Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
Development and validation of a measure assessing children’s
creative practice ability in music
He Jiang a, *, Ku Wing Cheong b, Wee Hoe Tan a
a
b
Faculty of Social Sciences & Liberal Arts, UCSI University, No.1, Jalan Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, Cheras 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Institute of Music, UCSI University, No. 1, Jalan Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, Cheras 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Musical creative practice
Music creativity
Quantitative assessment
Musical competency for children
Musical scale design
Developing students’ creative practice ability in music helps them to participate in and under­
stand society and culture. However, existing measures of musical creativity have only addressed
creativity without focusing on practice. This study presents the design and validation of a mea­
sure for assessing children’s creative practical ability in music (ACCPAM) in schooling contexts.
The measure consists of six tasks encompassing various aspects of musical creative practice. Five
factors were used to assess students’ musical creative practice behaviors: Musical Completeness,
Musical Richness, Musical Personality, Musical Affectivity, and Musical Culturality. Scoring
criteria and rubrics were established for each dimension to ensure reliable and valid assessment.
The measure was evaluated by experts (N = 5) and pilot-tested with a sample of students (N = 50)
and teachers (N = 2) who scored their tasks with ACCPAM utilized. The results showed satis­
factory content validity, discriminant validity, and inter-judge reliability, with some areas for
improvement. The measure provides a comprehensive and reliable instrument for musical crea­
tive practical ability assessment. Future research could incorporate qualitative interpretations of
individual factors along with quantitative measurements, expanding evaluation methodologies
and incorporating peer perspectives.
1. Introduction
Assessment is one of the thorniest issues in creative teaching. Differing ideas of creativity frequently undergird the methodologies
and standards for measuring originality (Craft, 2001), and agreement on what constitutes creativity in music is still a difficult, hotly
debated, and understudied topic (Jeanneret & Forrest, 2008). The Measurement of Creative Thinking in Music (MCTM) was developed
by Webster in 1994. It is likely the most well-known and extensively studied tool for evaluating musical creativity. The student is asked
to execute a series of compositions and improvisations based on make-believe scenes in the MCTM. The learner responds to these
prompts using a foam ball on a keyboard, their voice in a microphone, or temple blocks, creating sounds such as a robot in the shower, a
frog leaping on lily pads, or a rocket launching into space. The ensuing musical improvisations are recorded and graded on their
musical inventiveness overall as well as their length, adaptability, originality, and syntax (Hickey & Lipscomb, 2006).
As academics realize the importance of practices, contexts, and sociocultural factors in children’s musical creativity process,
numerous experts have noted that the environments for learning music can foster creativity (e.g., Burnard, 2012, 2016; Hickey, 2012;
Webster, 2012). Considering the understanding of the practical essence of musical creativity continues to grow, evaluations of musical
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 1002162543@ucsiuniversity.edu.my (H. Jiang).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101446
Received 28 July 2023; Received in revised form 11 November 2023; Accepted 5 December 2023
Available online 6 December 2023
1871-1871/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
creativity must not only consider the generation of new ideas but also sociocultural engagement and emotional expression (Burnard &
Fautley, 2014). A growing body of research is now adopting a more comprehensive and holistic perspective on the creative processes
and creativity of children (He et al., 2023). Elliott and Silverman (2015) suggest three steps for curriculum evaluation: descriptive,
interpretive, and evaluative. Teachers most frequently utilized formative assessment to examine students’ comprehension of what was
necessary to complete a task rather than judging the quality or worth of the creative output (Bolden et al., 2023; Fautley, 2004).
Creativity can be effectively fostered through assessment, and the purposes of assessment can be for learning or learning (Leong
et al., 2012). The assessment process is more important than the purity of the assessment methodology. The fact that people feel good,
or if possible better, after participating in an assessment is more important than the overall sample size or the assessment (Lonie, 2023).
In addition, evaluation gives young people’s voices a platform and advances our understanding of their cultural citizenship (Peter,
2023). From this perspective, the process of creative musical practice can be studied qualitatively, through interviews, ethnography,
and case studies, to examine the creative context of the creator and the meaning of the products.
These recommendations are suitable for individualized evaluation and are more subjective. However, the obvious disadvantage of
this type of evaluation is that it is not suitable for group studies, especially in the context of schooling, where teachers are confronted
with many students and are unable to evaluate the music-making process in the form of a case study for each student, since it is
particularly difficult or inappropriate for teachers to trace students’ lives outside of school. Based on the circumstances, a suitable
measure needs to be designed.
The purpose of this study was to develop a quantitative measure of creative music practice by assessing the products, and validity
testing of this measure to develop an instrument suitable for assessing creative music practice in schooling contexts.
2. Literature review
The assessment of creativity within music has been a subject of deep inquiry in psychological, educational, and musicological
domains. Scholars have delved into developing and refining quantitative measures that capture the diverse dimensions of musical
creativity, drawing inspiration from foundational works by pioneering figures.
2.1. Quantitative measure scales for musical creativity
Quantitative measures are commonly employed to analyze typical features, such as fluency and originality, evident in the creative
outputs of music production (Music Production Feedback, 2020). One of the pioneering figures in creativity research, Guilford (1950),
identified creative thinking as the fundamental element of creativity and employed measures such as fluency, originality, and flexi­
bility of thought to assess creative aptitude. To evaluate divergent thinking, Torrance (1974) developed the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT), a standardized assessment tool that encompasses four skills. This assessment utilizes both semantic (verbal) and
visual (figurative) information in its two variations. Responses to open-ended tasks in the TTCT are evaluated based on their fluency
(ability to generate multiple responses), creativity (ability to produce unique or unconventional responses), elaboration (ability to
develop or enrich ideas), and flexibility (number of different response categories) (Torrance, 1974, 1984; Torrance & Goff, 1990;
Torrance & Shaughnessy, 1998).
The TTCT underwent several revisions, with significant changes made in the 1984 version. In this version, the Verbal and Figural
TTCT were subdivided into two subtests each, focusing on Fluency and Originality. The Judgmental TTCT was also modified to
enhance objectivity and reliability. The 1990 version introduced a third subtest, Elaboration, which assessed participants’ capacity to
add details and complexity to their creative responses (Kim, 2006).
Presently, many widely used scales for evaluating musical creativity are derived from the procedures and scoring systems devel­
oped by Guilford and Torrance (see Table 1). For example, Webster’s "Measure of Creative Thinking in Music - Version II" (MCTM-II)
includes the following test components: (1) Originality of music, which measures the extent to which musical events are handled
uniquely; (2) Fluency of music, calculated as the duration of musical feedback in seconds; (3) Flexibility of music, assessing the degree
of free transition between musical extremes such as pitch, intensity, and speed; (4) Treatment of musical events, emphasizing a
comprehensive evaluation rather than focusing on specific sections (Webster, 1994).
Other tests, such as the Measures of Creativity in Sound and Music (MCSM, Wang, 1985), emphasize fluency and imagination as key
elements of creative thinking. The Measure of Musical Problem Solving (Vold, 1986) employs scoring criteria that encompass musical
fluency and flexibility. Baltzer (1988) reported the validity of MCSM, the inter-item reliability coefficients of MCSM ranging from 0.83
to 0.92, and inter-judge reliability coefficients of 0.99, 0.72, and 0.96 for four activities. Concurrent validity between the MCSM and
Table 1
Evaluation of creativity.
Researchers
Guilford (1950, 1957)/ Lowenfeld
(1958)
Torrance (1984)
Torrance (1998)
Scales
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT)
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT)
2
Scoring
factors
Scoring factors
Fluency
Originality
Fluency
Originality
Fluency
Originality
Scoring factors
Scoring
factors
Flexibility
Elaboration
Flexibility
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
the assessments of music teachers for student creativity yielded correlation coefficients of 0.14 for imagination and 0.43 for fluency.
To measure musical creativity, open-ended task formats designed to assess divergent thinking have proven useful (Kiehn, 2003). In
the aforementioned primary grade musical creativity tests by Vold (1986), Wang (1985), and Webster (1987), two types of open-ended
tasks were employed. The first type involved transferring emotions elicited by stimuli to musical instruments, while the second type
required the child to maintain a steady beat or respond melodically or rhythmically to a given stimulus (Wang, 1985; Webster, 1987).
2.2. Scoring factors for musical creativity
Researchers have devised scales for measuring different aspects of musical creativity. Table 2 shows which dimensions were
retained in the researchers’ scales since they investigated the same dimensions from several perspectives.
"Extensiveness" was interpreted directly as the length of the music in Webster’s (1990) assessment- that is, the length of the music
that the participant improvised in response to the proposed musical theme.
The musical creativity test scales shown in Table 2 are based on a psychological test of creative thinking, in which the "musical
fluency" scale is widely used. "Fluency" is based on the number of problem-solving solutions produced over time, and is applied to
musical creativity scores, the number of music pieces produced over time. In Vold’s (1986) scale, "Fluency" is interpreted as the
number of pieces of music (i.e., the length of music) freely composed with six musical materials (sand hammer, triangle, microphone,
etc.) and the number of fixed patterns improvised. In Webster’s (1990) measure, "Fluency" was replaced by "Extensiveness" and
"flexibility" was interpreted directly as the length of the music, and the length of the subject.
"Flexibility" is used in both Vold’s (1986) and Webster’s (1990) scales and refers to the amount of variation in intensity, tempo, and
pitch that is reflected in the music created. Unlike creativity’s original interpretation of flexibility (which originally referred to the
ability to change some ideas and materials to different uses), this scale is integrated with the music proper and is reflected in the degree
of flexibility in the use of musical elements and their variations. Torrance (1966) understood elaboration as the refinement of a product
or idea and its continuity, and Webster (1990) developed the concept as a musical syntax (the logical and systematic nature of the
whole musical piece).
However, regardless of the development of quantitative musical creativity tests, scholars have focused on creative thinking and
sound, and they have focused on the length of time to create content, the new ideas contained in the creative work, the fluency of the
creative work, and the technical richness. All scales do not consider the emotional, social, and cultural factors associated with the
practice of music creation from the perspective of the music. Therefore, there is a need to investigate a new scale that focuses on
students’ creative musical practice as a response to the contemporary educational field’s cultivation of students’ practical competency.
3. Development of the new measure
In psychology and developmental studies, the term "children" typically refers to young individuals in the early stages of life.
Children undergo significant physical, cognitive, social, and emotional growth during these stages (Chaplin & John, 2007; Berk, 2022).
Eccles (1999) reveals that middle childhood and early adolescence, or the years 6 to 14, are critical developmental milestones that
shape children’s sense of self. In these years, children move towards adulthood by becoming competent, independent, self-aware, and
engaged in the world outside of their families. Biological and cognitive changes alter children’s bodies and minds. Social relationships
and roles change dramatically as children join programs, enter schools, and interact with peers and adults outside of their families.
During middle childhood, children develop a sense of self-worth and individuality, comparing themselves with their peers, they learn
to expect they will succeed or fail at multiple tasks and they also develop an orientation towards achievement that will colour their
future.
Considering the evolution of children’s musical abilities, cognitive capacities, and their unique approaches to creative expression,
ACCPAM is designed to be used with children ages 8–14, as children after the age of 8 have mastered a certain amount of musical
language that can be used for creative musical expression. this section focuses on the design and validation of a measure meticulously
crafted to assess and comprehend the creative practice of children in the musical domain. The intention is to create a measure that
encapsulates the particularities of children’s creative engagement with music, acknowledging their developmental nuances and
providing a measure framework that aligns with their distinct psychological and musical progressions.
Table 2
Evaluation of musical creativity.
Researchers
Scales
Scoring factors
Vaughan (1971)
Wang (1986)
Test of Musical Creativity
The Measure of Creativity in Sound and
Music
Measure of Musical Problem Solving
The Measure of Creative Thinking in
Music
Creative Behavior Inventory
Musical Fluency
Musical fluency
Vold (1986)
Webster (1990)
Kaufman and Baer
(2004)
Musical Fluency
Musical
Extensiveness
3
Scoring factors
Scoring factors
Scoring
factors
Imagination
Musical Flexibility
Musical Flexibility
Openness to
Experience
Musical
Originality
Risk-taking
Musical
syntax
Curiosity
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
3.1. Measure objectives
The design and validation of a measure of ACCPAM require a strong theoretical foundation to understand the nature and
boundaries of ACCPAM. Since it is embodied in the acts of composing, improvising, and arranging and is involved in the construction
of the larger realities in which performance and listening occur, musical creativity underscores all forms of musical engagement across
cultural domains (Hennessey et al., 1999). This section presents a theoretical framework that encompasses key objectives of the
measure design, which include Composition and Improvisation, Performance, and Sociocultural factors (Barrett, 2005; Csikszent­
mihalyi, 1997a; Harwood, 1998; Sawyer, 1999).
