Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheeler, B. L. (Ed.). (2016) Music therapy handbook. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.I was excited to be approached about writing this review, as I thought it would be a good way to refresh my knowledge and understanding of music therapy.I had high expectations for this handbook when I discovered that it was edited by Barbara Wheeler, as I valued the Clinical training guide for the student music therapist (Wheeler, Shultis, & Polen, 2005).The Music therapy handbook, however, is different from the Clinical training guide. I view the Clinical training guide as a simple and practical book that can guide students and beginning music therapists in the way they plan and deliver music therapy. In contrast, I think this handbook would be better treated as a reference book. It is over 500 pages long, with 37 chapters. There are 53 contributors, and I was pleased to see that there were contributors from a range of countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The book is divided into three parts: overview and issues, orientations and and clinical applications.Part I comprises 10 chapters covering the history and foundations of music therapy, how music is processed in the brain, music therapy methods, and consideration of important issues such as cultural diversity, ethics, developing rigorous assessments, growing the body of research, and providing evidence-based treatment. I was a little disappointed that the first chapter, focusing on music therapy as a profession, only includes two paragraphs on the international scope of music therapy. Additionally, some of the information focuses on United States legislation, while survey data on work settings and client groups is also limited to music therapists from the United States.Some of the highlights from this part of the book include diagrams to show brain processes involved in perceiving music, and a table identifying a range of different assessment tools drawn from music therapy literature. There is also a table that identifies systematic reviews and meta-analyses published up to 2012. I am aware that there have been some important systematic reviews published since then, such as an updated Cochrane review on music therapy for people with autism spectrum disorder (Geretsegger, Elefant, Mossler, & Gold, 2014). Nevertheless, I think this table could be a useful resource to quickly identify sources of research evidence for music therapy for various clinical populations.Part II of the handbook, Orientations and approaches, also has 10 chapters. The first four are concerned with theoretical orientations, including psychodynamic humanistic cognitive-behavioural and developmental approaches. They discuss the history of these theoretical tenets, and their applications in music therapy. The rest of Part II is concerned with specific music therapy models and including NordoffRobbins Music Therapy, the Bonny Method of Guided Imagery and Music, Analytical Music Therapy, Neurologic Music Therapy, Community Music Therapy, and Music Therapy in Expressive Arts. Many of these chapters feature short clinical case examples, which are an engaging way to demonstrate each approach in action. The chapter on NordoffRobbins Music Therapy refers to specific musical excerpts, which are available as an audio download.I was disappointed that there was not a chapter on the Benenzon model of music therapy (Wheeler et al., 2012), even though it was acknowledged that this is an influential model in Latin America and parts of southern Europe. I felt that the inclusion of this approach could have helped to increase the scope and relevance of this handbook for music therapists outside of North America. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".