inventarul mpai

Development and validation of a music

performance anxiety inventory for

gifted adolescent musicians

Margaret S. Osborne*, Dianna T. Kenny

Australian Centre for Applied Research in Music Performance (ACARMP),

Sydney Conservatorium of Music C41, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Received 24 May 2004; received in revised form 3 August 2004; accepted 13 September 2004

Abstract

Music performance anxiety (MPA) is a distressing experience for musicians of all ages,

yet the empirical investigation of MPA in adolescents has received little attention to date.

No measures specifically targeting MPA in adolescents have been empirically validated.

This article presents findings of an initial study into the psychometric properties and

validation of the Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A), a new

self-report measure of MPA for this group. Data from 381 elite young musicians aged 12–

19 years was used to investigate the factor structure, internal reliability, construct and

divergent validity of the MPAI-A. Cronbach’s a for the full measure was .91. Factor

analysis identified three factors, which together accounted for 53% of the variance.

Construct validity was demonstrated by significant positive relationships with social

phobia (measured using the Social Phobia Anxiety Inventory [Beidel, D. C., Turner, S.

M., & Morris, T. L. (1995). A new inventory to assess childhood social anxiety and phobia:

The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Psychological Assessment, 7(1),

73–79; Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Social Phobia and Anxiety

Inventory for Children (SPAI-C). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.]) and

trait anxiety (measured using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory [Spielberger, C. D. (1983).

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press, Inc.]). The MPAI-A demonstrated convergent validity by a moderate to strong

positive correlation with an adult measure of MPA. Discriminant validity was established

by a weaker positive relationship with depression, and no relationship with externalizing

behavior problems. It is hoped that the MPAI-A, as the first empirically validated measure

Anxiety Disorders

19 (2005) 725–751

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9351 1386; fax: +61 2 9351 1385.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M.S. Osborne).

0887-6185/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.09.002

of adolescent musicians’ performance anxiety, will enhance and promote phenomenolo-

gical and treatment research in this area.

# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Music performance anxiety; Adolescents; Assessment; Psychometric properties

1. Introduction

The developmental trajectory and phenomenology of music performance

anxiety (MPA) in children and pre-tertiary adolescents has received little attention

to date. A comprehensive database search identified only three relevant studies

exploring MPA in children and early adolescents (Maroon, 2003; Ryan, 1998,

2003). All three studies are methodologically compromised because they used

volunteer students with no history or diagnosis of MPA. However, a clear

relationship emerged between MPA and standard anxiety measures, indicating

that MPA may constitute a specific manifestation of generalized anxiety

problems, and that performance was impaired in highly state anxious students.

Most studies on MPA have been undertaken on professional musicians or

young adult students studying music in tertiary institutions. These studies indicate

that music performance anxiety is highly prevalent and problematic among this

occupational group and that performance anxiety appears to be both a public

health and occupational health issue for musicians. For example, up to 59% of

professional musicians experience performance anxiety severe enough to affect

their professional and/or personal lives (Van Kemenade, Van Son, & Van Heesch,

1995), and 70% reported that their playing is adversely affected by it (James,

1997). A recent study has found that opera singers have significantly higher trait

anxiety than community samples, and this makes them more vulnerable to the

occupational stressors associated with their profession (Kenny, Davis, & Oates,

2004). Evidence also suggests a strong relationship between MPA and social

anxiety, one of the most common disorders in the community (Alfano, Beidel, &

Turner, 2002; Lewinsohn, Gotlib, Lewinsohn, Steeley, & Allen, 1998). Many

anxiety disorders first manifest in childhood and adolescence (Kashani &

Orvaschel, 1990), but it is not known whether this is true for MPA. Further,

prevalence in adolescents has not been assessed and there are no empirically

robust, reliable and valid self-report measures of MPA for adolescent musicians.

A number of theories have been developed to explain the onset of MPA in adult

musicians. MPA is commonly viewed as a constellation of three interactive yet

also partially independent factors: cognitions, autonomic arousal, and overt

behavioral responses (Craske & Craig, 1984; Lederman, 1999; Salmon, 1990).

There is some dispute amongst researchers regarding the nature of this

interaction. Zinn, McCain, and Zinn (2000) argue that performance anxiety is

primarily a psychophysiological event where the autonomic nervous system

initiates and maintains MPA. Alternatively, Kirchner (2003) maintains the

M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751726

symptomatic aspects of MPA are activated by the perception of threat by the

performer, and not the autonomic nervous system. Wilson (2002) describes threat

perception as an interaction of three variables that play important roles in the

experience of distressing anxiety: the performer’s constitutional and learned

tendency (trait anxiety) to become anxious in response to situations of social

stress; the degree of task mastery, and the amount of situational stress.

1.1. Critical review of MPA measures

A review of the English-speaking literature using PsycINFO and MUSE

databases identified 20 MPA self-report measures published in peer-reviewed

journals (excluding Dissertation Abstracts). These are listed (with abbreviations)

in Appendix A. All scales were developed for specific research projects with

college- and/or adult-aged samples. Most measures assessed MPA across a variety

of musical instruments and performance situations, although some were

specifically created for pianists (e.g. Piano Performance Anxiety Scale) and

string players (e.g. Stage Fright Rating Scale). All scales apart from the Music

Performance Anxiety Questionnaire (MPAQ), the Performance Anxiety Self-

statement Scale (PASSS) and the State Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ) assessed

MPA as trait anxiety, asking respondents to rate their levels of MPA based on a

retrospective evaluation of music performance across various contexts. Levels of

MPA occurring at particular points in time, such as music performances in the

research context, were assessed using a state anxiety measure [commonly

Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State subscale (Spielberger, 1983)].

Many of the available scales are adaptations of existing scales, assessing non-

music performance anxiety. For example, Appel’s Personal Report of Confidence

as a Performer (PRCP) was adapted from Paul’s (1966) Personal Report of

Confidence as a Speaker; Cox and Kenardy’s (1993) Performance Anxiety

Questionnaire (PAQ) was adapted from Schwartz, Davidson, and Goleman (1978)

Cognitive–Somatic Anxiety Questionnaire (as cited in Cox & Kenardy, 1993) and

the Performance Anxiety Inventory (PAI); the PAI was based on Spielberger’s Test

Anxiety Inventory (1980, as cited in Nagle, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989); and the

Achievement Anxiety Test Scale (Alpert & Haber, 1960) was modified by both

Sweeney and Horan (1982), and Wolfe (1989) into the Adaptive–Maladaptive

Anxiety Scale (AAS–MAS). The most recent scale, the Kenny Music Performance

Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Kenny et al., 2004) was constructed to specifically

address each of the components of Barlow’s emotion-based theory of anxiety

disorders (Barlow, 2000). Only the K-MPAI, PRCP and PAI assess all three

components—cognitive, behavioral and physiological—that are now commonly

believed to comprise MPA and other anxiety disorders (Barlow, 2002; Hardy &

Parfitt, 1991; Lang, Davis, & Ohman, 2000; Morris, 2001). Five of these scales

were reproduced in full in the journals in which they were published to facilitate

future research (K-MPAI; Musician’s Questionnaire; PAI; PAQ—Cox &

Kenardy, 1993; and PAQ—Wesner, Noyes, & Davis, 1990). Factor analytic

M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 727

studies have been reported on the MPAQ, AAS–MAS and Trait Anxiety Scale

(TAS).

A critical review of the psychometric data presented in the articles was

conducted using criteria adapted for self-report measures from McCauley and

Swisher’s (1984) review of language and articulation tests. These constitute the

minimum criteria that should be considered in evaluating any norm-referenced

test (Standards for educational and psychological testing, 1985). They include a

description of the standardization population, sample sizes of 100 or more per

subgroup, systematic item analysis (including factor analysis), presentation of

raw score means and standard deviations for each subgroup, evidence of

concurrent and predictive validity, estimates of test–retest reliabilities, test

administration details, and qualifications of the administrator or scorer. Table 1

summarizes the criteria met by each MPA measure.