Composition and improvisation have been central areas of investigation in studying children’s creativity in music education
(Barrett, 2005; Harwood, 1998; Burnard & Power, 2013; Hickey & Lipscomb, 2006). Composition involves arranging and structuring
musical elements such as melody, harmony, rhythm, and instrumentation. Tasks of varying levels of guidance have been utilized to
explore children’s compositional abilities, aiming to provide creative experiences, develop musical thinking and understanding, and
enhance the teaching of composition as a musical process. For example, at the end of the spring trip, students express their under­
standing of the season through musical compositions; they can obtain musical materials from their observations of nature, and they can
express their feelings about the spring trip.
Improvisation, on the other hand, refers to the spontaneous creation of music without prior planning or written notation. Re­
searchers have examined improvisational tasks that offer opportunities for children to freely explore their musical ideas and make
immediate decisions based on the musical context. Understanding children’s improvisational abilities helps uncover their engagement
and expression through spontaneous musical creation. For example, after the teacher hums the melody of a phrase, the students
improvise to pick up the next phrase. Such an activity can be in a context created by the teacher, but not given to the students to think
in advance but to create directly.
Performance in children’s music classrooms involves the interpretation and communication of musical works through the act of
performing. It includes both individual performances and collective group processes. Performance creativity can be aligned with
improvisation, but it also recognizes that creativity can arise when interpreting established, "scripted" musical works. Performances
can range from relatively improvised to relatively prepared, and all social and collective performances involve elements of impro­
visation. For example, students independently find partners to form a small band, divide the work after the small band deliberation,
and each chooses the appropriate small instruments to cooperate in music creation and performance.
Conceptions of creativity are culturally based and influenced by sociocultural factors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a). The influence of
sociocultural factors on creative practices in music is significant and encompasses societal judgments and practices within social,
cultural, and activity systems. Culture, society, and personal background shape the systems model of creativity. Furthermore, social
Fig. 1. The Measure Factors of ACCPAM in Elliott and Silverman’s (2015) The Way of Musical Creative Practice.
4
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
elements play a crucial role in creative performance, as emphasized by Sawyer (1999), indicating their significance alongside moti­
vational, cognitive, and developmental factors. Social aspects contribute to the dimensionality of creative music practice ability.
By considering the theoretical underpinnings of ACCPAM, including composition, improvisation, performance, and sociocultural
factors, the developed measure aims to provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of children’s creative practice abilities in the
context of music education. It allows for a holistic evaluation of children’s musical creativity, considering their engagement with
musical materials, techniques, conventions, and sociocultural contexts.
3.2. Rationale for the selected factors in the measure
Unlike tests of creative thinking in music, which primarily focus on the generation of new ideas and originality, tests centered on
creative practice in music place greater emphasis on the act of creating music and the student’s work. The choice of specific factors in
the measure, such as Musical Completeness (MCo), Musical Richness (MR), Musical Personality (MP), Musical Affectivity (MA), and
Musical Culturality (MCu), is based on the rationale that these factors are more relevant and meaningful in assessing creative music
practice (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 is based on Elliott and Silverman (2015) constructed map of ways of practicing music (p. 101), it has been
enhanced to include additional elements that may arise from the process of creative practice to assess musical ability.
Musical Completeness (MCo) replaces the concept of musical extensiveness in thinking about musical creativity. The measure
recognizes that scoring students solely based on the length of time it takes to create content loses its significance in the context of
creative practice. Instead, the focus is on the notion that the work created by the student reflects their creative practice, and its
completeness is a better indicator of their practice. This perspective acknowledges that the student’s work expresses their intentions
comprehensively, and the duration of the creative process is not the determining factor.
Similarly, the replacement of musical flexibility with Musical Richness (MR) in the measure aligns with the understanding that
flexibility and adherence to musical syntax do not necessarily provide meaning to musical composition in practice. The measure
recognizes that all musical skills and elements serve the purpose of expressing ideas and emotions in practice. It emphasizes that
creativity in music is a human endeavor, and assessing musical practice requires considerations beyond mere flexibility, as it is the
student’s unique expression of ideas and emotions that carries significance.
In contrast to measures of musical creative thinking that emphasize students’ originality, the measure of musical creative practice
de-emphasizes originality. The rationale behind this choice is that, in practice, the ability to generate new ideas is less crucial
compared to the student’s capacity to demonstrate their unique musical temperament and personal personality traits through their
work. Creative practice involves individuals as social beings, who should know themselves and express their uniqueness in their
practical musical expressions. Hence, the inclusion of Musical Personality (MP) in the measure reflects the recognition that creative
practice competency is multi-dimensional, encompassing the expression of personal musical identity.
Furthermore, the measure acknowledges the importance of students’ understanding of society, culture, and the emotions conveyed
through their musical compositions. Assessment and research need to be adapted to the context and culture. Participant assessments
need to utilize a variety of different formats to ensure that different people are involved (Burnard, 2023). These aspects, often
overlooked in tests of creative musical thinking, are considered significant components of creative musical practice. Thus, the inclusion
of Musical Culturality (MCu) and Musical Affectivity (MA) in the measure aims to assess students’ competency in creative practice,
recognizing that cultural understanding and emotional expression play vital roles. While cultural and affective elements are typically
regarded as qualitative aspects, in the context of schooling, teachers can translate the degree of culturality and affectivity into
quantitative data by applying their professional perspectives. This facilitates the documentation and reference of student development,
ensuring the incorporation of these dimensions in the quantitative assessment of creative musical practice.
By selecting and operationalizing these factors, the measure aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced assessment of students’
creative practice competency in music, considering the specificities and relevance of musical creation within the educational context
(Barrett, 2005; Harwood, 1998).
