Schuster & Mouzon (1982)

 

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison Research—Typical Speakers

KEY: 

eta =   partial eta squared

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SLP = speech-language pathologist

 

SOURCE: Schuster, D. H., & Mouzon, D. (1982). Music and vocabulary learning Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 7 (1), 82-108.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: April 9, 2016

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: no grade assigned—this was not an intervention study.

 

TAKE AWAY: This investigation was not concerned with intervention. Rather, it explored the relationship between music and vocabulary learning in college students. The investigators were extending research seeking to confirm the contention that baroque music facilitated learning of vocabulary and they did confirm the contention.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?

                                                                                                           

  • What was the type of design? Comparison Research; Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Design with Controls

 

  • What was the focus of the research? Essential Research xxxx

                                                                                                           

  • What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence? Not graded because it was not intervention research.

 

                                                                                                           

  1. Group membership determination:

                                                                                                           

  • If there were groups, were participants (Ps) randomly assigned to groups? No
  • If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were experimental conditions concealed?

                                                                                                           

  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from administrators of experimental conditions? No

                                                                    

  • from analyzers/judges? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? No

 

–   How many participants were involved in the study?

 

  • total # of Ps:  288
  • # of groups: 18 groups
  • List names of groups and the number of Ps in each group:

     – Fall semester student, baroque music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, baroque music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, baroque music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, classical music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, classical music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, classical music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, no music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, no music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Fall semester student, no music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

 

     – Spring semester student, baroque music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, baroque music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, baroque music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, classical music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, classical music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, classical music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, no music during acquisition, baroque music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

   – Spring semester student, no music during acquisition, classical music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

     – Spring semester student, no music during acquisition, no music during initial post test = 16-20 Ps (see response to next query)

 

 

– Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? No. Twenty participants were initially assigned to each group. As part of their research plan, the investigators reduced the N to 16 for each group because they expected that not all the Ps would attend the retention post test 7 days after the initial post test. If more than 16 Ps showed up for the retention post test, Ps were randomly pared down to 16.

                                                                                

– The CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS included                         

  • gender: half of each of the 18 groups was male; the other half was female
  • educational level of Ps: Undergraduates enrolled in a psychology class.

 

Were the groups similar? No, the groups differed based on preliminary (screening) scores for vocabulary learning. This difference was corrected in the statistical analysis.  

                                                          ,

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No. It is assumed that the are no communication disorders but this was not verified nor was it mentioned by the investigators.

 

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  • Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes:

Fall Quarter

     – Winter Quarter

                                                               

  • Experimental Conditions? Yes:

     – Type of Music during acquisition: baroque, classical, no music

     – Type of Music during initial post testing: baroque, classical, no music

     – Sequence of Word Lists: Hard-Easy-Hard-Easy, Easy-Hard-Easy-Hard

     – Suggested Level of Difficulty of Words: Hard, Easy

     – Practice: First 2 lists, Last 2 Lists

 

  • Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

– Preliminary (screening) score

     – Gender

 

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? No

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

The dependent measures included

 

NOTE: There were several dependent variables rating affective state. They will not be described in this review.

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Acquisition score: number of words defined on the initial post test
  • OUTCOME #2: Retention score: number of words match 1 week after the initial post testing

 

Both the dependent measures were subjective.

 

Neither of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective.

 

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

  • Interobserver for analyzers? No
  • Intraobserver for analyzers? No
  • Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design: (briefly describe)
  • The investigators recruited 288 college students from undergraduate psychology classes in Fall and Winter Quarters.
  • The investigators administered “easy” preliminary vocabulary tests (with no music) to Ps prior to the experimental condition. This score was used to measure randomness of the assignments to the 18 groups on the basis of basic language learning skill. The scores indicated that the self-assignment was not random. This was corrected for in the statistical analysis.
  • The Ps self-assigned to different music conditions during acquisition and testing of vocabulary. The conditions were baroque, classical, or no music in acquisition and/or initial post testing conditions. This resulted in 9 different acquisition-testing conditions per quarter.
  • For the experimental task,

– Ps listened to a music condition (baroque, classical, no music) for 3 minutes and the rated 3 affective measures.

– Ps then listed to the same music while the investigator taught 25 words in 3 minutes by reading aloud each of the words and providing a definition (acquisition phase).

– After the acquisition phase, Ps rated affect on 3 measures.

– The next phase was the post intervention testing phase, Ps listened to music which could be the same or different from the music during the acquisition phases (i.e., baroque, classical, no music) as they completed the initial post test quiz. The initial post test quiz required the P to write definitions for each of the targeted words.

– After the quiz, the P completed affective measures.

– These procedures were repeated until the P completed 4 word lists of targeted words. The word lists were administered in 2 orders of easy and hard target words:

  • Hard words- Easy words- Hard words- Easy word
  • Easy words- Hard words- Easy words – Hard words
  • 7 days after the initial post intervention quiz, the investigator administered the retention quiz in which Ps matched words that had been taught to definitions using multiple choice procedures.

 

  1. What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

 

– Significant difference among comparisons included

 

  • OUTCOME #1: Acquisition score: number of words defined on the initial post test

– Regarding the music played during the learning portion of the procedures and during the quiz, baroque music had the highest scores followed by classical music and then no music.

– Overall, males improved about the same rate for all music types.

– Overall, females improved more for baroque and classical compared to no music.

 

  • OUTCOME #2: Retention score: number of words matched 1 week after the initial post testing

– Regarding the music played during the learning portion of the procedures ONLY (i.e., not for the initial post intervention quiz), baroque music had the highest scores followed by classical music and then no music.

– Overall, males improved most listening to classical music.

– Females improved more for baroque and classical compared to no music

 

– What were the statistical tests used to determine significance? Neumann-Deuls; Analysis of Covariance xxx

 

– Were effect sizes provided? No

 

– Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. Summary of correlational results: NA

 

 

  1. Summary of Qualitative research: NA

 

 

  1. Brief summary of clinically relevant results:
  • College students learned vocabulary words lists best listening to Baroque music, followed by listening to classical music, and least listening to no music.

 

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:   No grade

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: