Ethics declarations. The procedure in this study was approved by the ethical review board of the Institute of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University (NO. SCNU-211015) and according to the ethical guidelines of Helsinki Declaration. All participants took part in this study voluntarily with a written informed online consent form.
Participants. In the initial testing stage, 499 questionnaires were distributed through a data collection platform (www.wenjuan.com). Questionnaires that were completed in less than 1 min or more than 10 min were considered invalid and excluded, resulting in 402 questionnaires (80.56% of the original sample).
In the official test, questionnaires were distributed through a data collection platform (www.wenjuan.com), and 2,277 questionnaires were collected. There were 51 questionnaires were excluded. The final sample included 2,228 participants (97.84% of the original sample). According to the sample requirement of measurement18, random sampling was conducted using SPSS 22.0 to select 10% of the data, creating a subsample of 211 (72 males, 34.1%; 139 females, 65.9%).
In the Test-Retest stage, 57 participants were invited to re-take the questionnaire three weeks later, and 49 completed the second administration (85.96%). Among them, 17 males accounted for 34.7% and 32 females accounted for 65.3%.
Item compilation. A list of 48 potential items was created by analyzing the literature and by conducting one-to-one semi-structured interviews with four groups of people: music teachers, college students majoring in music, people who had received music training, and people who listened to music regularly. Ten experts (5 experts with a Ph.D. in music and 5 experts with a Ph.D. in psychology) suggested and made two rounds of revisions. This process resulted in a total of 45 items for the initial questionnaire. 7-point Likert scale was used. The questions covered music training (5 questions), music-related training (4 questions), music contact (26 questions), demographics (8 questions) and 2 lie detection questions. These initial items were then further analyzed to select the final items for the questionnaire.
Music contact contains two types of questions: exact time and agreement level with regard to the same content. music experience. For example, with regard to listening to music, participants were asked questions about exact time (average number of days that I listened to music per day in the past year (0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 or more); average length of time that I listened to music per day in the past year (0-15 minutes / 15-30 minutes / 30-60 minutes / 60-90 minutes / 90 minutes - 2 hours / 2 - 3 hours / more than 3 hours).) and an agreement level question (I've been listening to music a lot in the past year (totally disagree / somewhat disagree / disagree / neutral / agree / more agree / totally agree).). Eventually, only the exact time type questions were selected based on the results of the initial factor loadings.
Tools and Methods. SPSS Version 22.0 was used for the statistics analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). AMOS 24.0 was used for the confirmatory factory analysis (CFA).
Exploratory factor analysis was used to detect the underlying structure in the initial set of items. Items were excluded if their correlation with the total questionnaire score was less than r = .2; the mean item score exceeded plus or minus three standard deviations from the total score mean; or the item variation was greater than 15%. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was used to test the correlations among items. Bartlett's test of sphericity was used to test the validity of the independent values taken between items. Principal Component Analysis using varimax rotation was used to extract factors. A factor was extracted when the eigenvalue was greater than 1. The number of factors extracted was not limited. Items with factor loadings less than 0.30 or communalities less than 0.20 were deleted, as well as items that had factor loadings on two or more dimensions. This exploration process was repeated several times until coefficient of variation stabilized.
The reliability analysis included the internal consistency reliability and the test-retest reliability. Internal consistency reliability is alpha for each subscale and overall scale. There was an interval of 20 days between the first test and the retest. Confirmatory factor analysis was used as a test of construct validity. The fit indexes were: ratio of cardinality to degrees of freedom (χ2/df), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Root-Meansquare Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR). GFI, AGFI, TFI, CFI fall in the range of 0-1, and a value closer to 1 indicates a better fit. A value of the ratio of cardinality to degrees of freedom χ2/df that is less than 5 indicates an acceptable fit and a value less than 3 indicates a good fit. When the RMSEA is below 0.08, the model fit is better. AVE greater than 0.5 indicates that the latent variables have adequate convergent validity, and CR greater than 0.8 indicates that the items highlight the qualities.