3.3. Measure contents and individual assessment factors
The measurement is divided into three parts: Music perception and response, Creative collaboration and engagement, and Socio-cultural
observation and expression. Students complete their work in these three logical stages. Students’ creative practice is considered through
quantitative scoring of their compositions, as they are intentionally guided to include and reflect their creative practice skills, their
emotions, their personalities, and their cultural understanding and social integration.
In the musical perception and response session, students are asked to compose a melody based on their understanding and the
emotion of the theme after listening to musical material on the same theme from multiple cultures. Students are asked to perform an
improvised dance performance to the music while listening to a melody.
In the creative collaboration and engagement session, students are asked to participate in two collaborative creative music practice
activities. One is a collaborative response to a melody in which the teacher sings a phrase of the melody and the students improvise a
catchphrase. In a different exercise, students are grouped into smaller units, each selecting a compact instrument to create a miniorchestra and collectively interpreting a melody provided by the instructor.
In the sociocultural observation and expression session, after getting familiar with a given melody, students fill in the lyrics for the
melody according to their understanding to make the melody a song. Students are also encouraged to observe nature life, and then
compose a complete musical piece after being assigned a theme by the teacher.
Students are scored on all stages of musical behavior, and scoring must be done by professionals who understand the meaning of
5
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
these factors and can identify them in the student’s musical behavior. Five factors were used to assess students’ creative music practice
behaviors, which considers musicality and refers to the definition of the attributes of creative music practice in the relevant literature.
Musical Completeness: The degree of completeness of the work or performance.
Musical Richness: The extent to which richness of the musical language (rhythm, melodic organization, tune structure, tonality) is
embodied in the work.
Musical Personality: The extent to which the work reflects a personal creative style.
Musical Affectivity: The extent to which personal emotional attitude is embodied in the musical composition.
Musical Culturality: The extent to which socio-cultural understanding of the creator is reflected in the musical work.
MCo and MR are used to focus on the creative skills of the work, and MP and MA are used to emphasize student subjectivity, which
is the practice’s focus on the person. MCu is used to focus on whether students can show what they understand about society and
culture in their work.
4. Methodology
4.1. Research design
This study employed a step-by-step research design to develop and validate a measure of ACCPAM. The research process involved
three stages, including content development, expert validation, and pilot testing.
The initial stage of the research design involved conducting a thorough literature review on creativity in music and existing
measures. This literature review aimed to establish a solid conceptual framework by identifying relevant dimensions and factors that
contribute to ACCPAM. The findings from the literature review informed the subsequent stages of the research design.
Based on the conceptual framework derived from the literature review, specific dimensions were identified, including Musical
Completeness, Musical Richness, Musical Personality, Musical Affectivity, and Musical Culturality. Within each dimension, items were
generated to comprehensively capture the construct of children’s creative practice ability in music.
Expert validation was a crucial step in the research design. Five experts in the fields of music education and child development were
invited to evaluate the measure. The experts provided quantitative correlation scores and qualitative comments on the individual items
and overall processes of the measure. This expert validation process aimed to ensure content validity and refine the conceptual
framework of the measure based on expert insights (Lynn, 1986).
Following expert validation, a pilot testing phase was conducted to assess the feasibility and reliability of the measure (DeVellis &
Thorpe, 2021). Fifty students (N = 50) from an elementary school were selected to participate in the pilot test. The measure was
administered to the students during music creative practice tasks, and teachers responsible for implementing the tasks used the
measure to assess the children’s performance across the identified dimensions. The scores assigned by the teachers were recorded as
the children’s data for analysis.
4.2. Measure process
Based on the children’s psychological characteristics, the measure was designed to test the children’s musical creative practices
with 6 tasks (Appendix 1). These tasks focus on the diversity of forms and contents of musical creative practice. The synthesis reflects
children’s competency in musical creative practice. Table 3 demonstrates the content structure of the test.
Each of the five dimensions of the children’s music creative practice ability assessment was quantified into a score, with each
dimension totaling 10 points (Table 4). Ratings were derived from student scores for completion of the six music creative practice
tasks. The dimensions were selected based on the content characteristics of each task. Task 6 was complete thematic songwriting, and it
accounted for the most points because this task included melody, lyrics, a complete theme, and sociocultural engagement. To make the
scoring results more objective, scoring criteria and rubrics were established for each dimension to ensure a reliable and valid
assessment. The criteria provided clear guidelines for evaluating children’s responses and performance within each dimension,
facilitating consistent and objective scoring. Specific scoring criteria were set for each scoring item of the measure (Appendix 2), and
the experts strictly referred to the criteria when scoring, avoiding subjectivity as much as possible.
Table 3
The content structure of the test.
Sections
Task
Contents
Part 2: Musical Perception and Response
Task 1: Wine Song
Task 2: Lullabies
Task 3: Folk Song
Task 4: Band
Task 5: Army March
Task 6: Spring
Listening and improvising - performance
Composition - song
Listening and improvising - melody
Arranging and performance
Composition - lyrics
Composition - song
Part 2: Creative Collaboration and Engagement
Part 3: Socio-cultural Observation and Expression
6
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
Table 4
The weighting of scoring in the measure.
Tasks
MCo
Task 1 Wine Song
Task 2 Lullabies
Task 3 Folk Song
Task 4 Band
Task 5 Army March
Task 6 Spring
Total
Impromptu Performance
Melodic Composition
Improvisation
Collaboration and Performance
Lyrics Composition
Composition
2
2
6
10
MR
2
2
MP
MA
2
2
2
2
2
6
10
6
10
4
10
MCu
4
6
10
4.3. Sample selection and recruitment
4.3.1. Expert selection
Five experts in the field of music education were invited to participate in the evaluation of the scale. These experts were selected
based on their extensive knowledge and experience in the domain of music education, particularly concerning children’s musical
creative practice competency. The experts were identified through their academic affiliations, publications, and professional networks.
They were contacted individually and provided with a detailed description of the study’s objectives and their expected role in eval­
uating the scale.
4.3.2. Student selection
Fifty students (N = 50) were selected to participate in the pilot test of ACCPAM. The participants were recruited from an ordinary
elementary school. Students are in K4 and have a diverse representation across different classes within the school.
4.4. Data collection and analysis
The validity analysis of the ACCPAM measure was based on the results of the expert’s review and the pilot test on the 50 students.