The reporting of basic psychometric properties was limited, and in some cases

absent. Very few of the tests reported test–retest or internal reliability. Overall,

subject numbers in the various research studies were small (20–53). Although

Wesner et al. (1990) had the largest sample size (n = 302) and described their

sample thoroughly, they provided no results other than percentages of gender, age

group and category of musician (i.e. impaired/unimpaired) who endorsed various

symptoms of MPA. No single measure satisfied all the criteria, although the K-

MPAI met most of the criteria and reported the best psychometric properties. In

sum, the MPA measures reviewed are idiosyncratic, with inadequate norms and

standardization procedures and all have been developed for and used with adult

musicians.


Table 1

MPA self-report measures meeting each of the nine psychometric criterion

Criterion Number of

measures (n = 20)

Measures

1 Description of

normative sample

10 MPSS, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, PASSS,

AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI

2 Sample size 2 PAQ-WND, MPAQ

3 Item analysis 13 PRCP, PAQ-WND, K-MPAI, PI, MPAQ, PAI,

SSQ, AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI

4 Means and

standard deviations

10 PRCP, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, SES,

PASSS, K-MPAI, PAI, AATS, PPAS, AD

5 Concurrent validity 16 PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, K-MPAI, PI,

SEQ, MPAQ, SSQ, AATS, PPAS, AD,

AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI

6 Predictive validity 0 –

7 Test–retest reliability 0 –

8 Description of

test procedures

18 PRCP, MPSS, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, SES,

PASSS, K-MPAI, MPAQ, PI, SEQ, PAI,

SSQ, AATS, PPAS, AD, AAS–MAS, MPAS

9 Description of

tester qualifications

0 –

Currently, there is no self-report measure of MPA for child or pre-tertiary

adolescent musicians published in the public domain. Both child and adolescent

MPA studies by Ryan (1998) and Maroon (2003) developed research-specific

measures, but neither presented any data as to their psychometric properties. In

order to address these major deficits in this research domain, we aimed to develop a

reliable and valid self-report measure of MPA for the population of young

musicians aged 12–19 years. We hope that this scale will facilitate MPA research in

this age group through the provision of a brief, reliable and valid instrument that can

serve as both a simple screening aid for high school students at risk for developing

serious MPA, and as a pre–post intervention measure for treatment outcome studies.

2. Method

Five analyses were undertaken to establish the psychometric properties of this

scale. Initially, a pilot test was conducted to assess the content of items that were

either newly developed or modifications of existing measures. We then

administered all scales to a larger sample to determine the factor structure,

internal consistency and criterion validity of the Music Performance Anxiety

Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A). Subsequent concurrent and discriminant

validity analyses were undertaken using an additional student sample.

Because all studies were conducted using schools within the NSW Department

of Education in Australia, a brief summary of the educational system is presented

below.

2.1. Australian education setting

In Australia, children commence school in kindergarten, aged between 4.5 and

6 years. There are 3 years of elementary school (Kindergarten to Year 2); 4 years

of primary school (Years 3–6) and 6 years of secondary school (Years 7–12).

Students may exit at Year 10 with their School Certificate or at Year 12 with their

Higher School Certificate (HSC).

The Conservatorium High School (CHS) is a unique selective government

school for gifted young musicians. Successful applicants must have demonstrated

musical potential and/or achievement, and have a satisfactory academic record.

The Newtown High School of the Performing Arts (NHSPA) is a government

school and one of the leading performing and visual arts schools in Australia.

Students are considered for a placement to both high schools on the basis of an

audition and interview. The McDonald College (MDC) is a private specialist

academic and performing arts school for gifted children. Entry to the school is

open to all students with a strong performance arts background, as well as students

who have a general interest in the performing arts and wish to be educated in a

creative environment. All schools teach grades 7–12. Both the MDC and NHSPA

have students majoring in dance and theater, as well as music.


2.2. Scale development

The initial item pool was generated by consulting available adult MPA scales.

Items were chosen to represent each of the three domains (cognitive,

physiological and behavioral) known to be affected in MPA. Care was taken

with the wording of the items and all were tested for readability by 12-year-olds.

The aim of the pilot study was to assess the readability and comprehension of each

of the items on each proposed scale and to examine preliminary psychometric

data.

2.2.1. Participants

Protocols were completed in class time by 19 Year 8 and 18 Year 10 students

(14 boys, 23 girls), with a mean age of 14 years (S.D. = 1.12 years) from the CHS.

2.2.2. Measures

Two scales were developed. These were:

1. Demographics: age, gender, language spoken at home, principal and other

instruments, length of time studied, time practised each day, desire to be a

professional musician, importance of music in the family, age first performed

in front of audience, pattern and frequency of performing.

2. Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A): This 18-item

scale was designed for use with adolescents to assess the somatic, cognitive

and behavioral components of MPA (after Cox & Kenardy, 1993; Nagle et al.,

1989). Items such as ‘‘Before I perform, I get butterflies in my stomach’’

(somatic subscale), ‘‘I often worry about my ability to perform’’ (cognitive)

and ‘‘I would rather play on my own than in front of other people’’ (behavioral)

were answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging ‘‘0—Not at all’’ to

‘‘6—All of the time’’.

2.2.3. Results

2.2.3.1. Demographic characteristics. Students had been studying for an average

of 6.83 years (S.D. = 2.76), and practiced an average of 1.5 h a day (S.D. = 0.74 h).

Forty-six percent of students indicated they wanted to be professional musicians,

49% were unsure, and 5% did not want to be a professional musician.

Approximately half of the students (53%) performed mostly solo with some

group work; 22% indicated half solo-half group performances; 11% performed

mostly in ensembles with some solo work; 8% performed only as soloists; and 6%

performed only in ensembles.

2.2.3.2. Scale characteristics. Descriptive statistics for the MPAI-A were

mean = 50.77, S.D. = 17.14, minimum and maximum scores 8 and 20, respectively.

Analysis revealed that improvements could be made to the reliability of the MPAI-A


with the deletion of some items. Cronbach’s a increased from .88 to .91 by deleting

three items ‘‘It is easier to play in front of my family and friends, than in front of

strangers’’, ‘‘It is easier to play in front of strangers, than in front of family and

friends’’, and ‘‘I usually feel well prepared before I perform’’ (reduced scale given

in Appendix B). Because of student confusion in completing the demographic scale

questions on practice, this section was modified to request daily practice time on the

major instrument only.

2.3. Psychometric properties

2.3.1. Participants

A new sample of students (124 boys and 174 girls) from the three performance

high schools in the inner Sydney metropolitan area described above agreed to

participate in the research. The respective number of participating students at each

high school were CHS n = 128, NHSPA n = 117, and MDC n = 53. The mean age

of the sample was 14.23 years (S.D. = 1.70 years, range: 11–19 years).

2.3.2. Procedure

The study was introduced to students by the head music teacher and music

staff, and consent forms were distributed and returned in advance of survey

administration. Early in Semester 1, 2002, the scales developed for the study and

some standardized psychological assessment measures were distributed to

students to complete in class. Students who did not wish to participate continued

with their schoolwork for the duration of testing. Teaching staff were not given

access to student survey results. Students then participated in a focus-group

discussion regarding their experiences of MPA and management techniques. In

addition, students completed up to four performance-based protocols throughout

the semester, which assessed state anxiety experienced during different music

performances.

2.3.3. Measures

1. Demographics: As described in 2.2.2 Scale Development.

2. Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A): As described

in 2.2.2 Scale development.

3. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983): The STAI Trait

subscale measures relatively stable individual differences in the tendency to

perceive stressful situations as dangerous or threatening. This standardised test

was used to validate the MPAI-A and to provide a comparison with

standardised norms and other MPA research. This measure has excellent

stability with high school students (30 day test–retest interval males = .71,

females = .75) and internal consistency (males and females = .90) (Spielber-

ger, 1983).

4. Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) (Turner, Beidel, & Dancu, 1996),

and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAI-C) (Beidel,


Turner, & Morris, 1998): These scales screen for maladaptive social anxiety in

social encounters and settings, assess information on the intensity of distress,

and indicate possible social phobia diagnoses. The SPAI-C successfully

differentiates children with social phobia from those with other anxiety

disorders (Beidel et al., 1998). Adolescents up to and including 14 years

completed the SPAI-C, and those 14 years and older completed the SPAI.

These measures were included to examine the relationship between MPA and

social phobia. Both measures have very high stability and internal consistency

(Beidel et al., 1998; Turner et al., 1996).

2.3.4. Results

2.3.4.1. Factor analysis. The factor structure of the MPAI-A was assessed. Prior

to factor analysis, we assessed the factorability of the data. An anti-image

correlation matrix was used to assess the sampling adequacy of each variable. No

item had a measure of sampling accuracy <.5. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was

large and significant and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure was >.6, hence

factorability was assumed (Coakes & Steed, 2001). To examine whether the scale

was multi- or uni-dimensional, we assessed its factor structure using principal axis

factoring with oblimin rotation.

Examination of both the number of eigenvalues greater than one and the

factor loadings supported a decision to treat the scale as multi-dimensional,

although the first factor accounted for most of the variance. Using a best-fit

solution, the factor analysis identified three eigenvalues greater than one,

which together accounted for 53% of the variance. This three factor solution

provided a better fit to the data than either a one or two factor solution (details

of factor analyses can be obtained from the authors). Individual items with

factor loadings less than .3 were eliminated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The

items and their specific factor loadings are presented in Table 2. The first

factor, Somatic and Cognitive Features, accounted for 43% of the variance.

The majority of items loading on this factor consisted of those describing the

physical manifestations of performance anxiety immediately prior to, and

during a performance. Two items related to worry and fear of making mistakes.

The second factor, Performance Context, accounted for 6% of the variance,

and described the preference performers have for either solo or group contexts

and the nature of the audience. The third factor, Performance Evaluation,

contained items relating to the evaluation that both the audience and performer

may make of a performance, the consequences stemming from these

evaluations (particularly when a mistake is made), and difficulty concentrating

in front of an audience when performing. This factor accounted for 3% of the

variance.

2.3.4.2. Reliability analysis. Cronbach’s a was used to determine the internal

consistency of the MPAI-A. Item-total correlations were examined, and items

with negative or item-total correlations below .3 were deleted to improve the


reliability of each scale (de Vaus, 1995). The ‘‘a if item deleted’’ column was also

examined to decide on further item deletions.

The original 18 item MPAI-A scale had high internal reliability (Cronbach’s

a = .89). Inspection of the item-total correlations revealed three problematic

items (correlations in parentheses). ‘‘It is easier to play in front of strangers, than

in front of family and friends’’ (�.07), ‘‘It is easier to play in front of my family

and friends, than in front of strangers’’ (.23) and ‘‘I usually feel well prepared

before I perform’’ (.24). Deleting these items raised Cronbach’s a to .91. The

remaining 15 items also provided the highest Cronbach’s a in the reliability

analysis on the MPAI-A in the pilot test. Cronbach’s a values for the three factors

determined in Study 2 were calculated as follows: Factor 1 ‘‘Somatic and

Cognitve Sensations’’ = .90; Factor 2 ‘‘Performance Context’’ = .77; and Factor 3

‘‘Performance Evaluation’’ = .69.


Table 2

MPAI-A factor analysis pattern matrix

Item number Item content Loadings

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Somatic and cognitive features (43%)

1 Before I perform, I get butterflies

in my stomach

.93

12 Just before I perform, I feel nervous .77

6 When I perform in front of an audience,

my heart beats very fast

.77

4 Before I perform, I tremble or shake .73

2 I often worry about my ability to perform .61

9 When I perform in front of an audience

I get sweaty hands

.56

15 My muscles feel tense when I perform .44


I am afraid of making mistakes

.43 .38

Performance context (6%)

14 I would rather play in a group or ensemble,

than on my own

1.02

11 I try to avoid playing on my own at

a school concert

.58

3 I would rather play on my own, than

in front of other people

.36

Performance evaluation (3%)

13 I worry that my parents or teacher might

not like my performance

.58

8 If I make a mistake during a performance,

I usually panic

.54

10 When I finish performing, I usually feel

happy with my performance

.43


I find it hard to concentrate on my music

.33 .38

Modification indices indicated that deleting items C4 ‘‘When I finish

performing, I usually feel happy with my performance’’ (.32) and C5 ‘‘I worry

that my parents or teacher might not like my performance’’ (.40) improved the a

to .92, with item-total correlations for the reduced scale ranging from .56 to .74.

However, considering the factor analysis results, the 15 item MPAI-A scale was

retained for all future analyses, as this measure provided a desirable balance

between desired psychometric properties and the broadest possible assessment of

MPA features.

The descriptive statistics for the reduced MPAI-A measure are given in Table 3.

Girls scored significantly higher than boys [t(296) = �3.59, P < .001]. An

inspection of the means by grade shows a curvilinear trend, with a rise from grade

8 that peaks at grade 10, thereafter declining to pre-grade 8 levels.

2.4. Criterion validity

2.4.1. Procedure

In order to determine the construct validity of the MPAI-A, various well-

known, standardized self-report measures of trait and social anxiety were

administered. The STAI was used to determine baseline levels of trait anxiety, and

depending on the age of students, the SPAI-C or SPAI was used as a measure of

social anxiety.

Given previous research into both childhood (Maroon, 2003; Ryan, 1998) and

adult MPA (Kenny et al., 2004; Lehrer, Goldman, & Strommen, 1990), the MPAI-

A was hypothesized to demonstrate a moderate to strong positive correlation with

trait anxiety. Further, since a diagnosis of social phobia is warranted for those

musicians who suffer extreme performance anxiety (Clark & Agras, 1991; Cox &

Kenardy, 1993) and hence MPA as a construct is more specifically related to social

anxiety than the more general trait anxiety, it was hypothesized that there would

be a stronger positive correlation between the MPAI-A and social phobia

measures than for trait anxiety.


Table 3

MPAI-A descriptive statistics by gender and school grade

Gender Number Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

Male 124 38.23 17.93 3 87

Female 174 46.27 19.83 0 84

Grade

7 54 39.96 20.07 0 84

8 50 43.83 20.20 10 87

9 51 43.53 19.11 5 84

10 55 47.71 20.61 0 82

11 50 42.05 18.03 7 80

12 38 39.38 17.57 5 81

Total 298 42.92 19.44 0 87

2.4.2. Results

Table 4 displays the means and standard deviations for males, females and the

whole sample, and compares these values against normative data presented in the

test manuals.

Distributions for each variable were examined and no significant deviations

from normality were detected. Norms for the STAI were taken from Spielberger

(1983). Normative data for the SPAI-C is quoted in the manual from research by

Beidel, Turner, Hamlin, and Morris (2000), on a sample of 249 children both with

(n = 63) and without social phobia diagnoses, with a mean age of 10.8 years

(S.D. = 1.5 years), ranging from 8 to 14 years. Data for the SPAI is provided in the

manual from research by Clark et al. (1994), who have provided the only

reliability and validity data on the SPAI for adolescents. Their sample of 223

adolescents ranged from 12 to 18 years (no average age was reported), 39 of which

met criteria for DSM-III-R Social Phobia. Normative values are given in italics.

