Psychometric analysis shows reliable scales in a Russian-speaking sample, indicating the AEQ-NmA's validity.
Context and relevance. New Media art created using the latest technologies, artificial intelligence for example, transforms traditional ways of artistic expression and gives the viewer a special aesthetic experience, which cannot be measured, because there are no necessary psychodiagnostics tools adapted to the Russian-speaking people. Objective: to conduct a psychometric check of a modified version of the Aesthetic Experience Questionnaire for New Media art — AEQ-NmA on a Russian-speaking sample. Hypothesis. The factor structure of the Russian-language version of AEQ-NmA corresponds to the original version, formed by the following scales: “Emotions”, “Perception”, “Understanding”, “Culture”, “Flow — proximal conditions”, “Flow — experience”; AEQ-NmA has good psychometric indicators, as well as convergent and divergent validity. Methods and materials. A total of 748 respondents aged 16 to 34 years participated in the study (the average age — 19). To assess convergent and divergent validity, the following psychodiagnostics tools were used: the Aesthetic Emotions Scale, the Aesthetic Judgments Scale, the Art Interest Scale, the Short Questionnaire of the Big Five, and the Questionnaire of Attitudes towards Technology. The data were analyzed using Spearman's criterion, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results. The results of the statistical analysis revealed that the AEQ-NmA scales have a normal distribution, high consistency and high discriminativity. The construct validity verification showed a 6-factor structure, which corresponds to the author's version. Conclusions. The AEQ-NmA can be used for research and applied purposes as a reliable and valid tool for assessing the aesthetic experience of New Media art in samples of older adolescents and youth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shestova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: