Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Contribution for the Portuguese Validation

Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Contribution for the Portuguese Validation behavioral sciences Article Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Contribution for the Portuguese Validation 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 Pedro Dias *, Lurdes Veríssimo , Nânci Figueiredo , Patrícia Oliveira-Silva , Sofia Serra and Daniela Coimbra Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal; lverissimo@ucp.pt (L.V.); nanci.figueiredo.psi@hotmail.com (N.F.); posilva@ucp.pt (P.O.-S.) CEDH-Research Centre for Human Development, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal CITAR-Research Centre for Science and Technology of the Arts, School of Arts, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal; sserra@ucp.pt i2ADS—Research Institute of Art, Design and Society, School of Music and Performing Arts, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, 4000-045 Porto, Portugal; DanielaCoimbra@esmae.ipp.pt * Correspondence: pmbdias@ucp.pt Abstract: (1) Background: The aim of the present study was to contribute to the validation of the Portuguese version of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) and to study its psychometric properties. (2) Methods: A sample of 164 undergraduate music students in Portugal (62.2% female; mean age = 22.63; SD = 4.36) completed an online survey composed of the K-MPAI Portuguese version, the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, and a sociodemographic questionnaire. The K-MPAI psychometric properties were examined using exploratory factor analyses, known-group differences, and Cronbach’s alpha. (3) Results: A four-factor structure was identified, in line with recent validation of this measure in other countries: music performance anxiety-related symptoms, depression and hopelessness, parental support, and memory self-efficacy. Concurrent and known- group validity were established, and reliability scores were appropriate for the dimensions and total score. (4) Conclusions: The results provide initial evidence of the appropriateness of the Portuguese Citation: Dias, P.; Veríssimo, L.; version of the K-MPAI. Figueiredo, N.; Oliveira-Silva, P.; Serra, S.; Coimbra, D. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Keywords: music performance anxiety; assessment; K-MPAI; validation; psychometric properties Contribution for the Portuguese Validation. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020018 1. Introduction Academic Editor: Andrew Soundy Music performance anxiety (MPA) is defined as the experience of feeling anxious and Received: 10 November 2021 apprehensive about one’s music performance skills in a severe and persistent way in a Accepted: 20 January 2022 music performance context when this distress is not justified by the individual’s ability Published: 23 January 2022 and level of preparation. It is frequently associated with a setting where there is a high Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral investment, an evaluation situation, and a consequent possibility of failure [1]. Although with regard to jurisdictional claims in many other professions may also be associated with high anxiety levels, some evidence published maps and institutional affil- suggests that musicians display more symptoms of performance anxiety than the general iations. working population [2]. MPA is one of the most frequently described disorders among musicians [3,4], with recent literature reporting prevalence ranging between 24% and 70% of orchestra musi- cians [5]. MAP can affect musicians in all stages of professional trajectory with different Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. levels of experience, practice, and musical level of attainment [6]. There are different de- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. grees of severity, and musicians suffering from MPA often display emotional (e.g., anxious This article is an open access article apprehension towards a performance), cognitive (e.g., focused attention on fear), somatic distributed under the terms and (e.g., increased heart rate or shaking hands), and behavioural symptoms (e.g., avoiding conditions of the Creative Commons auditions, solos, and rehearsals) [1]. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// With regard to its aetiology, Barlow’s model [7] suggests that MPA could arise by creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the presence or interaction of three types of vulnerabilities that influence the degree of 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020018 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 2 of 11 the anxiety response: (i) generalised biological vulnerability, explained by biological fac- tors that influence the development of negative emotions; (ii): generalised psychological vulnerability, based on early experiences that induce a perception that certain events are uncontrollable; and (iii) specific psychological vulnerability, when the experience of feeling anxious occurs due to specific environmental stimuli which are reinforced by different types of learning [5–9]. Research in MPA has focused on several predisposing individual, social, and situa- tional factors, such as age, sex, motivation, personality traits, audience presence, type of instrument, performance setting, repertoire, and level of demand [1,10–15]. The results of some of these studies indicate a predisposition of women to feel higher levels of dys- functional anxiety in the contexts of musical performance [16,17]. Extrinsic motivation (e.g., meeting parental expectations) [18] and personality characteristics (e.g., higher lev- els of trait