There were no significant differences between male and female mean scores on

the STAI [t(296) = �0.70, P > .05]. However, girls in this sample scored

significantly higher than girls in the norm group [t(173) = 2.04, P < .05], but there

was no difference for boys in this sample and the normative group [t(123) = 1.70,

P > .05].

The scores on the SPAI-C for this study were much lower than those given by

Beidel et al. (2000) for the whole sample. The SPAI data shows the total sample

mean is comparable to the mean value reported for adolescents with no psychiatric

disorder.

Cutoffs for the SPAI-C and use of SPAI with adolescents have not been

specified. Considering that both measures were administered in order to capture

information across the entire high school age range, various investigations of the

data using different screening cutoff scores were undertaken. Using a cutoff of 18

on the SPAI-C, and including the top two categories of difference scores on the

SPAI, there is reasonable consistency in the percentage of possible social phobia


Table 4

Means and standard deviations for the STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI by gender (norms in italics)

Scale Boys Girls Total sample

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

STAI 41.70 10.05 42.52 10.06 42.18 10.05

Norm data 40.17 10.53 40.97 10.63 – –

SPAI-C 10.12 10.55 10.56 7.86 10.39 8.99

Whole sample 14.9 9.6 18.8 10.4 16.8 10.2

Social Phobia present 23.4 7.6 26.8 9.8 26.1 8.6

Social Phobia absent 10.2 7.6 15.1 8.4 – –

SPAI 48.48 24.69 41.87 28.92 44.60 27.35

Social Phobia present – – – – 64.7 30.6

Social Phobia absent – – – – 43.0 26.4

cases in the sample across both measures (see Table 5). In addition, given that

Clark et al. (1994) found lower scores in adolescents compared to adults using the

SPAI, rates of possible and probable social phobia were investigated taking into

account all three social phobia categories (mild possible, possible and probable

social phobia), thereby lowering the cutoff score for possible social phobia

diagnosis. This second method of analysis increases the number of screened social

phobics, leading to an almost inverse relationship between unlikely and likely

presentations of social phobia across the SPAI-C and SPAI.

The mean value for this sample on the SPAI-C was significantly lower than the

whole norm sample [t(144) = �8.58, P < .01], and the social phobia group

[t(144) = �21.03, P < .01]. The mean scores for girls and boys were not

significantly different [t(143) = �0.29, P > .05]. Considering that Beidel et al.

(2000) found significant differences between boys and girls in the norm samples

for the SPAI-C, separate analyses were conduced by gender. There was no

difference between boys in this sample and the SPAI-C social phobia-absent

group [t(57) = �0.06, P > .05]. However, boys in this study scored significantly

lower than both the whole norm sample [t(57) = �3.45, P < .001] and boys

diagnosed with social phobia [t(57) = �9.59, P < .01]. The girls scored

significantly lower than the social phobia-absent [t(86) = �5.38, P < .01], whole

sample [t(86) = �9.77, P < .01] and social phobia-present [t(86) = �19.26,

P < .01] norm groups.

Similarly, there was no difference between boys and girls on the SPAI

[t(129) = 1.37, P > .05], which justified whole group comparisons to the norm

data. The total sample mean was significantly lower than the socially phobic

diagnostic group [t(130) = �8.41, P < .001], but not significantly different to

adolescents without a psychiatric disorder [t(130) = 0.67, P > .05].

The MPAI-A correlated significantly with the STAI (r = .45, P < .01), SPAI-C

(r = .42, P < .01) and SPAI (r = .43, P < .01) scales (see Table 6).


Table 5

Number of students (percentage in parentheses) meeting screening criteria for social phobia

Protocol Unlikely Social Phobia Possible Social Phobia

SPAI-C

Cutoff � 18 115 (79%) 30 (21%)

Cutoff � 20 123 (85%) 22 (15%)

Cutoff � 15 102 (70%) 43 (30%)

Cutoff � 13 94 (65%) 51 (35%)

Cutoff � 10 81 (56%) 64 (44%)

SPAI 37 (28%) 94 (72%)

Mild possible = 65 (50%)

Possible = 17 (13%)

Probable = 12 (9%)

Combined SPAI-C and SPAI 152 (55%) 124 (45%)

2.5. Convergent and discriminant validity

In light of the unconvincing correlations between the MPAI-A and the STAI,

SPAI-C and SPAI, a follow-up study was conducted to clarify the extent to which

the MPAI-A is associated with trait anxiety and social phobia. An adult measure

of MPA was included to assess concurrent validity. Since the current sample were

gifted students, we believed that none would experience any difficulty with

understanding an adult version, and indeed we found that no student reported

difficulty. We wished to assess the correlation of the MPAI-A with another MPA

measure in order to further assess the MPAI-A’s construct validity. The Children’s

Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992) and the externalizing profile of the Youth

Self-Report (Achenbach, 1991) were included to investigate the discriminant

validity of the MPAI-A.

2.5.1. Participants

Music students, of whom 61% formed part of the criterion validity sample

(n = 64; 30 boys and 34 girls) from the NHSPA in Years 8 (Elective and Extension),

9 (Extension), 10 (Elective) and 12 (Music 2) were invited to participate. The mean

age of this sample was 14.6 years (S.D. = 1.3, range: 13–17 years).

2.5.2. Procedure

Students who were not involved in the previous validity sample were given

consent forms, and asked to obtain their parents signature as consent, and return to

the liaison music teacher. Surveys were completed in class time, with the music

teacher and one of the researchers present. Teaching staff did not have access to

individual student results.

2.5.3. Measures

1. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Kenny et al., 2004):

Because no otherchildoradolescent MPA measures exist, this scalewas included

to test the convergent validity of the MPAI-A. This inventory was developed

to assess the emotion-based theory of anxiety proposed by Barlow (2000).


Table 6

Correlations between MPA, trait and social anxiety (r and n values respectively)

STAI SPAI-C SPAI

MPAI-A .45* .42* .43*

298 145 131

STAI .47* .46*

145 131

SPAI-C –

* All correlations significant at P < 0.001.

Items were either specially constructed or selected from other scales to address

each of Barlow’s theoretical components, including evocation of anxious

propositions (e.g. uncontrollability, unpredictability, negative affect, situa-

tional cues); attentional shift (e.g. task or self-evaluative focus, fear of negative

evaluation); physiological arousal and memory bias. Questions are answered

on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘0—Strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘6—

Strongly agree’’. The maximum score is 156, with higher scores indicating

greater anxiety and psychological distress. This scale demonstrated excellent

internal reliability (Cronbach’s a = .94) (Kenny et al., 2004).

2. Youth Self-Report-Externalizing Scale (YSR-Ext) (Achenbach, 1991): The

YSR is a self-report form used to assess the feelings and behaviors of 11–18

year olds. Thirty questions included in the externalizing scale of the YSR

(comprising Delinquent and Aggressive Behavior factors) were used to assess

discriminant validity. These items are answered on a three-point Likert scale of

0—Not true to 2—Very true or often true. The Internalizing scale of the YSR

was not included due to administration time constraints. However, the STAI-

Trait and CDI scales were considered adequate in assessing internalizing

characteristics such as worry and depression. The externalizing scale has

acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s a = .89) and 1-week test–retest

reliability (r = .81). The scale significantly differentiates the competence and

problem scores of non-referred and referred youth presenting for mental health

services, and thus demonstrates acceptable validity (Achenbach, 1991).

3. Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) (Turner et al., 1996), and Social

Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAI-C) (Beidel et al., 1998).

4. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983).

5. Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) (Kovacs, 1992): The CDI was included

to further assess the construct and discriminant validity of the MPAI-A. The CDI

is a 27-item self-rated symptom oriented scale measuring symptoms associated

with depression such as sleep disturbance, appetite loss, and anhedonia. It is

suitable for school-aged adolescents aged 7–17 years. It quantifies a range of

depressive symptoms including disturbed mood, hedonic capacity, vegetative

functions, self-evaluation, and interpersonal behaviors, providing a total score

(CDI-Total), and five subscale scores: Negative Mood (CDI-NM), Interpersonal

Problems (CDI-IP), Ineffectiveness (CDI-IF), Anhedonia (CDI-AN), and

Negative Self-Esteem (CDI-NS). For each item, the child rates the degree to

which each statement describes him or her for the past 2 weeks, using one of

three choices, keyed 0 (Absence of symptom), 1 (Mild symptom), or 2 (Definite

symptom). Higher scores indicate increasing severity, with scores ranging from

0 to 54. It has been used extensively with normal and clinical children’s

populations. The measure effectively distinguishes normal from clinical

samples, with improved accuracy obtained when included as part of a multi-

instrument battery. It shows good concurrent validity with other measures of

depressive symptoms and demonstrates good internal consistency (r = .71–.89)

and test–retest reliability (r = .38–.87) (Kovacs, 1992).


2.5.4. Results

Descriptive statistics for the MPAI-A are presented in Table 7. Distributions for

each variable were examined and no significant deviations from normality were

detected. The reduced 15-item scale again demonstrated acceptable internal

reliability for this sample (Cronbach’s a = .88). This sample evidenced much

lower scores on the MPAI-A than the criterion validity sample. As in the previous

sample, girls scored significantly higher than boys [t(62) = �2.45, P < .05].

Similarly, scores in this sample were lower on the social anxiety measures (see

Table 8). The mean value obtained for boys on the SPAI-C was half that obtained

in the criterion validity sample (see Table 4), although the gender difference in this


Table 7

MPAI-A descriptive statistics by gender and school grade

Gender Number Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

Male 30 29.43 13.28 7 57

Female 34 38.24 15.21 5 72

Grade

8 27 35.04 14.32 5 69

9 13 29.31 17.19 7 61

10 17 35.71 15.36 9 72

12 7 35.57 12.58 20 53

Total 64 34.11 14.90 5 72

Table 8

Means and standard deviations for all scales by gender (norms in italics)

Scale Males Females Total sample

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

STAI 39.20 9.74 43.56 11.73 41.52 10.98

SPAI-C 4.94 3.45 9.88 10.41 7.41 8.03

SPAI 30.79 17.38 40.06 29.90 35.87 25.09

K-MPAI 34.10 19.69 50.74 26.19 42.94 24.65

YSR-externalising 13.93 8.92 14.12 8.05 14.03 8.40

11.6 7.0 10.3 6.3 – –

CDI-

Total 10.36 10.05 13.18 9.24 11.86 9.66

11.36 – 9.74 – 9.18 –

Negative Mood 1.86 1.86 2.62 2.12 2.26 2.02

2.41 – 2.35 – 2.38

Interpersonal Problems 1.03 1.67 0.79 1.12 0.90 1.40

1.02 – 0.64 – 0.81 –

Ineffectiveness 2.14 2.00 2.53 1.69 2.35 1.84

2.35 – 1.66 – 1.98 –

Anhedonia 3.17 3.31 3.60 2.77 3.40 3.02

3.60 – 3.34 – 3.46 –

Negative Self-Esteem 1.36 2.08 2.97 2.38 2.22 2.37

1.98 – 1.75 – 1.86 –

sample was not significant [t(30) = �1.80, P > .05]. The female mean was

consistent on this measure across both samples, for both the SPAI-C and SPAI.

However, the boys’ scores on the SPAI were highly discrepant between samples. In

this sample, on average, boys scored much lower than girls, although the difference

was not significant [t(29) = �1.03, P > .05], whereas in the criterion validity

sample, boys scored significantly higher overall. Their mean score is almost 18

points higher than the current score. The STAI results are reasonably consistent

across both samples for boys and girls, who did not score significantly differently

from each other in this sample [t(62) = �1.60, P > .05]. Considering that this

convergent and discriminant validity analysis was conducted using NHSPA

students only, it was conceivable that these differences could be attributed to sample

differences. Therefore, criterion validity sample results for NHSPA only were

compared with the NHSPA data to determine whether values in this sample were

consistent for NHSPA students. Means and standard deviations for the SPAI-C in

the criterionvalidity sample were as follows: boys = 7.97 (S.D. = 9.96), girls = 9.97

(S.D. = 7.27), total sample = 8.93 (S.D. = 8.73). SPAI means and standard

deviations for boys = 49.74 (S.D. = 21.45), girls = 43.95 (S.D. = 21.23), and total

sample = 46.70 (S.D. = 21.26). Thus, NHSPA students obtained mean scores

comparable to all three high schools combined. Therefore, differences in this

sample cannot be attributed to differences in the three high school samples.

Boys scored lower than girls on the K-MPAI [t(62) = �2.84, P < .01], and

obtained much lower average scores than the girls on the CDI-Negative Self-

Esteem subscale [t(62) = �2.86, P < .01]. Norms for the STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI

are presented in Table 4. Norms for non-referred youth were used to compare the

YSR-Externalizing scale (Achenbach, 1991). Means for the CDI are given for the

age group 13–17 as presented in the test manual (Kovacs, 1992).

The percentage of this sample that met criteria for possible or probable social

phobia (Table 9) was much lower than the percentage of students participating in

the criterion validity sample (Table 5).


Table 9

Number of students (percentage in parentheses) meeting screening criteria for social phobia

Protocol Unlikely Social Phobia Possible Social Phobia

SPAI-C

Cutoff � 18 30 (94%) 2 (6%)

Cutoff � 20 30 (94%) 2 (6%)

Cutoff � 15 30 (94%) 2 (6%)

Cutoff � 13 27 (84%) 5 (16%)

Cutoff � 10 26 (81%) 6 (19%)

SPAI 14 (45%) 17 (45%)

Mild possible = 10 (32%)

Possible = 6 (19%)

Probable = 1 (3%)

Combined SPAI-C and SPAI 44 (70%) 19 (30%)

M.S

.O

sbo

rne,

D.T

.K

enn

y/A

nxiety

Diso

rders

19

(20

05

)7

25

–7

51

74

1

Table 10

Correlations between MPA, trait, social anxiety, externalising and depression scales (r, n and P values, respectively)

K-MPAI STAI SPAI-C SPAI YSR-Ext CDI-Total CDI-NM CDI-IP CDI-IF CDI-AN CDI-NS

MPAI-A .69 .54 .65 .63 .128 .39 .48 �.02 .21 .34 .5064 64 32 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .313 <.01 <.001 .874 .09 <.05 <.001

K-MPAI .81 .59 .73 .44 .66 .62 .26 .51 .60 .7064 32 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.05 <.001 <.001 <.001

STAI .55 .69 .40 .85 .80 .47 .63 .80 .7532 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64<.01 <.001 <.01 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

SPAI-C – .11 .35 .49 �.04 .20 .35 .3632 32 32 32 32 32 32

.54 <.05 <.01 .84 .27 <.05 <.05

SPAI .08 .57 .50 .15 .30 .55 .6731 31 31 31 31 31 31

.67 <.01 <.01 .43 .10 <.01 <.001

YSR-Ext .31 .23 .23 .28 .31 .1864 64 64 64 64 64<.05 .07 .07 <.05 <.05 .16

CDI-Total .90 .73 .78 .91 .8964 64 64 64 64<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

CDI-NM .54 .62 .78 .8164 64 64 64<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001

CDI-IP .53 .60 .6064 64 64<.001 <.001 <.001

CDI-IF .60 .6364 64<.001 <.001

CDI-AN .7164<.001

Pearson’s correlations between the MPAI-A and STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI were

all slightly higher than obtained in criterion validity sample and all highly

significant (see Table 10). As hypothesized, correlations with the social phobia

measures were greater than with the STAI. The MPAI-A correlations with the

social phobia measures showed that these measures share approximately 40% of

their variance. The concurrent validity of the MPAI-A was established by a higher

correlation with the K-MPAI than any other measure. Discriminant validity was

established in two ways; firstly, by the very low and non-significant correlation

between the MPAI-A and the YSR-Externalizing scale, and secondly by the weak

correlations between the MPAI-A and the CDI-Total, Negative Mood and

Negative Self-Esteem subscales.

