A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF CULTURALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS WITH THAT OF

CULTURALLY HETEROGENEOUS STUDENTS ON THE RIUSICAL APTITUDE PROFILE

EDWIN GORDON

University of Iowa

The validity of a musical aptitude test, such as the Musical Aptitude Projle (MAP) is customarily evaluated in a variety of ways. Longitudinal predictive validity provides evidence of the extent to which tests in the battery measure traits important for future musical success. The degree to which a music teacher can more efficiently provide for individual differences through the use of separate subtest scores bears on the diagnostic properties of the battery. Relationships of test scores to socio-cultural factors are especially important in that such relation- ships aid in determining whether a musical aptitude test which was designed for a culturally heterogeneous population can also be used with confidence for similar purposes with culturally disadvantaged students (i.e. whether there is a “cultural bias” in the tests).

The purpose of this paper is to present recent findings which bear specifically on the performance of culturally disadvantaged students on MAP. Relationships of MAP scores to certain other environmental factors have been investigated and the findings are reported in the MAP Test Manual (1965) and in a special monograph (Gordon, 1967). It has been found that (a) Within-grade correlations between verbal and non-verbal intelligence test scores and MAP Composite scores range from .31 to .44 for students in Grades 4 through 12; (b) Academic achievement test scores correlate somewhat higher, from .27 to .56, with MAP Composite scores; (c) The lack of a favorable musical background (favorable being characterized by membership in a school music performance group and/or exposure to private or group lessons on a musical instrument) is not a limiting factor in attaining scores at the 80th percentile and above on MAP; (d) The effects of consistent and syste- matic extensive instrumental music training over a period of three years does not significantly improve performance on MAP ; Composite scores increase less than one standard score point and the stability coefficient is .77; (e) The relationship of home environmental characteristics to MAP scores is considerably less (generally less than .20) than the relationship of home environmental characteristics to musical achievement test scores (generally greater than .35) ; and (f) There are no consistent or systematic relationships between school size or location and MAP results.

To obtain evidence on the socio-cultural factor, the 1965-66 MAP results of 658 seventh-grade students who were enrolled in two junior high schools in a large north central city were analyzed. The test battery was administered by the regular teachers according to the standardized directions provided in the test manual. The musical aptitude test was used for one particular purpose at that time; to identify musically talented students who could profit most from, and contribute most to, special music programs in the schools. The administrators felt that it was especially important to identify and provide opportunity for these students to participate in school music activities because of their generally unfavorable environmental background. The two schools were selected for the study because

A COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE ON THE MUSICAL APTITUDE PROFILE 261

they are comprised of students who are technically classified as “educationally deprived” under the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, Title 1. Another important research characteristic of the schools is that Negroes constitute more than 90 per cent of the student population.

After the tests were electronically scored at the Measurement Research Center in Iowa City, standard score means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and standard errors of measurement were computed.’

The MAP standard score scale has a range from approximately 20 through 80 based on a standard deviation of 10 for the total Grade range 4-12. A comparison of mean scores obtained for the culturally disadvantaged groups with those obtained from the culturally heterogeneous groups shows that nine of the eleven differences were only one standard score point or less for the musically unselected, as were seven of the eleven differences for the musically select. That these differences are negligible and have no practical significance is particuIarly emphasized by the fact that Composite test mean standard score differences were .7 and .4 for the musically unselected and musically selected groups, respectively. It is interesting to note that only two of the mean differences for the musically unselected groups favored the culturally disadvantaged : Rhythm Imagery-Meter and Musical Sensi- tivity-Balance; for the musically select groups, the mean differences for Tonal Imagery-Harmony and Tonal Imagery-Total favored the culturally disadvantaged group. The largest standard score difference found was for the Musical Sensitivity- Style test (2.6) which favored the musically select culturally heterogeneous group.

Of course, in a comparison study of this type where differences in the test performance of different cultural groups are investigated, consideration of the variability among groups must share prime importance with that of central tendency. The reliability data are overall quite similar for corresponding groups; but more important, the differences in standard deviations were negligible in that they averaged approximately 1.0 and 0.6 for the musically unselected and musically select groups, respectively.

To provide for a more specific comparison of the variability of corresponding groups, the standard score equivalents of selected percentile ranks were obtained. The differences all along the score scale are quite small. The standard score equiva- lents for the same percentile rank are generally no more than one point higher for the musically unselected heterogeneous group than for the musically unselected disadvantaged group; the score distributions for the musically select groups are also quite similar except for the Musical Sensitivity tests, on which the heterogeneous group generally scored two points higher all along the scale.

Of course, it is possible that errors of measurement could be responsible for the small differences among scores. However, there are selective factors which probably influenced test results to a greater extent. For example, test results for musically select students are not directly comparable for the disadvantaged and the hetero- geneous groups because the data presented for the latter group were necessarily based on standardization information for music students collectively for the total

‘Tabular material supplementary to this stud has been deposited as Document Number 9176 with the AD1 Auxiliary Publications Project, Piotoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington 25, D. C. Copies may be secured by citing the Document Number and by remitting $1.25 for photoprints, or $1.25 for 35 mm. microfilm. Advance payment is required. Make checks or money orders payable to: Chief, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress.

262 EDWIN GORDON

7-9 Grade range; whereas, the disadvantaged group was comprised of only music students in Grade 7. With respect to musically unselected students, the hetero- geneous group might have scored a little above the disadvantaged group on the tests because the distributions are based on a sample which included more than one-third musically select students; whereas in the disadvantaged group, only 10 per cent of the students were musically select.

In both groups, the means of the musically select students are only about 4 standard score points higher than those of the musically unselected students, whereas the corresponding standard deviations are more nearly similar in magni- tude. This would seem to indicate that even with a high degree of self-selection (one out of ten) in the two schools, there are, unfortunately, many culturally dis- advantaged musically talented students who are not taking part in school music activities. For example, approximately S per cent of this culturally disadvantaged sample scored above the 90th percentile of the standardization sample (approxi- mately 55 students). Of these only 13 students are in the musically select group.

Although it is apparent that there is a sufficient number of culturally dis- advantaged musically talented students who can be objectively identified for purposes of musical instruction, extra-musical factors nzay specifically affect the degree to which these students will necessarily achieve in music. It is possible that general environmental factors could preclude a culturally disadvantaged musically talented student from achieving according to his potential; conversely, his cognizance of the fact that music is generally regarded as a field in which ability is the prime requisite for success could prove to be a highly compensating factor.

REFERENCES GORDON, E. Musical Aptitude Profile Manual. Boston: Horighton Mifftin, 1965. GORDON, E. A three year longitudinal predictive validity study of the Musical Aptitude Profile. Iowa

City: College of Education, University of Iowa, 1967.