Performance Anxiety Inventory for Musicians

146 Pages·2011·3.99 MB·English

Performance Anxiety Inventory for Musicians (PerfAIM):
A New Questionnaire to Assess Music Performance Anxiety in Popular Musicians.

Audrey-Kristel Barbeau
Music Research Department
Schulich School of Music
McGill University, Montreal

June, 2011
A thesis submitted to McGill University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in Music Education

© Audrey-Kristel Barbeau, 2011
Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………... v
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….. vii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………… viii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………... ix
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Background and Rationale……………………………………………………………………. 1
Aims and Objectives………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Chapter 1: Definitions and Theories……………………………………………………….. 4
1.1 Definitions………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1.1 Stress……………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.1.2 Fear………………………………………………………………………………... 6
1.1.3 Anxiety……………………………………………………………………………. 6
1.1.4 Arousal……………………………………………………………………………. 7
1.1.5 Stage Fright……………………………………………………………………….. 8
1.1.6 Music Performance Anxiety………………………………………………………. 8
1.2 Theories………………………………………………………………………………….... 12
1.1.1 Theories from Psychology………………………………………………………... 12
1.1.1.1 Lazarus‘s Theory of Cognitive Appraisal……………………………………... 12
1.1.1.2 Lupien‘s Recipe for Stress: Don‘t Go Nuts!………………………………….. 13
1.1.1.3 Spielberger‘s State-Trait Anxiety Theory…………………………………….. 14
1.1.2 Theories from Sport Psychology…………………………………………………. 14
1.1.2.1 The Yerkes-Dodson Law and Inverted-U Hypothesis………………………… 14
1.1.2.2 Individualized Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF)…………………………..16
1.1.2.3 Multidimensional Anxiety Theory…………………………………………….. 16
1.1.2.4 Catastrophe Model..………………………………………………………….... 17
1.1.2.5 The Four-Stage Stress Process……………………………………………….... 18
1.1.2.6 Model of Facilitative and Debilitative Anxiety..….….……………………….. 19
1.1.3 Music Performance Anxiety Theories …………………………………………... 20
ii
1.1.3.1 Lang‘s Three-System Model of Fear…………………………………………. 21
1.1.3.2 Salmon‘s Theory of MPA…………………………………………………….. 22
1.1.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………. 22
Chapter 2: Review of Literature……………………………………………………………. 25
2.1 Prevalence of MPA among Musicians……………………………………………………. 25
2.1.1 Classical Musicians……………………………………………………………….. 25
2.1.2 Popular Musicians………………………………………………………………… 27
2.1.3 Gender Differences……………………………………………………………….. 28
2.2 Domains…………………………………………………………………………………… 30
2.2.1 Causes of MPA: Situational and Personal Sources of Stress……………………... 30
2.2.2 Temporal Occurrence of MPA……………………………………………………. 34
2.2.3 Direction of MPA…………………………………………………………………. 35
2.2.4 Manifestations of MPA (symptoms)……………………………………………… 37
2.3 Pre-Existing Measures Related to MPA………………………………………………….. 40
2.4 Questionnaire Design and Validation…………………………………………………….. 42
Chapter 3: Methods………………………………………………………………………….. 45
3.1 Overview, Population and Settings…………………………………………………….. 45
3.2 Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………………. 48
3.3 Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………….. 49
3.4 Content Validity………………………………………………………………………… 49
3.5 Face Validity……………………………………………………………………………. 50
3.6 Scores and Means……………………………………………………………………….. 51
3.7 Internal Consistency Reliability………………………………………………………… 51
3.8 Test-Retest Reliability………………………………………………………………….. 52
3.9 Concurrent Criterion-Related Validity………………………………………………….. 52
3.10 Construct Validity (Convergent and Divergent)……………………………………….. 53
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………… 54
4.1 Content Validity………………………………………………………………………….. 54
4.1.1 Item Generation…………………………………………………………………… 54
4.1.2 Item Reduction……………………………………………………………………. 54
4.1.3 Instructions……………………………………………………………………….. 57
iii
4.1.4 Scale………………………………………………………………………………. 58
4.1.5 Score……………………………………………………………………………….58
4.1.6 Format…………………………………………………………………………….. 59
4.1.7 Domains…………………………..………………………………………………. 59
4.2 Face Validity………………………………………………………………………………. 62
4.2.1 Main construct……………………………………………………………………. 62
4.2.2 Domains………………………………………………………………………….. 62
4.2.3 Validity…………………………………………………………………………… 63
4.3 PerfAIM‘s Scores and Means……………………………………………………………... 63
4.4 Internal Consistency Reliability…………………………………………………………... 66
4.5 Test-Retest Reliability ……………………………………………………………………. 67
4.6 Concurrent Criterion-Related Validity……………………………………………………. 67
4.7 Construct Validity (Convergent and Divergent)…………………………………………... 68
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………………….. 69
5.1 Content Validity…………………………………………………………………………... 69
5.2 Face Validity……………………………………………………………………………… 71
5.3 PerfAIM‘s Score and Means……………………………………………………………… 72
5.4 Internal Consistency Reliability………………………………………………………….. 74
5.5 Test-Retest Reliability……………………………………………………………………. 76
5.6 Concurrent Criterion-Related Validity…………………………………………………… 76
5.7 Construct Validity (Convergent and Divergent)………………………………………….. 76
Chapter 6: Limitations and Conclusion……………………………………………………. 78
6.1 Limitations………………………………………………………………………………… 78
6.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………… 80
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
Appendices: Recruitment Material; Consent Forms ; Content Validity Questionnaire -
Results (Focus Groups); Transcriptions (Focus Groups); Interview Oral Questions - Results
(Quantitative); Content Validity Questionnaire - Results (Experts); Interview Oral Questions
- Results (Qualitative 1); Interview Oral Questions - Results (Qualitative 2); PerfAIM; Items
Categorized by Domains……………………………………………………………………… 92