3. Discussion

The aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of

a new scale of music performance anxiety for use with child and adolescent

musicians. To be considered a reliable and valid measure, a scale should

demonstrate good internal consistency, with an a of at least .9 when total test

scores are used in placement decisions (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988) and good

construct, concurrent and discriminant validity. Although validity coefficients in

the order of .3–.4 are considered high, and values >.6 are rare (Kaplan &

Saccuzzo, 1989) we considered a coefficient greater than or equal to .8 to be a

more stringent and appropriate criteria. Inter-correlations among items (the

internal consistency) may be used to support the assertion that a scale primarily

measures a single construct. Substantial relationships of a scale to other measures

that purportedly assess the same construct, and weaknesses of relationships to

measures of different constructs, support both the identification of constructs and

the differentiation (discrimination) between them (Standards for educational and

psychological testing, 1985).

The MPAI-A displayed a parsimonious three-factor structure of Somatic

and Cognitive Features, Performance Context and Performance Evaluation,

which together accounted for 53% of the variance. The majority of

the loading (43%) was attributed to the first factor, Somatic and Cognitive

Features. Interestingly there are some parallels between these factors and

those of the MPAQ, particularly between Somatic and Cognitive Features and

the MPAQ Factor 2 High standards/Judgmental attitudes toward performance,

and Performance Evaluation with the MPAQ Factor 5: Concern about

distraction in self and audience. These results are currently being cross

validated using a new sample of young American band musicians in Grades 6

and 7.

Reliability analyses demonstrate that the MPAI-A is a psychometrically robust

measure, with very good internal consistency (.91). The 15-item MPAI-A

achieved this same high level of internal reliability in the scale development and


reliability samples, although it did reduce slightly to .88 in the concurrent and

discriminant validity sample.

Construct validity was demonstrated by the MPAI-A correlating most highly

with the adult measure of MPA, the K-MPAI, the least with the YSR, and

obtaining moderate and highly significant correlations with the STAI, SPAI-C

and SPAI. The MPAI-A shared between 18% and 44% of the variance with the

two measures of social phobia. These findings are at odds with previous

research that compared MPA and social anxiety. Huston (2001) found a

correlation in the order of .35 (12% of variance shared) and concluded that MPA

and social phobia were relatively unrelated. This difference may be attributable

to sample differences. Huston’s sample consisted of an older sample of

predominantly professional musicians with much performance experience,

where number of years playing an instrument was associated with lower rates of

MPA. Slightly weaker yet significant correlations were obtained with the CDI-

Total and CDI-Negative Self-Esteem scales, which is consistent with the

frequent comorbidity between anxiety, particularly social anxiety, and

depressive disorders (Essau, Conradt, & Petermann, 1999; Kerr, 2003).

Interestingly, this research replicated Ryan’s (1998) correlation between the

STAI and Negative Self-esteem in 12-year-old piano students, a finding that is

consistent across test and sports performance anxiety research, but equivocal in

the MPA field. McCoy (1999) did not find a significant relationship between the

two constructs, yet Sinden (1999) found self-esteem to significantly predict

MPA.

The significant weak to moderate correlations between the MPAI-A and the

CDI can be explained by virtue of anxiety and depressive disorders both

factoring on the internalizing syndrome of children’s behavioral and emotional

problems (Achenbach, 1991). Further, as measures of anxiety and depression

are highly intercorrelated in adults, adolescents, researchers have suggested

there is a general negative affectivity component that is common to both

anxiety and depression (Clark & Watson, 1991; Lonigan, Carey, & Finch,

1994).

3.1. Rates of social phobia

The diagnosis of social phobia in this research was impeded not only by the

inconclusive screening cutoffs prescribed by the instruments themselves but also

by the inconsistent population social phobia morbidity rates found in other

research using different assessment tools (Essau et al., 1999; Kashani & Orvashel,

1990; Kerr, 2003).

SPAI-C normative results for females across the whole sample suggests

that a large proportion of females met criteria for social phobia, which

calls into question the validity of using 18 as a suggested cutoff, although

the social phobia absent group scored lower than the cutoff overall (Beidel et

al., 2000). The authors of the SPAI-C state that the development of separate


cutoff scores based on gender may be necessary for general populations,

if this difference is replicated with other samples. What these figures

do emphasise is the somewhat arbitrary nature of the normative data provided

for this test. The range of SPAI-C cutoff scores provided in the manual allows

users to determine their own cutoff according to the percentage of false-

negatives to false-positives the user is prepared to accept. Unfortunately,

the authors have determined these initial normative data using separate

research (Beidel, Turner, & Morris, 1995), with a sample of 52 socially

anxious and 48 normal control children, without presenting means and

standard deviations for the two groups either in the manual or other published

literature, thus making normative comparisons difficult. However, for the

purposes of screening and determining the potential presence or absence of

social phobia, a cutoff score of 18 was used as suggested in the test manual

(Beidel et al., 1998).

The authors of the SPAI also fail to provide screening cutoff scores for

adolescents. The test authors observe from the research by Clark et al. (1994)

that the mean score for the socially phobic adolescents on the social

phobia and agoraphobia subscales is much lower than that for adults and

closer to the figures reported by the socially anxious (but not phobic)

college group. They postulate that it may be attributable to adolescents having

fewer opportunities to engage in some of the activities listed on the SPAI

because they are not as relevant for this age group. Thus, they advise that

‘‘when used with adolescents as a screening device, adjustments to the

recommended cutoff need to be made’’ (Turner et al., 1996, p. 32). The APA

(1995) reports lifetime presentation rates of social phobia in epidemiological

and community studies as between 3 and 13%. Studies specifically assessing

the 12–17-year-age group using diagnostic interviews place the social phobia

rate lower, between 1.4 and 1.6% (Essau et al., 1999; Kashani & Orvashel,

1990). The prevalence of social anxiety symptoms is much higher, ranging

between 46 and 56% for ‘‘fear of social situations’’, and 67% for ‘‘worry

what others think of me’’ (Kashani & Orvaschel, 1990). Fear of doing

something in front of other people was the most frequent symptom of social

phobia, followed by public speaking and/or talking with others (social talk)

(Essau et al., 1999). The resonance and similarity of these types of social fears

with the context of performing music before an audience is striking. Indeed,

studies of social phobia in college and adult musicians with high MPA

place diagnosis rates higher, between 27% (Osborne, 1998) and 95% (Clark &

Agras, 1991).

Further evidence for the arbitrary and inconclusive cutoffs in the SPAI-C and

SPAI can be seen in the almost inverse relationships between unlikely and

combined likely probabilites of social phobia across the two measures.