Data analysis was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28.
Content validity involves the adequacy of item sampling to test whether a particular set of items reflects domain content. The Item
Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was calculated for each factor based on the expert ratings. An I-CVI greater than 0.75 is considered to
have high content validity (Hinkin, 1995; Polit & Beck, 2006).
Discriminant validity refers to whether the dimensions of a scale can be distinguished from other unrelated dimensions. The
discriminant validity of the ACCPAM measure was assessed by examining the correlation coefficients between the factors. Low cor­
relations between the factors suggest good discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019; Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Inter-judge reliability was assessed by having two experts independently score the tasks of the 50 students using the ACCPAM
measure. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was used to measure inter-judge reliability. Higher values indicate greater agreement among the
evaluators (Gwet, 2014).
Each of the five dimensions of the ACCPAM measure was quantified into a score, with each dimension totaling 10 points. Specific
scoring criteria and rubrics were established for each dimension to ensure a reliable and valid assessment. The criteria provided clear
guidelines for evaluating children’s responses and performance within each dimension, facilitating consistent and objective scoring.
5. Results
The validity analysis of the measure was calculated based on the results of the expert’s review of the measure and the results of the
measure’s pilot test on 50 students.
5.1. Content validity
To obtain the validity of the structure and content of the measure, five experts in the relevant fields were invited to evaluate the
measure. They participated in this assessment anonymously. The results of this study are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Content validity evaluation for factors from experts.
MCo
MR
MO
MA
MCu
I - CVI / ave
Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5
I - CVI
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
.8
1
.8
.92
Note: 1: Highly unrelated, 2: Unrelated, 3: Weakly related, 4: Relatively related, 5: Highly related; ave = average.
7
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
Expert 1: Professor. His field of study is child psychology.
Expert 2: Associate Professor. Her field of study is music curriculum design.
Expert 3: Associate Professor. His field of study is vocal performance and teaching.
Expert 4: Senior primary school music teacher. She has over 10 years of primary school music teaching experience.
Expert 5: Associate Professor. Her field of study is music education theory.
Based on the above calculations, the ICVI for this scale is 0.92. In general, an I - CVI greater than 0.75 is considered to have high
content validity. Thus, this scale shows relatively high content validity for a given expert rating.
5.2. Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity refers to whether the dimensions of a scale can be distinguished from other unrelated dimensions. To assess
the discriminant validity of the ACCPAM, we need to look at the correlation coefficients between the factors.
The correlation coefficients between the dimensions in Table 7 were not very high and did not appear to be close to 1, which
suggests that this scale performs well in terms of discriminant validity. For example, the correlation between MCo and MR was 0.34,
MCo and MP were 0.52, MCO and MA were 0.17, and MCo and MCu were 0.41. The correlation coefficient between MR and MP, MCu
and MP is higher than 0.6 but less than 0.7, which is a slightly higher value but still acceptable.
In terms of statistical significance, the significance level (one-tailed) of each correlation coefficient is below 0.01, which means that
these correlations are all significant and they are not due to sampling error.
Taken together, this scale performs better in terms of discriminant validity, the correlations between the dimensions are low, and
they can be better distinguished. This means that the factors are more independent in measuring different concepts or characteristics.
5.3. Interjudge reliability
Two teachers (N = 2) scored the tasks of 50 children (N = 50) using ACCPAM and the scoring results of the two experts were tallied.
Inter-judge reliability was calculated for the scoring results of the two experts using SPSS and the results of the analysis are presented in
Table 8.
Table 8 presents the inter-judge reliability for a measure called ACCPAM, and the reliability is assessed using Cohen’s Kappa
coefficient. The table provides information on different aspects of reliability for five different measures: MCo, MR, MP, MA, and MCu.
Since all Cohen’s Kappa values are significant at the 0.01 level, it indicates a high level of inter-judge agreement or reliability for
each of the measures (MCo, MR, MP, MA, and MCu). The SEM values are relatively small, which suggests that the measures are
relatively precise and have high measurement imprecision. The measure ACCPAM demonstrates high inter-judge reliability, as evi­
denced by the significant Cohen’s Kappa values for all five measures (MCo, MR, MP, MA, and MCu). Additionally, the small SEM values
indicate that the measures are precise and have low measurement errors.
6. Discussion
6.1. Summary of the validation
The development and validation of the Children’s Creative Practice Ability in Music (ACCPAM) measure were guided by a theo­
retical foundation that emphasizes the multifaceted nature of musical creativity and its significance in various forms of musical
engagement across cultural domains (Hennessey & Amabile, 1999). The theoretical framework encompassed key objectives of the
measure design, focusing on Composition and Improvisation, Performance, and Sociocultural factors (Barrett, 2005; Harwood, 1998;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b; Sawyer, 1999).
The content development and expert validation stages contributed to establishing the measure’s content validity. The involvement
of experts from relevant fields ensured the measure’s comprehensiveness and relevance in assessing children’s creative practice ability
Table 7
Inter-correlations of each factor in ACCPAM.
MCo
MR
MP
MA
MCu
Correlations
Sig.
Correlations
Sig.
Correlations
Sig.
Correlations
Sig.
Correlations
Sig.
MCo
MR
MP
MA
MCu
1.00
.
.41**
.00
.47**
.00
.19
.08
.41**
.00
.41**
.00
1.00
.
.66**
.00
− 0.05
.36
.55**
.00
.47**
.00
.66**
.00
1.00
.
.34**
.00
.63**
.00
.19
.08
− 0.05
.36
.34**
.00
1.00
.
.16
.12
.41**
.00
.55**
.00
.63**
.00
.16
.12
1.00
.
Note. **p < .01; Sig. = significance.
8
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
Table 8
Cohen’s Kappa Inter-judge Reliability for ACCPAM.
k
SEM
Sig.
MCo
MR
MP
MA
MCu
.76
.04
.00
.74
.07
.00
.76
.07
.00
.60
.08
.00
.71
.07
.00
Note. k = Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient; SEM = Standard Error of Mean; Sig. = Significance.
in music. The high Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) of 0.84 further supports the measure’s content validity, indicating that the items
reflect domain content and are well-suited to assess the targeted construct.
