research, 22(4), 478–490. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Music Education Research on 06 Jun 2020, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2020.1775186. It is deposited under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 2016; Ruismäki & Tereska, 2006; Vispoel, 2003), as well as on general population's self-concept (Spychiger, 2017; Spychiger, Gruber, & Olbertz, 2009). The music self-concept, which integrates perceptions, beliefs and self-schema about a person’s musical abilities and its potential (Schnare, MacIntyre, y Doucette, 2011), is, therefore, a part of a self-concept hierarchy involving a hierarchicallysuperordinate artistic domain, and hierarchically subordinate components: composing, playing, reading, listening, dancing, singing and musical skills in general (Vispoel, 1995). Different models were tested (Vispoel, 2003) and results highlighted that skills related to singing and dancing were not so closely related to overall skills in music, as Page 2 of 33 Music Education Research the dimensions that make up and explain each of its domains, as the academic one (Marsh, 1990, 1993), the social one (Byrne & Shavelson, 1996) or the physical one (Fox & Corbin, 1989), and developing measurement instruments for each of them (Harter, 1982, 1988; Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche, & Tremayne, 1994). In this study, we focus on music self-concept, one of the dimensions of this structure. Factor structure of the music self-concept Some decades after the initial proposal, artistic self-concept was put forward as a domain parallel to the academic and non-academic self-concept, yet different from them (Vispoel, 1995). According to this proposal, artistic self-concept is made up of four dimensions: self-perceptions regarding music, visual arts, dance and drama. At that time, questionnaires were created to measure both artistic and music self-concept (Vispoel, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b), which allowed the development of research focused on secondary school and university students’ music self-concept (Austin & Vispoel, 2000; Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017; Morin, Scalas, Vispoel, Marsh, & Wen, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 3 of 33 Music Education Research they were the skills associated with instrumental performance (instrumental playing and reading music) and music auditory cognition (listening and composing). Having said that, not all the approaches to music self-concept concur with the hierarchic view, since in some cases, multidimensionality has been defended as a better way to conceptualize it (Müllensiefen, Gingras, Musil, & Stewart 2014; Spychiger, 2017). On the other hand, although differences in the dimensions of the music selfconcept favorable to women have been proven (Austin & Vispoel, 2000; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Forte & Vispoel, 1995; Vispoel, 1993a; Vispoel & Forte, 2000), it has not been demonstrated that this measure remains invariable between women and men, which is a prerequisite in all group-based comparisons (Millsap, 2011). Measurement of music self-concept Nowadays, the Music Self-Perception Inventory (MUSPI), in both the expanded 84item version (Vispoel, 2003) and the abbreviated 28-item version (Morin, et al., 2016), is one of the most highly valued and widely accepted music self-concept measurement instrument. In addition to MUSPI, in the last two decades other related questionnaires have been created: the Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ self-Concept in Music (Ruismäki & Tereska, 2006); the Music Possible Selves Questionnaire III, MPSQ III (Campbell, 2009); or the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry MUSCI (Spychiger, 2017). In sum, these measurement instruments have been specifically aimed at different populations or have addressed music self-concept from different perspectives. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 4 of 33 first Spanish-language questionnaire for music self-concept “Cuestionario de Autoconcepto Musical” (CAMU) (Zubeldia, 2015) has been created; CAMU is valued as an adequate short questionnaire with good statistical properties (Zubeldia, Goñi, Díaz, & Goñi, 2017) and is seen as a useful Spanish-language tool to measure music active people’s music self-concept. Due to the length and the reiterative nature of the questionnaire, a decision was made to shorten the adapted version. Items for the short form (CAMU-28) were selected after analyzing the inter-judge agreement and the psychometrical properties of the MUSPI-84 (translated long form) items. These were the criteria followed in the process Music Education Research questionnaire created by Vispoel (MUSPI) is based on a multidimensional and hierarchic conception of the music self-concept, whereas other proposals such as the Spychiger’s (MUSCI) choose to explain multidimensionality in keeping with the view that “a non-hierarchical view seems to be more successful in accommodating the diverse roles that music plays in people’s lives” (p. 271, Spychiger, 2017). In any case, the musical ability dimension, related to “what I can do” (Spychiger, 2017), is the one which emerges most intensely, music students can be more sensitive to it, and therefore it becomes fundamental to understand how it is defined and what it is made up of. Therefore, given the fact that the questionnaire created by Vispoel, MUSPI (1994, 2003), has both appropriate psychometrical properties and a solid theoretical basis, it can be considered the most suitable instrument to assess the music self-concept of adolescents and adults in compulsory and specialized educational institutions. Validation of the CAMU, a cultural adaptation Spanish –language questionnaire To this end, and as a result of a cultural adaptation and validation of the MUSPI, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 5 of 33 Schmidt, 2005). Some studies have found that the relationship between music selfconcept and musical training