Investigations using the recommended cutoff score for the SPAI-C in the

criterion validity sample found that 79% of 11–14-year-olds assessed using the

SPAI-C were unlikely to have social phobia, which reduces dramatically to 28%


for 15–19-year-olds assessed using the SPAI. Developmentally, this suggests that

rates of social phobia increase as people progress through adolescence, which is

consistent with previous research indicating social phobia onset in mid-to-late

adolescence (APA, 1995; Liebowitz et al., 1985; Turner et al., 1986). However,

considering the aforementioned psychometric problems with these tests, this

result needs to be treated cautiously.

The percentage of this sample who met criteria for possible or probable social

phobia in the convergent and discriminant validity sample was much lower than

the percentage in the criterion validity sample. These discrepancies can be at

least partially explained by the difference in the time of year that the studies were

conducted. The criterion validity study was conducted during the middle of Term

1 in the new school year, at the beginning of class assessments and concert

preparation. The convergent and discriminant validity study was conducted at

the end of the school year, in the week after the last major music and other

academic assessments, and in the third last week before the end of school year

and summer break. Students were less concerned about academic and social

pressures at this time than they had been at the start of the school year, and this

may have been reflected in their second group of scores. Consistent with

research by Bandura (1991), this may be a case where very small changes in

context or task-expectancy may change a person’s appraisal of a situation as

anxiety-provoking or not.

Although there are inconsistencies in the screening procedures for social

phobia using the SPAI-C and SPAI, the various investigations of unlikely-possible

social phobia percentages (particularly in Table 5) provide evidence for

substantially higher rates of social phobia in this sample of elite adolescent

performers than found in general adolescent epidemiological research.

Considering that Dadds et al. (1999) found that up to 54% of anxious children

can progress to a formal anxiety disorder in adulthood if left untreated, these

figures indicate a need for further research into valid and reliable assessments of

prevalence, prevention and early intervention of clinical levels of anxiety in this

population.

3.2. Gender differences on measures of trait and social anxiety

Gender differences were apparent on the three normed measures. Girls

demonstrated significantly higher trait anxiety than the norm group but boys’

average scores were not significantly different. Prior research has found that

girls consistently present with more anxiety diagnoses and social anxiety fears

than boys, often in the ratio 2:1 (Essau et al., 1999; Ford, Goodman, &

Meltzer, 2003; Kashani, Orvaschel, Rosenberg, & Reid, 1989; Lewinsohn et

al., 1998). The current results are at odds with theses findings. In criterion

validity sample girls obtained an equivalent mean score to boys on the SPAI-C,

and scored lower (though not significantly) than boys on the SPAI. In the

convergent and discriminant validity sample, however, girls scored higher on


average than boys on both the SPAI-C and SPAI, although the differences were

not significant.

3.3. Gender differences in MPA

Levels of MPA are generally higher in women than men (Huston, 2001;

Steiner, 1998), although Ryan (2003) found a differential pattern of anxious

responding across boys and girls. Girls had substantially higher heart rates than

boys immediately prior to but not during performance. Boys had significantly

more anxious behaviors than girls both prior to, and during a performance.

Social/interpersonal anxiety is common for boys and girls as peers become the

increasing focus of attention (Kashani et al., 1989). Girls but not boys, become

increasingly concerned with age (Kashani et al., 1989). Girls also have

significantly greater fears of performing in front of others (Essau et al., 1999).

Consistent with these findings, girls obtained significantly higher MPAI-A

scores than boys.

3.4. Conclusion

This paper presents data on a new instrument for assessing MPA in adolescent

musicians. The MPAI-A is a 15-item self-report measure that assesses the

somatic, cognitive and behavioral components of anxiety experienced by

adolescent musicians. Although further research is needed to confirm its

discriminant, external and predictive validity, these initial studies indicate that the

MPAI-A is psychometrically robust according to current accepted standards

(Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988). Consistent with previous research, there was a

moderate relationship between MPA and social phobia. Similarly, there was a

modest positive relationship between high in trait anxiety music performance

anxiety. There was a strong situational effect in the self-reporting of subjective

experience of anxiety according to the time of school year and related

performance demands. Situational factors appear to impact on the degree to which

young musicians report performance anxiety, and these deserve further research

attention. Additional questions regarding the basis of identified gender differences

and the developmental trajectory of performance anxiety from late childhood

through adolescence need further investigation to determine if possible protective

factors against MPA can be identified. The MPAI-A will be useful to pedagogues,

researchers and clinicians in the assessment and/or treatment of MPA in young

performers.

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank Associate Professor Ross G. Menzies for his advice on the

design of the convergent and discriminant validity study.


Appendix A List of MPA measures

Abbreviation Measure Citation

AAS–MAS Adaptive–Maladaptive

Anxiety Scale

Wolfe (1989)

AATS Achievement Anxiety

Test Scale

Sweeney and Horan (1982)

AD Anxiety Differential Sweeney and Horan (1982)

K-MPAI Kenny Music Performance

Anxiety Inventory

Kenny (2004)

MPAS Music Performance

Anxiety Scale

Wolfe (1989)

MPAQ Music Performance

Anxiety Questionnaire

Lehrer et al. (1990)

MPSS Music Performance

Stress Survey

Brodsky, Sloboda,

and Waterman (1994)

MQ Musician’s Questionnaire Wills and Cooper (1988)

PAI Performance Anxiety Inventory Nagle et al. (1989)

PASSS Performance Anxiety

Self-statement Scale

Kendrick, Craig, Lawson,

and Davidson (1982)

PAQ-CK Performance Anxiety

Questionnaire-CK

Cox and Kenardy (1993)

PAQ-WND Performance Anxiety

Questionnaire-WND

Brodsky et al. (1994);

Wesner et al. (1990)

PI Performance Inventory Kubzansky and Stewart (1999)

PPAS Piano Performance

Anxiety Scale

Sweeney and Horan (1982)

PRCP Personal Report of

Confidence as a Performer

Appel (1976)

SES Self-efficacy Scale Craske and Craig (1984)

SEQ State Emotion Questionnaire Kubzansky and Stewart (1999)

SFRS Stage Fright Rating Scale Neftel et al. (1982)

SSQ Self-statement Questionnaire Steptoe and Fidler (1987)

TAS Trait Anxiety Scale Wolfe (1990)


References

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University

of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Alfano, C. A., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2002). Cognition in childhood anxiety: conceptual,

methodological, and developmental issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1209–1238.


Appendix B What I think about music and performing (MPAI-A).

Please think about music in general and your major instrument and answer the

questions by circling the number, which describes how you feel.

Not

at all

About

half the

time

All

of the

time

1 Before I perform, I get butterflies

in my stomach

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 I often worry about my

ability to perform

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 I would rather play on my own,

than in front of other people

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 Before I perform, I tremble or shake 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 When I perform in front of an

audience, I am afraid of making mistakes

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


my heart beats very fast

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


I find it hard to concentrate on my music

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 If I make a mistake during a performance,

I usually panic

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 When I perform in front of an audience

I get sweaty hands

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 When I finish performing, I usually

feel happy with my performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

11 I try to avoid playing on my own at

a school concert

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 Just before I perform, I feel nervous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

13 I worry that my parents or teacher

might not like my performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

14 I would rather play in a group or

ensemble, than on my own

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

15 My muscles feel tense when I perform 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

M. S. Osborne and D. T. Kenny (2001)#.

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal

Social Psychology., 61, 207–215.

American Psychiatric Association. (1995). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

international version (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Appel, S.S. (1976). Modifying solo performance anxiety in adult pianists. Journal of Music Therapy,

13(1), 2–16.

Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In: R. Schwarzer & R. Wicklund (Eds.),

Anxiety and self-focused attention. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Barlow, D.H. (2000). Unravelling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of

emotion theory. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1247–1263.