The assessment of discriminant validity reveals that the measure’s dimensions are well-distinguished from one another, and their
correlations are relatively low, indicating that they measure different concepts and characteristics independently. These findings are
consistent with previous research, emphasizing the importance of clear differentiation between dimensions in measuring distinct
facets of a construct.
The measure’s high inter-judge reliability, as evidenced by significant Cohen’s Kappa values for all five measures (MCo, MR, MP,
MA, and MCu), underscores the consistency and agreement among expert evaluators in scoring the children’s musical creative practice
ability. The small Standard Error of Measurement values indicates a precise and dependable measurement of the children’s creative
practice ability, minimizing measurement error. Making the rubric clearer and more instructive in future ACCPAM utilization practices
can further improve inter-judge reliability.
6.2. Implications of the study
The measure’s focus on creative practice rather than creative thinking aligns with the understanding that creativity in music is best
evaluated through the act of creating music and the embodiment of a student’s work (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). As researchers
pointed out, effective evaluation and feedback loops significantly aid in students’ improvement and creativity (Bolden & DeLuca,
2022; Veloso & Carvalho, 2012), and authentic assessment and feedback techniques need to be based on each student’s distinct learner
and creator profile as well as the specific musical context of each composition (Deutsch, 2016). The selected factors in ACCPAM, such
as Musical Completeness, Richness, Personality, Affectivity, and Culturality, are specifically tailored to capture and assess creative
music practices effectively. By shifting the focus from originality to the student’s unique expression of ideas, emotions, and cultural
understanding, the measure offers a comprehensive and nuanced assessment of children’s creative practice ability in music (Barrett,
2005; Harwood, 1998).
The three-stage design of the measure, encompassing a) Music Perception and Response, b) Creative Collaboration and Engage­
ment, and c) Socio-cultural Observation and Expression, effectively capture multiple dimensions of creative music practice. The in­
clusion of these stages allows for a holistic evaluation of students’ musical creativity, considering their interaction with musical
materials, techniques, conventions, and sociocultural contexts (Barrett, 2005; Harwood, 1998). The assessment hopefully encourages
learning and advances students’ paths to creative self-expression.
6.3. Limitations and further exploration recommendations
The limitations embedded within the present study’s design warrant a more in-depth and critical discussion to foster a compre­
hensive understanding of the constraints surrounding ACCPAM.
The measure’s reliance on evaluating children’s musical creative practice primarily within the structured confines of school ed­
ucation underscores a crucial epistemological limitation. While the current study emphasizes school-based activities, there exists a
need to acknowledge the broader contexts influencing children’s musical creative behaviors. A sense of creative self and creative
identity is constructed out of the discourse of music creativities as cultural production, which is the common denominator for con­
ducting research into the social construction of music creativities and for determining what renders distinctive creativities in music
(Burnard, 2016). Future research endeavors should seek to investigate the variances in creative music practices across diverse settings,
integrating ethnographic approaches to capture the multifaceted nature of musical engagement beyond institutional boundaries. This,
in turn, would contribute to a richer understanding of the interplay between contextual influences and creative musical expressions.
Moreover, the prevalent product-centric evaluation, focusing predominantly on the outcomes of children’s musical creative en­
deavors, restricts a comprehensive understanding of the underlying creative processes. Future studies should embrace a paradigm
shift, adopting a more process-oriented approach to capture the iterative nature of creative musical exploration. Integrating mixedmethod research designs to include both quantitative assessments of creative musical outputs and qualitative interpretation of the
underlying creative processes would offer a more holistic perspective. Future research could delve into utilizing the ACCPAM to
validate the impact of pedagogical interventions on students’ musical creative practice ability. Employing quasi-experimental designs,
interventions could be implemented within educational contexts, allowing for the quantification and qualitative exploration of the
measure’s responsiveness to pedagogical influences.
To further enhance the ACCPAM, future research should consider incorporating peer evaluations, and introducing a peerassessment component. Such an inclusion would foster a more student-centric evaluative framework, providing a diversified and
multi-perspective understanding of children’s creative musical practices. This integration will contribute to the refinement and
9
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
enrichment of the measure, fostering a comprehensive understanding of the diverse facets of musical creativity within a peer-learning
context. These recommendations, emphasizing theoretical and methodological advancements, aim to elevate the ACCPAM ’s utility
and applicability, enriching our understanding of children’s musical creative practice within diverse educational and social contexts.
7. Conclusion
The development and validation of the Children’s Creative Practice Ability in Music (ACCPAM) measure, grounded in a strong
theoretical framework and guided by a comprehensive research design, offer valuable insights into the assessment of children’s
musical creativity within the context of music education. The measure’s focus on creative practice, encompassing Composition and
Improvisation, Performance, and Sociocultural factors, provides a holistic evaluation of students’ musical creativity, capturing the
interplay between musical engagement, expression, and cultural understanding. The measure’s content validity, discriminant validity,
and inter-judge reliability confirm its robustness and effectiveness in assessing children’s creative practice ability in music. The
measure’s development holds significant implications for music educators, researchers, and policymakers, as it offers a reliable and
comprehensive tool to foster creativity and enhance music education programs for young learners. Nevertheless, it is essential to
acknowledge the measure’s limitations, including its product-centered nature and focus on school-based activities. Future research
could explore ways to capture the iterative and developmental aspects of children’s musical creativity and consider peer evaluations to
gain additional perspectives on their creative practice.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All participants took part voluntarily and gave written informed consent to their participation. All data were collected and analyzed
anonymously. The study was by the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
He Jiang: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Ku Wing Cheong: Resources, Supervision,
Writing – review & editing. Wee Hoe Tan: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix 1. Summary of the ACCPAM
Part 1: Music Perception and Response
Task 1 Wine Song
Let’s listen to a piece of music from a distant minority and imagine that you are one of them and will dance with them. The first
time, please listen to the original music quietly and completely, and the second time, please move and dance to the melody of the
music.
Task 2 Lullabies
Let’s listen to the Lullabies of different countries and nationalities together and think about what characteristics the lullabies have.
If you were a mother putting her baby to sleep, what kind of melody would you hum to your baby? Please write it down.
Part 2: Creative Collaboration and Engagement
Task 3 Folk Song
Now you will hear a folk singer talking to you in a song in the mountains. When you hear him ask you a question with a melody,
please create a melody in response to him after a short thinking or immediately improvise.
Task 4 Band
Please form a team with your classmates and choose a musical instrument (sand hammer/banging bell/double bell/bell drum/
triangle/mouth organ, etc.) to form a small band to accompany the melody provided by the teacher.
Part 3: Socio-cultural Observation and Expression
Task 5 Army March
Now we will hear the solo piano piece "Army March" from the Austrian composer Schubert. After listening to the theme melody of
the piece, please fill in the lyrics for the melody to make it a complete song.
Task 6 Spring
Let’s go outdoors together and feel the beautiful scenery of spring (or other seasons). What kind of feelings does spring bring to you?
10
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
Think about what poems and songs we have learned about spring. Please write down the spring in your mind in the form of a song.
Appendix 2. Scoring procedures and criteria of the ACCPAM
I. Part One: Factors of Musical Completeness and Musical Richness
Task 3 Folk Song
MCo1: Score based on the degree of completeness and engagement in the musical response. (Total number of possible points: 2).
0 points: The response lacks substantial completion and engagement, with significant missing elements or incomplete sections.
1 point: Be able to improvise a melody in response, but the melody does not logically fit well with the phrases given by the teacher,
or the melody is not a complete phrase.
2 points: Be able to respond by improvising a melody, which has good logic and integrity with the phrases given by the teacher.
MR1: Score based on the extent of richness in the musical language (e.g. Rhythm, melodic organization, tune structure, and to­
nality) embodied in the response. (Total number of possible points: 2).
0 points: The response lacks richness in the musical language, with minimal or no variation in rhythm, melodic organization, tune
structure, or tonality.
1 point: The response shows some degree of richness in the musical language, with moderate variation in rhythm, melodic or­
ganization, tune structure, or tonality.
2 points: The response demonstrates a high level of richness in the musical language, with significant variation in rhythm, melodic
organization, tune structure, or tonality.
Task 4 Band
MR2: Score based on the extent of richness in the musical language (e.g. Rhythm, melodic organization, tune structure, tonality)
embodied in the band performance. (Total number of possible points: 2). Criteria: Same as MR1.
Task 5 Army March
MCo2: Score based on the degree of completeness and engagement in the musical response. (Total number of possible points: 2).
Criteria: Same as MCo1.
Task 6 Spring
MCo3: Score based on the degree of completeness and engagement in the musical response. (Total number of possible points: 6).
0 points: The response displays significant incompleteness and lack of involvement, with major missing elements or sections left
incomplete.
2 points: The response exhibits partial completeness and involvement, with noticeable missing elements or incomplete sections.
4 points: The response is largely complete and actively involved, with minor areas for enhancement.
6 points: The response is complete and involved, showcasing all necessary elements at an exceptional level.
MR3: Score based on the extent of richness in the musical language (e.g. Rhythm, melodic organization, tune structure, tonality)
embodied in the response. (Total number of possible points: 6).
0 points: The response lacks richness in the musical language, with minimal or no variation in rhythm, melodic organization, tune
structure, or tonality.
2 point: The response shows some degree of richness in the musical language, with moderate variation in rhythm, melodic or­
ganization, tune structure, or tonality.
4 points: The response exhibits a high level of richness in the musical language, with significant variation in rhythm, melodic
organization, tune structure, or tonality.
6 points: The response displays an exceptional level of richness in the musical language, with exceptional variation and mastery in
rhythm, melodic organization, tune structure, or tonality.
II. Part Two: Factors of Musical Personality and Musical Affectivity
Task 1 Wine Song
MA1: Score based on the extent to which the response reflects personal creative style and emotional connection. (Total number of
possible points: 2).
0 points: The response lacks a discernible personal creative style and emotional connection.
1 point: The response shows some degree of personal creative style and emotional connection.
2 points: The response strongly reflects a personal creative style and emotional connection, demonstrating a distinct and unique
expression.
Task 2 Lullabies
11
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
MA2: Score based on the extent to which the response demonstrates emotional connection and evokes characteristics of lullabies.
(Total number of possible points: 2).
0 points: The response lacks emotional connection and does not evoke characteristics of lullabies.
1 point: The response shows some degree of emotional connection and evokes some characteristics of lullabies.
2 points: The response effectively demonstrates emotional connection and evokes clear characteristics of lullabies.
MP1: Score based on the extent to which the response reflects a personal creative style. (Total number of possible points: 2).
0 points: The response lacks a discernible personal creative style.
1 point: The response shows some degree of personal creative style.
2 points: The response strongly reflects a personal creative style, demonstrating distinct and unique expression.
Task 4 Band
MA2: Score based on the extent to which the response demonstrates emotional connection and evokes characteristics of the band
performance. (Total number of possible points: 2). Criteria: Same as MA2.
Task 5 Army March
MP2: Score based on the extent to which the response reflects a personal creative style. (Total number of possible points: 2).
Criteria: Same as MP1.
Task 6 Spring
MA3: Score based on the extent to which the response demonstrates emotional connection and evokes the feelings associated with
spring. Because the emotional nature of music brings out subjective feelings, scorers can rate on a three-point scale of 0-2-4 after
reviewing all musical works. (Total number of possible points: 4).
0 points: The response lacks emotional connection and does not effectively evoke the feelings(emotions) associated with spring.
2 points: The response shows some degree of emotional connection and partially evokes the feelings(emotions) associated with
spring.
4 points: The response effectively demonstrates emotional connection and strongly evokes the feelings(emotions) associated with
spring.
MP3: Score based on the extent to which the response reflects a personal creative style. Scorers can obtain a clearer definition of MP
in a comparative vision after reviewing all the musical works and then scoring them according to the following scoring criteria. (Total
number of possible points: 6).
0 points: The response lacks a discernible personal creative style.
2 point: The response shows some degree of personal creative style.
4 points: The response demonstrates a distinct personal creative style.
6 points: The response strongly reflects a highly unique and original personal creative style, showcasing exceptional artistic
expression.
III. Part Three: Musical Culturality
Task 5 Army March
MCu2: Score based on the extent to which the lyrics written by the student reflect the theme and characteristics of the "Army March"
melody. (Total number of possible points: 4).
0 points: The lyrics do not effectively reflect the theme and characteristics of the "Army March" melody.