is stronger than the relationship between general selfconcept and musical training (Bartel, 1996; Degé, Wehrum, Stark, & Schwarzer, 2009; Hedden, 1982; Ruismäki & Tereska 2006; Zimmerman, 2005). At this stage, one of the purposes of this present instrumental study is to establish whether the seven-dimension structure of the Cuestionario de Autoconcepto Musical (CAMU) questionnaire can be verified, as well as to determine whether the current version of the CAMU can be accepted as both final and representative of the music self-concept second-order factor defined by 7 first-order factors model (Vispoel, Music Education Research (Costes-Onishi & Caleon, 2018; Marsh, Ellis, Parada, Richards, & Heubeck, 2005;): items with high factor loadings and low uniqueness were selected; items presenting low correlated uniqueness and cross loadings were selected; finally, items with low level of inter-judge agreement were eliminated (Zubeldia, 2015). In the end, a back-translation to English-language was made. The present study It is extremely important to have a validated instrument such as CAMU for music education research in Spain, since it would provide a better understanding of the perception that music students have of their own abilities; a psychological aspect that is wider than mere self-perception. Self-concept in musical contexts has been associated with participation in music related activities (Reynolds, 1992), motivation (Katsochi, 2008; West, 2013) and musical achievement (Austin, 1988; Austin & Vispoel, 1998). More specifically, several studies show that students with higher music self-concept are more engaged in musical activities and obtain better achievements (Klinedinst, 1991; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 6 of 33 of music self-concept (second order factor); the second strategy is to find evidence of the questionnaire's validity for measuring music self-concept in both sex groups (Vispoel, 2003; Morin, et al., 2016). Materials and method Participants Initially, the study sample comprised 814 subjects engaged in mid-level music studies. Anyway, the one half of the total sample (407 students) was randomly selected for this confirmatory purpose, all of them musical active people. Participants were aged Music Education Research 2003). A suitable method to achieve this goal is offered by the confirmatory factor analysis (Byrne, 2001; Steinmetz, Schmidt, Tina-Booh, Wieczorek, & Schwartz, 2009; Vispoel, 1995). To establish if there are actual differences related to social-personal traits, it is essential to determine whether or not CAMU measures this factor structure in the same way within different populations. Only an invariability analysis can establish the psychometric base required to justify the inter-group comparison (Elosua, 2005; Steinmetz, Schmidt, & Schwartz, 2009). In summary, this study aims to conclude the cross-cultural adaptation process of the CAMU. Two strategies are followed to test whether or not it can be used to evaluate the self-reported music self-concept of musically active Spanish students: the first is to verify a factor structure for the questionnaire that fits the model proposed previously by Vispoel (2003), and for this reason, we propose that self-concepts in singing, playing, reading, composing, listening, dancing and general abilities (first order factors) are part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 7 of 33 ability to create dance movements to music, and general musical ability. Analyses After the questionnaires had been collected, those subjects deemed not to have given reliable, valid answers were eliminated following two criteria (Barnett & Lewis, 1994; McKnight, McKnight, Sidanius, & Figueiredo, 2007): lack of coherence in responses given to similar items (lack of sincerity), and the total number of items answered (subjects who failed to respond to at least 80% of the items were eliminated). In the case of missing values (1%), using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm and the Music Education Research between 11 and 60 (x = 17.72; σ = 5.66). Regarding gender, 180 (45.2 %) were men and 212, women (54.8 %). Data collection, variables and measurement instruments The administration process was overseen in the different participating centers (Conservatories) by people fully versed in the instructions and procedure; the Music Self-Concept Questionnaire (CAMU; Zubeldia, 20015) was administered to the whole group in class time. Participation was strictly voluntary and the anonymity of the responses was guaranteed. The CAMU contains 28 items drafted evenly in both positive and negative terms (appendix 1). Participants responded to the items on a six-point Likert-type scale and the response options ranged from totally false to totally true. The instrument is divided into seven scales that measure the following musical self-perceptions: ability to sing, ability to play a musical instrument, ability to read music, ability to compose music, ability to listen to music (and identify the characteristics of the piece in question), 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 8 of 33 increase in the CFI index (ΔCFI), which should be above .10 and whether the differentials between χ2 and the models’ degrees of freedom (ΔS-B χ2 (df)) were significant; Satorra and Bentler (2001) developed a procedure for scaled difference chisquare testing that is easily implemented using the scaled and unscaled chi-square values and the degrees of freedom for the two models contrasted (Satorra & Bentler, 2010). Tests of measurement invariance of the CAMU across samples were conducted with the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis procedure (CFAMG) (Buil et al., Music Education Research Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), an approximate score was extracted for each missing item, based on the total responses given by each participant (Allison, 2002). In order to carry out the confirmatory factor analysis, the covariance matrix and the MTMM procedure were used for imputing cases