Barlow, D.H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders. The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., Hamlin, K., & Morris, T. L. (2000). The Social Phobia and Anxiety

Inventory for Children (SPAI-C): external and discriminative validity. Behavior Therapy, 31(1),

75–87.

Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1995). A new inventory to assess childhood social anxiety

and phobia: the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Psychological Assessment, 7(1),

73–79.

Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children

(SPAI-C). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Bracken, B.A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of

technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 313–326.

Brodsky, W., Sloboda, J. A., & Waterman, M. G. (1994). An exploratory investigation into auditory

style as a correlate and predictor of music performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing

Artists, 9, 101–112.

Clark, D. B., & Agras, W. S. (1991). The assessment and treatment of performance anxiety in

musicians. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 598–605.

Clark, D. B., Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Donovan, J. E., Kirisci, L., & Jacob, R. G. (1994). Reliability

and validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for adolescents. Psychological Assess-

ment, 6(2), 135–140.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence

and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.

Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS: analysis without anguish: version 10.1 for Windows.

Milton, Qld: John Wiley.

Cox, B. J., & Kenardy, J. (1993). Performance anxiety, social phobia, and setting effects in instrumental

music students. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 49–60.

Craske, M. G., & Craig, K. D. (1984). Musical performance anxiety: the three-systems model and self-

efficacy theory. Behavior Research and Therapy, 22(3), 267–280.

Dadds, M. R., Holland, D. E., Laurens, K. R., Mullins, M., Barrett, P. M., & Spence, S. H. (1999). Early

intervention and prevention of anxiety disorders in children: results at 2-year follow-up. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 145–150.

de Vaus, D.A. (1995). Surveys in social research. (4th ed.). St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Essau, C. A., Conradt, J., & Petermann, F. (1999). Frequency and comorobidity of social phobia and

social fears in adolescents. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 831–843.

Ford, T., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. (2003). The British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey

1999: the prevalence of DSM-IV Disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(10), 1203–1211.

Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British Journal of

Psychology, 82, 163–178.

Huston, J.L. (2001). Familial antecedents of musical performance anxiety: a comparison with social

anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 62(1-B),

551.


James, I. (1997). Federation Internationale des Musiciens 1997 survey of 56 orchestras worldwide.

London: British Association for Performing Arts Medicine.

Kaplan, J., & Saccuzzo, D. D. (1989). Psychological testing: principles, applications and issues.

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.

Kashani, J. H., & Orvaschel, H. (1990). A community study of anxiety in children and adolescents.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(3), 313–318.

Kashani, J. H., Orvaschel, H., Rosenberg, T. K., & Reid, J. C. (1989). Psychopathology in a community

sample of children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 28(5), 701–706.

Kendrick, M. J., Craig, K. D., Lawson, D. M., & Davidson, P. O. (1982). Cognitive and behavioural

therapy for musical-performance anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3),

353–362.

Kenny, D. T., Davis, P. J., & Oates, J. (2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress

amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism.

Journal of Anxiety Disorders., 18(6), 757–777.

Kerr, M. (2003, 17 October). Social Anxiety Disorder much more prevalent than previously thought

[Internet]. Medscape Medical News.

Kirchner, J.M. (2003). A qualitative inquiry into musical performance anxiety. Medical Problems of

Performing Artists, 18, 78–82.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Kubzansky, L. D., & Stewart, A. J. (1999). At the intersection of anxiety, gender and performance.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(1), 76–97.

Lang, P. J., Davis, M., & Ohman, A. (2000). Fear and anxiety: animal models and human cognitive

psychophysiology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 137–159.

Lederman, R.J. (1999). Medical treatment of performance anxiety: a statement in favor. Medical

Problems of Performing Artists, 14(3), 117–121.

Lehrer, P. M., Goldman, N. S., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). A principal components analysis assessment

of performance anxiety among musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 12–18.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Gotlib, I. H., Lewinsohn, M., Seeley, J. R., & Allen, N. B. (1998). Gender

differences in anxiety disorders and anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 107(1), 109–117.

Liebowitz, M. R., Gorman, J. M., Fyer, A. J., & Klein, D. F. (1985). Social phobia: review of a

neglected anxiety disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 729–736.

Lonigan, C. J., Carey, M. P., & Finch, A. J. J. (1994). Anxiety and depression in children and

adolescents: negative affectivity and the utility of self-reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 62(5), 1000–1008.

Maroon, M.T.J. (2003). Potential contributors to performance anxiety among middle school students

performing at solo and ensemble contest. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2-A), 437.

McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for

preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 34–42.

McCoy, L.H. (1999). Musical performance anxiety among college students: an integrative approach.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4-A), 1059.

Morris, T.L. (2001). Social phobia. In: M. W. Vasey & M. R. Dadds (Eds.), The developmental

psychopathology of anxiety. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nagle, J. J., Himle, D. P., & Papsdorf, J. D. (1989). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of musical

performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17, 12–21.

Neftel, K. A., Adler, R. H., Kappeli, L., Rossi, M., Dolder, M., Kaser, H. E. et al. (1982). Stage fright in

musicians: a model illustrating the effect of beta blockers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44(5), 461–469.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osborne, M. S. (1998). Determining the diagnostic and theoretical adequacy of conceptualizing music

performance anxiety as a social phobia. Unpublished Honours thesis, Macquarie University,

Sydney.


Paul, G. L. (1966). Insight vs. desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment in anxiety reduction.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ryan, C. (1998). Exploring musical performance anxiety in children. Medical Problems of Performing

Artists, 13, 83–88.

Ryan, C. A. (2003). A study of the differential responses of male and female children to musical

performance anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social

Sciences 63(7-A), 2487.

Salmon, P. (1990). A psychological perspective on musical performance anxiety: a review of the

literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 2–11.

Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1978). Cognitive and somatic processes in anxiety.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 321–328.

Sinden, L.M. (1999). Music performance anxiety: contributions of perfectionism, coping style, self-

efficacy, and self-esteem. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(3-A), 0590.

Spielberger, C.D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1985). Washington, DC: American Psycholo-

gical Association.

Steiner, A. (1998). The relationship between performance anxiety and narcissism in musicians.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(4-B), 1869.

Steptoe, A., & Fidler, H. (1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: a study of cognitive and

behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 241–249.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1988). Assessment in special remedial education. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Sweeney, G. A., & Horan, J. J. (1982). Separate and combined effects of cue-controlled relaxation and

cognitive restructuring in the treatment of music performance anxiety. Journal of Counseling

Psychology., 29(5), 486–497.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Needham Heights,

MA: Pearson.

Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Dancu, C. V. (1996). SPAI: Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. North

Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Dancu, C. V., & Keys, D. J. (1986). Psychopathology of social phobia and

comparison to avoidant personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 389–394.

Van Son, M. J. M. & Van Heesch, N. C. A. (1995). Performance anxiety among professional musicians

in symphonic orchestras: a self-report study. Psychological Reports, 77, 555–562.

Wesner, R. B., Noyes, R., Jr., & Davis, T. L. (1990). The occurrence of performance anxiety among

musicians. Journal of Affective Disorders, 18(3), 177–185.

Wilson, G. D. (2002). Psychology for performing artists (2nd ed.). London, UK, Whurr.

Wills, G., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Pressure sensitive: popular musicians under stress. London: Sage.

Wolfe, M.L. (1989). Correlates of adaptive and maladaptive musical performance anxiety. Medical

Problems of Performing Artists, 4(1), 49–56.

Zinn, M., McCain, C., & Zinn, M. (2000). Musical performance anxiety and the high-risk model of

threat perception. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 15, 65–71.


inventarul mpai

Documents