Abstract
AIMS
Quality assessment of studies is essential for the understanding and application of these in systematic reviews and meta analyses, the two “gold standards” of medical sciences. Publications in scientific journals have extensively used assessment scales to address poor methodological quality, forming inclusion criteria or determine sensitivity of controls. Even though these assessments are commonplace in science publications, there is no scale, which assesses the quality of studies in the vast amount of music related sciences.
METHODS
Musiquas is based on the widely used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses and was attuned by the authors to fit the demand of quality assessment in music studies and interventions.
Initially 37 scoring points were included into the scale, distributed across the four main groups; Selection, Control criteria, Exposure and Outcome.
These points were included from music studies addressing the importance of aspects in a methodological context and were compared against points used in the NOS excluding points showing methodological flaws against experimental studies as well as against the NOS.
OUTCOMES
The final scale assesses the quality of music studies and intervention on 26 points divided over the four main groups: Selection, Control criteria, Exposure and Outcome applying a 10-point rating.
IMPLICATIONS
Implications for sciences in music are obvious; from being able to assign more methodological value to a study to implications important for policy makers.
Musiquas was published online, prior to this article, to make it available to researchers worldwide. This procedure gives insight into face and content validity of Musiquas, by receiving comments and critiques of fellow researchers. Evaluation of all remarks is currently in progress.
Additionally, Musiquas was piloted in a systematic review on the relationship of music and the transfer effect
Quality assessment of studies is essential for the understanding and application of these in systematic reviews and meta analyses, the two “gold standards” of medical sciences. Publications in scientific journals have extensively used assessment scales to address poor methodological quality, forming inclusion criteria or determine sensitivity of controls. Even though these assessments are commonplace in science publications, there is no scale, which assesses the quality of studies in the vast amount of music related sciences.
METHODS
Musiquas is based on the widely used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses and was attuned by the authors to fit the demand of quality assessment in music studies and interventions.
Initially 37 scoring points were included into the scale, distributed across the four main groups; Selection, Control criteria, Exposure and Outcome.
These points were included from music studies addressing the importance of aspects in a methodological context and were compared against points used in the NOS excluding points showing methodological flaws against experimental studies as well as against the NOS.
OUTCOMES
The final scale assesses the quality of music studies and intervention on 26 points divided over the four main groups: Selection, Control criteria, Exposure and Outcome applying a 10-point rating.
IMPLICATIONS
Implications for sciences in music are obvious; from being able to assign more methodological value to a study to implications important for policy makers.
Musiquas was published online, prior to this article, to make it available to researchers worldwide. This procedure gives insight into face and content validity of Musiquas, by receiving comments and critiques of fellow researchers. Evaluation of all remarks is currently in progress.
Additionally, Musiquas was piloted in a systematic review on the relationship of music and the transfer effect
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | ‘Setting the Tempo’ - The need for a progressive research programme on Music Health and Wellbeing |
| Editors | M. Shippton, I. Hiomonides |
| Place of Publication | Folkstone |
| Publisher | Canterbury University |
| Pages | 43-44 |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