iv
Abstract

The goal of this research project was to develop and validate a new measure that establishes the
extent to which highly stressful performance situations affect self-perceived levels of Music
Performance Anxiety (MPA) in popular musicians. The Performance Anxiety Inventory for
Musicians (PerfAIM), a self-report measure demonstrating appropriate psychometric properties,
was developed. The specific objectives of this research project were to estimate the validity of the
questionnaire and to assess its reliability. Content validity and face validity were established
using focus groups and interviews with experts. A sample of 69 popular professional musicians
and music students completed the inventory, with which we established the internal consistency,
the test-retest reliability, the concurrent criterion-related validity and the construct validity
(convergent and divergent). Among the sample, 66 participants completed the Performance
Anxiety Inventory (PAI, Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989), and 61 respondents, the revised
Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (revised K-MPAI, Kenny, 2009a). A test-retest
was done at a one-week interval using a sample of 21 musicians. The PerfAIM demonstrated an
excellent internal consistency (Cronbach‘s alpha=0.93), a very good reliability (ICC=0.89 with
95% CI), and a satisfactory concurrent criterion-related validity and convergent validity (Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient). No significant difference was found between men and
women‘s scores on the PerfAIM. In conclusion, the PerfAIM is an adequate measure for
assessing self-perceived levels of MPA, enabling musicians to develop self-awareness of the
causes, temporal occurrence, direction, and cognitive, somatic, affective and behavioral
manifestations of MPA.