with incomplete answers, using the EQS 6.3 statistical program for Windows. To test the CAMU’s structure we turned to the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method was applied, but since the required normality condition (Mardia coefficient = 271.61) was not fully complied with, model fit was estimated based on robust statistics. The acceptance threshold of the values for almost all the indexes is .90, and the values must exceed this figure, except in the case of the RMSEA, whose maximum values should be .60 (ideal) and .90 (acceptable) (Batista & Coenders, 2000). Other indexes were verified in order to determine whether or not the data supporting a model indicated that its fit was significantly different from the fit of the alternatives, being nested models (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Resvold, 2002), like the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Page 9 of 33 seven hypothesized factors are different and uncorrelated (the analysis of the fit of these two models simply aims to prove the “simple structure”, i.e., the fact that the seven dimensions are differentiated); a third model (M2) includes a first-order factor (music self-concept) defined by the 28 items (unidimensional model). Finally, the fourth model (M3) comprises seven factors and a second-order (latent) one, supporting the theory that the seven scales of the CAMU measure independent dimensions respectively, and that together, they form a second-order factor identified as the musical domain of selfconcept. Figure 1. Four different and compared models Music Education Research 2010; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). The parameters that remain invariant across the analyzed groups (men and women) in this model testing are the construct, factor loading, item intercepts and error variances, compared to those that are tested in the ‘structural invariance’ (invariance of the variances, covariances and means of the latent variables) (e.g., Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989; Meredith, 1993; Millsap, 2011; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Specifically, to test the invariance of a second-order factor model the procedure suggested by Widaman & Reise (1997) is used. The fit of the nested model is tested using the same indexes as in the confirmatory factor analysis (Marsh et al., 2005). Results Different models are compared in order to analyze the dimensionality and the factor structure of the CAMU (figure 1): the first one (M1A) assumes that the seven hypothesized factors are different yet correlated; the second one (M1B) assumes that the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Music Education Research References Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing values. New York: Sage. Ascenso, S., Williamon, A., & Perkins, R. (2016). Understanding the wellbeing of professional musicians through the lens of Positive Psychology. Psychology of Music, 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0305735616646864. Austin, J. R. (1988). The effect of music contest format on self-concept, motivation, achievement, and attitude of elementary band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 95-107. Austin, J. R., & Vispoel, W. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in classroom music: Relationships among attributional beliefs, selfconcept and achievement. Psychology of Music, 26, 26-45. Austin, J. R., & Vispoel, W. (2000). Children’s ability self-perceptions and interests: Grade level, gender and race differences for music, reading and math. In R.G. Craven & H.W. Marsh (Eds.), Self-concept theory, research and practice: Advances from the new millennium conference proceedings (pp. 100-107). Sydney: SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney. Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Bartel, L. R. (1996). Factors in high school students’ self-assessment of musical ability. Canadian Journal of Research Music Education, 37(4) 11-21. Batista, J. M., & Coenders, G. (2000). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales [Models of structural equations]. Madrid: La Muralla. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Page 16 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3) 456-466. doi: 10.1037/00332909.105.3.456 Cabedo-Mas, A., & Díaz-Gómez, M. (2013). Positive musical experiences in education: Music as a social praxis. Music Education Research, 15(4), 455-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.763780 Campbell, D. L. (2009). The Relationships among Middle school students’ Music Possible Self Beliefs and their music participation. Doctoral thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/9401/5565 Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hills: Sage. Page 17 of 33 Music Education Research Statistical Software. Buil, I., Martínez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2010). Medición del valor de marca desde un enfoque formativo [Measurement of the mark value from a formative approach]. Cuadernos de Gestión, 10, 167-196. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). On the structure of the social self-concept for pre-, early, and late adolescents: A test of Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 599. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 esteem, and performance outcomes in Hong Kong music students. Doctoral thesis, Durham University. Retrieved from Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/637/ Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modelling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3) 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3) 471-492. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7 Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. Costes-Onishi, P., & Caleon, I. S. (2018) Measuring critical musicality. Music Education Research, 20(5), 531-545. doi: 10.1080/14613808.2018.1516744 Degé, F., Wehrum, S., Stark, R., & Schwarzer, G. (2009). Music training, cognitive abilities and self-concept of ability in children. Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009), 60-68. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s selfand task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Elosua, P. (2005). Progressive assessment of factorial invariance between the original Page 18 of 33 Music Education Research Chan, Y. M. (2011). The relationship between music performance anxiety, age, self1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Music Education Research and adapted versions of a self-concept scale. Psicothema, 17, 356-362. Fiedler, D., & Spychiger, M. (2017). Measuring “Musical Self-Concept” throughout the years of adolescent with MUSCI youth: Validation and adjustment of the Musical Self-Concept Inquiry (MUSCI) by investigating samples of students at secondary education schools. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind and Brain, 27(3), 167-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ pmu0000180 Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 408430. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53(1), 87-97. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver: University of Denver. Hedden, S. (1982). Prediction of music achievement in the elementary school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 61-68. Katsochi, C. (2008). Students’ self-beliefs and music instruction: A literature review. Proceedings of the First International Conference of Students of Systematic Musicology (SysMus08). Graz, Austria. Klinedinst, R. E. (1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifthgrade instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 225-238. Page 19 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Music Education Research Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623 Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 4 (pp. 59-98). Hillslade: Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in Educational Psychology. Leicester: British Psychological Society. Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L., Parada, R., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B. (2005). A short version of the Self Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17, 81–102. Marsh, H. W., Richards, G., Johnson, S., Roche, L., & Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multi trait multi method analysis of relation to existing instruments. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 270-305. McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidanius, S., & Figueiredo, A. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction (methodology in the social sciences). New York: Guilford. McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2000). The contribution of motivational factors to instrumental performance in a music examination. Research Studies in Music Education, 15, 31-39. Page 20 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 importance of self-theories of intelligence and musicality for students’ academic and musical achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1702. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01702 Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014). Measuring the facets of musicality: The Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI). Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 1-35. Reynolds, J. W. (1992). Music education and student self-concept: A review and synthesis of literature. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa. Ruismäki, H., & Tereska, T. (2006). Early childhood experiences: Contributing to preservice elementary teachers’ self-concept in music and success in music education (during student age). European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(1), 113-130. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. Page 21 of 33 Music Education Research Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543. Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge. Morin, A. J. S., Scalas, L. F., Vispoel, W., Marsh, H. W., & Wen, Z. (2016). The Music Self-Perception Inventory: Development of a short form. Psychology of Music, 44(5), 915-934. doi: 10.1177/0305735615592690 Müllensiefen, D., Harrison, P., Caprini, F., & Fancourt, A. (2015). Investigating the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 music experience variables in secondary instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2), 134147. Schnare, B., MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2011). Possible selves as a source of motivation for musicians. Psychology of Music, 20, 1–18. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441. Spychiger, M. (2017). Musical self-concept as a mediating psychological structure. From musical experience to musical identity. In D. J. Hargreaves, R. MacDonald & D. Miell (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Musical Identity (pp. 267-287). Oxford: Oxford UP. Spychiger, M., Gruber, L., & Olbertz, F. (2009). Musical Self-Concept. Presentation of a multi-dimensional model and its empirical analyses. Proceedings of the 7th triennial conference of European society for the cognitive sciences of music, Finland (ESCOM 2009), 503-506. Steenkamp, J. B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90. Steemkamp, J. B., & Van Trijp, H. C. (1991). The Use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research Marketing, 8(4), 283299. Page 22 of 33 Music Education Research Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chisquare test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248. doi: 10.1007/ s11336-009-9135-y Schmidt, C. P. (2005). Relations among motivation, performance achievement, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity, 43(4), 599-616. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literatura: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 Vispoel, W. P. (1992a). Arts Self-Perception Inventory (Adolescent Form). Iowa: Author. Vispoel, W. P. (1992b). Arts Self-Perception Inventory (Adult/College form). Iowa: Author. Vispoel, W. P. (1993a). The Music Self-Perception Inventory (Adolescent Form). Iowa: Author. Vispoel, W. P. (1993b). The Music Self-Perception Inventory (Adult/College Form). Iowa: Author. Vispoel, W. P. (1994). Integrating self-perceptions of music skill into contemporary models of self-concept. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 5(4), 42-57. Page 23 of 33 Music Education Research Steinmetz, H., Schmidt. P., & Schwartz, S. (2009). Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality & Quantity, 43(4), 599-616. Steinmetz, H., Schmidt, P., Tina-Booh, A., Wieczorek, S., & Schwartz, S. (2009). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerey (Eds.), International Advances in Self Research (pp. 151-179). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Vispoel, W. P., & Forte, E. E. (2000). Response bias and their relation to sex differences in multiple domains of self-concept. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 79–97. West, C. (2013). Motivating music students: A review of the literature. Update, 31, 1119. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997) Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, & M. Windle (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington: American Psychological Association. Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). The effects of periodic self-recording, self-listening and selfevaluation on the motivation and music self-concept of high school instrumentalists. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(10). (UMI 3102056) Zubeldia, M. (2015). El autoconcepto musical, motivación y bienestar psicológico del alumnado de conservatorio [Musical self-concept, motivation and psychological well-being of conservatory students]. Doctoral thesis. Leioa: UPV-EHU. Page 24 of 33 Music Education Research Vispoel, W. P. (1995). Self-concept in artistic domains: An extension of the Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 134-153. Vispoel, W. P. (2003). Measuring and understanding self-perceptions of musical ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 questionnaire for musical self-concept. International Journal of Music Education, 1-13. doi:10.1177/0255761417689924 Page 25 of 33 Music Education Research Zubeldia, M., Goñi, E., Díaz, M., & Goñi, A. (2017). A new Spanish-language 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 For Peer Review Only Appendix 1. Items of the Musical Self-Concept Questionnaire (CAMU). English translation Spanish original versión 1. I am good at singing (SING) Soy bueno/a cantando (CAN) 2. I find it hard to play a musical instrument (PLAY) Tocar un instrumento musical me resulta difícil (TOC) 3. I am good at reading music (RE) Tengo habilidad para leer música (LE) 4. I find it hard to create/compose music (COM) Me es difícil crear/componer música (COM) 5. I am good at identifying characteristics of music by hear (LIST) Identificar características de la música de oído es algo que se me da bien (ESC) 6. I have never been very good at creating dance movements to music (MOV) Nunca he sido muy bueno/a creando movimientos de danza para la música (DAN) 7. I am confident in my ability to perform most music-related activities (GEN) Tengo confianza en mi habilidad para la mayor parte de actividades relacionadas con la música (GEN) 8. I have never been very good at singing (SING) Nunca he sido muy bueno/a cantando (CAN) 9. I find it easy to play a musical instrument (PLAY) Tocar un instrumento musical me resulta fácil (TOC) 10. I have never been good at reading music (RE) Nunca he sido muy bueno/a leyendo música (LE) 11. I am good at composing/creating music (COM) Soy bueno/a componiendo/creando música (COM) 12. I find it hard to identify characteristics of music by hear (LIST) Me resulta difícil identificar características de la música de oído (ESC) 13. I am good at creating dance movements to music (MOV) Crear movimientos de danza para la música es algo que se me da bien (DAN) 14. I find most music-related activities hard (GEN) Tengo dificultades para realizar la mayor parte de las actividades relacionadas con la música (GEN) 15. Singing is something I do well (SING) Cantar es algo que se me da bien (CAN) 16. I have trouble playing a musical instrument (PLAY) Tengo dificultades a la hora de tocar un instrumento musical (TOC) 17. Reading music is something I find easy (RE) Soy bueno/a leyendo música (LE) 18. I have never been good at composing/creating music (COM) Nunca he sido muy bueno componiendo/creando música (COM) 19. I am skilled at identifying characteristics of music by hear (LIST) Soy habilidoso/a a la hora de identificar características musicales de oído (ESC) 20. It is hard for me to create dance movements to music (MOV) Me resulta difícil crear movimientos de danza para la música (DAN) 21. I find most music-related activities easy (GEN) Se me dan bien la mayor parte de las actividades relacionadas con la música (GEN) Page 32 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 22. I find it hard to sing (SING) Me resulta difícil cantar (CAN) 23. I am good at playing a musical instrument (PLAY) Soy bueno/a tocando un instrumento musical (TOC) 24. It is hard for me to read music (RE) Me resulta difícil leer música (LE) 25. I create/compose music well (COM) Tengo habilidad para crear/componer música (COM) 26. I have never been very good at identifying characteristics of music by hear (LIST) Nunca he sido muy bueno/a a la hora de identificar características de la música de oído (ESC) 27. Creating dance movements to music is something I'm good at (MOV) Tengo habilidad para crear movimientos de danza para la música (DAN) 28. I have never been very good at most musicrelated activities (GEN) Nunca he sido muy bueno/a en la mayor parte de las actividades relacionadas con la música (GEN) *GEN= General musical self-concept; SING= Singing; COM= Composing; LIST= Listening; RE= Reading; PLAY= Playing; MOV= Moving; CAN= Cantar; COM= Componer; ESC= Escuchar; LE= Leer; TOC= Tocar; DAN= Bailar Page 33 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60