2 points: The lyrics partially reflect the theme and characteristics of the "Army March" melody.
4 points: The lyrics effectively reflect the theme and characteristics of the "Army March" melody, demonstrating a clear under­
standing of the socio-cultural context.
Task 6 Spring
MCu3: Score based on the extent to which the response reflects socio-cultural understanding and incorporates elements from poems
and songs about spring. (Total number of possible points: 6).
0 points: The response lacks socio-cultural (natural environment) understanding and does not incorporate elements from poems
and songs about spring.
2 points: The response shows some socio-cultural (natural environment) understanding and incorporates elements from poems and
songs about spring.
4 points: The response effectively demonstrates socio-cultural (natural environment) understanding and incorporates multiple
elements from poems and songs about spring.
12
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
6 points: The response strongly reflects socio-cultural understanding and skillfully incorporates a wide range of elements from
poems and songs about spring, demonstrating a deep understanding of the socio-cultural context (natural environment).
References
Baltzer, S. (1988). A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36(4), 232–249.
Barrett, M. (2005). A systems view of musical creativity. Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues, 177-195.
Berk, L. E. (2022). Infants, children, and adolescents. SAGE Publications.
Bolden, B., & DeLuca, C. (2022). Nurturing student creativity through assessment for learning in music classrooms. Research Studies in Music Education, 44(1),
273–289.
Bolden, B., Rickey, N., & DeLuca, C. (2023). Nurturing musical creativity through assessment for learning. Music Educators Journal, 109(4), 18–26.
Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford University Press.
Burnard, P., & Fautley, M. (2014). Assessing diverse creativities in music (pp. 254–267). Abingdon: Routledge.
Burnard, P. (2016). Rethinking ‘musical creativity’ and the notion of multiple creativities in music. Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 27–50).
Routledge.
Burnard, P., & Power, A. (2013). Issues in conceptions of creativity and creativity assessment in music education. In K. Thomas, & J. Chan (Eds.), Handbook of research
in creativity (pp. 158–172). Edward Elgar.
Burnard, P. (2023). Translating evaluation and research into practice: What matters for socially engaged arts programs in and beyond schools. In P. Dale, P. Burnard,
& R. Travis, Jr. (Eds.), Music for inclusion and healing in schools and beyond: Hip hop, techno, grime, and more. Oxford University Press.
Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a material world: Age differences in materialism in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4),
480–493.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention, 39 pp. 1–16). New York: HarperPerennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial.
Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 51(2), 1–37.
Deutsch, D. (2016). Authentic assessment in music composition: Feedback that facilitates creativity. Music Educators Journal, 102(3), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0027432115621608
DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 30–44.
Elliott, D., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Fautley, M. (2004). Teacher intervention strategies in the composing processes of lower secondary school students. International Journal of Music Education, 22(3),
201–208.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative ability in the arts. Psychological Review, 64(2), 110–118.
Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Dependence techniques–Metric outcomes. multivariate data analysis (8th ed., p. 316). Hampshire: Cengage
Learning EMEA.
Harwood, E. (1998). Go on girl! Improvisation in African-American girls’ singing games. In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation (pp.
113–125).
He, J., Wing, C. K., & Hoe, T. W. (2023). The cultivation of children’s musical creative practical competency: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, Article
101309.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (1999). Consensual assessment. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1, 347–359.
Hickey, M. (2012). Music outside the lines: Ideas for composing in K-12 music classrooms. Oxford University Press.
Hickey, M., & Lipscomb, S. D. (2006). How different is good? How good is different? The assessment of children’s creative musical thinking. Musical Creativity:
Multidisciplinary Research in Theory and Practice, 97–110.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988.
Jeanneret, N., & Forrest, D. (2008). Policy and music education: A new culture of creativity. Music education policy and implementation. International perspectives, 85–96.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 14(2), 15–25.
Kiehn, M. T. (2003). Development of music creativity among elementary school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(4), 278–288.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14.
Leong, S., Burnard, P., Jeanneret, N., Leung, B. W., & Waugh, C. (2012). Assesing creativity in music: International perspectives and practices. Creativities, technologies,
and media in music learning and teaching: An oxford handbook of music education. Oxford University. Volume 5.
Lonie, D. (2023). Untangling earphones: Power, voice, and agency in participatory music evaluation. In P. Dale, P. Burnard, & R. Travis, Jr. (Eds.), Music for inclusion
and healing in schools and beyond: Hip hop, techno, grime, and more. Oxford University Press.
Lowenfeld, V. (1958). Current research on creativity. NEA Journal, 47(8), 538–540.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386.
Peter, B. (2023). Evaluating young people’s voices in spoken word popular music projects. In P. Dale, P. Burnard, & R. Travis, Jr. (Eds.), Music for inclusion and healing
in schools and beyond: Hip hop, techno, grime, and more. Oxford University Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing &
Health, 29(5), 489–497.
Sawyer, R. K. (1999). Improvised conversations: Music, collaboration, and development. Psychology of Music, (27), 192–205.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical-norms manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in the identification of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(4), 153–156.
Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1990). Fostering academic creativity in gifted students. ERIC Clearinghouse.
Torrance, E. P., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (1998). An interview with E. Paul Torrance: About creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 441–452.
Vaughan, M. M. (1971). Music as a model and metaphor in the cultivation and measurement of creative behavior in children. The University of Georgia.
Veloso, A. L., & Carvalho, S. (2012). Music composition as a way of learning: Emotions and the situated self. Musical Creativity: Insights from Music Education Research,
73–92.
Vold, J. N. (1986). A study of musical problem-solving behavior in kindergarten children and a comparison with other aspects of creative behavior. University of Alabama.
Webster, P. R. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal, 76(9), 22–28.
13
Thinking Skills and Creativity 51 (2024) 101446
H. Jiang et al.
Wang, C. (1985). The measure of creativity in sounds and music. (Unpublished manuscript).
Webster, P. (2012). Towards pedagogies of revision: Guiding a student’s music composition. In O. Odena (Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research
(pp. 93–112). Ashgate.
Webster, P. (1987). Refinement of a measure of creative thinking in music. In C. Madsen, & C. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 257–271).
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Webster, P. R. (1994). Measure of Creative Thinking in Music II. MCTM—II): Administrative guidelines.
14