v
Résumé

Ce projet de recherche visait à développer et à valider un nouveau questionnaire permettant
d‘évaluer dans quelle mesure les performances hautement stressantes affectent la perception du
niveau d‘anxiété de performance musicale (APM) des musiciens populaires. À cet effet, nous
avons créé le « Performance Anxiety Inventory for Musicians » (PerfAIM), un questionnaire
auto-administré démontrant des propriétés psychométriques satisfaisantes. Les objectifs
spécifiques de ce projet consistaient à évaluer la validité et la fidélité du questionnaire. La
validité de contenu et la validité apparente ont été établies avec des groupes focus et des
entrevues auprès d‘experts. Un échantillon de 69 musiciens populaires (professionnels et
étudiants) ont complété le questionnaire, ce qui a permis d‘établir la consistance interne, la
fidélité test-retest, la validité de critère concomitante ainsi que la validité de construit
(convergente et divergente). Parmi l‘échantillon, 66 participants ont complété le « Performance
Anxiety Inventory » (PAI, Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989), et 61 répondants, le « Kenny Music
Performance Anxiety Inventory » révisé (revised K-MPAI, Kenny, 2009a). Le test-retest a été
fait à une semaine d‘intervalle auprès d‘un échantillon de 21 musiciens. Le PerfAIM démontre
une excellente consistance interne (alpha de Cronbach=0.93), une très bonne fidélité (CCI=0.89
avec un IC à 95%), et une validité de critère concomitante et de construit convergente
satisfaisantes (calculées à l‘aide d‘une corrélation de Pearson). Aucune différence significative
n‘a été démontrée entre les résultats des hommes et des femmes dans le PerfAIM. En conclusion,
le PerfAIM est un questionnaire approprié pour l‘évaluation de la perception du niveau d‘APM
des musiciens, permettant à ces derniers de prendre conscience des causes, des occurrences
temporelles, de la direction, et des manifestations (cognitives, somatiques, affectives et
comportementales) de l‘anxiété de performance.

vi
Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank all the students, musicians, professors and researchers
who participated in this research. Without their participation, this study would not have been
possible. I would especially like to thank my supervisor Isabelle Cossette. Her involvement,
support and encouragement made this research project achievable. I would like to acknowledge
the Schulich School of Music for its financial support through the Schulich scholarship, as well
as the SSHRC through the Joseph-Armand Bombardier scholarship. I am grateful to my
professors Sharon Wood-Dauphinee and Sara Ahmed from the ―Measurement in Rehabilitation
II‖ course: Thank you for spending time outside of class to meet with me, answer my questions,
and put me in contact with other amazing people. Thanks are also due to my teammates from the
Measurement course (Claudia Brown, Barbara Shankland et Mohamad Pakzad) for their help in
creating the preliminary version of my research protocol. I want to express my gratitude to my
colleagues from the Lucie-Bruneau Rehabilitation Center, particularly Eduardo Cisneros, Gilles
Charrette, Michelle McKerral and Sheila Schneiberg. I learned a lot by working with you as a
research assistant. Thanks to Allison Devery, Carolyn Samuel, and Kamran Ezdi who helped me
edit my manuscripts and/or the many drafts of my questionnaire. A special thank-you goes to
professor Jean-Paul DesPins (UQAM) who conveyed his passion for research and teaching to me
when I was doing my undergraduate studies. He strongly encouraged me to undertake graduate
studies and helped me believe in my capabilities. His influence changed my life! Merci à ma
mère Diane et à son mari Gilbert pour leur appui et leurs bons mots. Une pensée particulière
également pour mon père qui aurait, je pense, été très fier de sa petite fille. Finalement, je tiens à
remercier de tout mon cœur mon mari Marc-André, pour son soutien tout au long de ma maîtrise,
dans les moments les plus heureux comme les plus difficiles. Thank you all!

vii
List of Tables

Table 1. Distinguishing Debilitating Performance Anxiety From Two Other Social Phobia
Subtypes: A Clinical Model………………………………………………………… 10
Table 2. The Four Determinants of Lupien‘s Recipe for Stress……………………………… 13
Table 3. Studies on the Prevalence of MPA among Classical Musicians……………………. 26
Table 4. Twenty-Two Ranked Causes of MPA in Orchestral Musicians…………………….. 32
Table 5. MPA Symptoms Collected in the Literature and Classified into Four Components... 38
Table 6. Demographic Information – Phase 1 (Focus Groups)………………………………. 46
Table 7. Demographic Information – Phase 3 (Online Questionnaires)……………………… 48
Table 8. Interviews – Round 1.……………………………………………………………….. 55
Table 9. Interviews – Round 2.……………………………………………………………….. 56
Table 10. Interviews – Round 3.……………………………………………………………… 56
Table 11. Interviews – Final Revision.……………………………………………………….. 56
Table 12. Level of Agreement among Experts Regarding the Instructions………………….. 57
Table 13. Numbers Related to the Adjective Scale for the Summation of Scores……………. 59
Table 14. Wording and Proportion of Items Based on the Three Rounds of Interviews……... 59
Table 15. Relationship Between the NUTS Theory, the PerfAIM, and Kenny‘s Causes of
MPA……………………………………………………………………………….. 60
Table 16. Relationship Between the PerfAIM‘s Facilitating Anxiety Items and the Components
of Jone‘s Model of Facilitative and Debilitative Anxiety.………………………… 61
Table 17. Means Reported for Each Item of the PerfAIM.…………………………………… 65
Table 18. Internal Consistency of the PerfAIM by Domains: Cronbach‘s Alpha……………. 66
Table 19. Internal Consistency of the PerfAIM by Gender and by Domains: Cronbach‘s
Alpha........…………………………………………………………………………. 66
Table 20. Concurrent Criterion-Related Validity: Pearson Correlations.……………………. 67
Table 21. Convergent and Divergent Construct Validity: Pearson Correlations…………….. 68
Table 22. Means Associated to Each Item and Categorized by Level of Endorsement……… 73
Table 23. Summary of the Cronbach‘s Alpha Scores for Already Existing MPA
Questionnaires..……………………………………………………………………. 75

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Yerkes-Dodson Curve.……………………………………………………………… 15
Figure 2. Hanin‘s Individualized Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF)……………………… 16
Figure 3. Multidimensional Anxiety Theory.…………………………………………………. 17
Figure 4. The Catastrophe Model.…………………………………………………………….. 18
Figure 5. The Four-Stage Stress Model.………………………………………………………. 19
Figure 6. Jone‘s Model of Facilitative and Debilitative Anxiety…………………………….. 20
Figure 7. Levels of Performance Anxiety Associated with Various Performance
Requirements..…………………………………………………………………….. 33
Figure 8. Score Distribution – PerfAIM ………………………….………………………....... 64
Figure 9. First and Second Administrations of the PerfAIM………………………………….. 67

ix
Introduction
Background and Rationale
A successful musician must not only have excellent musical and technical skills but should
also have the capacity to withstand the psychological and physical demands of performing before
public. The stress of preparing and delivering a performance can often create heightened levels
of anxiety. Music Performance Anxiety (MPA) is a condition in which a performer's response to
stress goes beyond the normal arousal state, resulting in detrimental consequences (Osborne &
Kenny, 2005). Sometimes a moderate amount of anxiety can be perceived as a facilitator of
performance (Dyce & O‘Connor, 1994). However, at a higher level it usually has a debilitating
effect (Wesner, Noyes, & Davis, 1990; Steptoe & Fidler, 1987). Determining the extent to which
stressful performances may affect musicians is thus very important to better understand the MPA
phenomenon.

Very few studies on the occurrence of MPA among popular musicians (a group including
musicians of rock, jazz, country, etc.) exist in the literature, and they are mostly related to
personality types and occupational stress (Dyce & O‘Connor, 1994; Cooper & Wills, 1989; Wills
& Cooper, 1987). Besides, MPA is not specifically assessed using standardized methods, and
musicians are only compared to population norms. In addition, studies dealing with popular
musicians use this population as a part of larger samples including classical musicians, music
therapists, and music teachers (Gillespie & Myors, 2000), and the results are not stratified. This
makes it impossible to verify the occurrence of MPA among a particular category of musicians.
Finally, an analysis of the existing questionnaires reported by Osborne and Kenny (2005) shows
that no measure assessing MPA has been validated with a specific sample of popular musicians.
There is thus a need to explore the prevalence of MPA in this population.

In an extensive review of the literature, Osborne and Kenny (2005) identified 20 measures
of MPA (the term ―measure‖ encompasses all types of questionnaires, inventories, rating scales,
surveys, etc.). These measures addressed anxiety symptoms, performance anxiety in general, or
MPA. All of them employed a self-report method (Kenny & Osborne, 2006; Osborne & Kenny,
2005; Kenny, 2005). Overall, the MPA measures reviewed reported norms and standardization
procedures that were inadequate according to the minimum criteria for basic psychometric
1