anxiety or high perfectionism) [19] are also predictors of performance anxiety. Studies also showed the central role of social and situational variables on MPA, suggesting significantly higher anxiety levels when the performance has an audience, highlighting concerns such as fear of being negatively judged, the size and status of the audience, and the competitive nature of the performance [11,12,18]. While some musicians manifest adaptive and focused anxiety, many others experience deep and prolonged physical and psychological suffering, which impacts the quality of performance [1]. Thus, a valid and reliable tool for assessing MPA is crucial to identify musicians in need of intervention to manage their anxiety effectively and to study this phenomenon in different cultures [1]. One of the most-used instruments developed to assess MPA is the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) [8]. Based on Barlow’s model [7] adapted to MPA, K-MPAI assesses symptoms of anxiety, memory bias, negative cognitions related to MPA, and elements related to personal history (e.g., primary experiences during development) (Kenny, 2011). The first version of the K-MPAI includes 26 items [8]. A revised version contains 40 items [20]. The psychometric properties of the revised version of the K-MPAI [20] were analysed with sample populations of professional and amateur musicians and music university students. This version was adapted and validated in several countries (e.g., Spain, Brazil, Germany, Australia, Peru, and Romania) [6,20–23]. Through these validation studies, different factorial structures were tested. Recent studies have tested the factor structure of K-MPAI using 30 of the original 40 items in Peru and Australia, and in Romania [6,24]. In the Romanian version, a four-factor structure showed appropriate psychometric properties [6]. Assessing MPA in adult musicians and music students is essential for screening and intervention design purposes. Considering this need and the absence of a valid measure for such assessment in Portugal, the present study aimed to contribute to the validation of the K-MPAI in Portugal and to perform the first study of its psychometric properties in a sample of university music students. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Procedures For the K-MPAI translation and validation procedures to Portuguese, the criteria proposed by the International Test Commission [25] were followed: a bilingual expert per- formed a process of translation and a different expert performed a blind back-translation from the original K-MPAI version to achieve linguistic equivalence; then, the research team reached an agreement about the best version of the instrument in terms of com- prehension, conceptualisation, content, semantics, and culture. Moreover, a think-aloud focus group involving 14 music master ’s students and instrumentalists changed 12 items to meet their suggestions regarding clarity and comprehension for the target sample (K-MPAI Form Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29946189 5KennyMusicPerformanceAnxietyInventoryK-MPAIandscoringform (accessed on 01 November 2021)). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 3 of 11 Participants were recruited through an online invitation sent through the coordinators of degree programs in music higher education institutions from all the regions of Portugal. Participants who agreed to participate responded to an online survey implemented via the survey platform Qualtrics .Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (accessed on 14 September 2020). Complete ethical assessments and approvals were sought in advance of the project. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. They were informed that participation in the study was voluntary, that all the information gathered would be confidential and anonymous, and about their right to withdrawal at any time. Only the research team had access to the database, stored safely in a university- owned computer with password protection. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Scientific Board of the Faculty of Education and Psychology in September 2019. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 18 years old and less than 40 years old, and enrolment in an instrument degree at a higher education institution in Portugal. These criteria were defined in order to obtain a diverse sample regarding age, country regions, and instruments played. A total of 336 responses to the online survey were obtained. However, 172 responses were excluded due to incomplete protocols and the presence of participants who did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. 2.2. Participants The study included data on 164 undergraduate music students (62.2% female) from diverse higher education institutions from different regions in Portugal (north, centre, and south). Students’ age ranged from 18 to 39 years old (M = 22.63; SD = 4.36). The characterisation of participants’ music-related variables is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Characterisation of participants. n = 164 % Undergraduate year 1st year 29 17.7% 2nd year 39 23.8% 3rd year 81 49.4% Not reported 15 9.1% Instruments played Woodwind 50 30.5% Brass 41 25% String 35 21.3% Keyboard 19 11.6% Voice 15 9.1% Percussion 3 1.8% Not reported 1 0.7% Another instrument Yes 45 27.3% No 118 72% Not reported 1 0.7% Involvement in ensemble activities (group/band/orchestra) Yes 127 77.3% No 35 21.3% Not reported 2 1.4% Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 4 of 11 Table 1. Cont. n = 164 % Participation in music competitions Yes 129 78.7% No 35 21.3% National 84 51.2% International 38 23.2% Weekly instrument practice time <11 h 46 28% 11–20 h 50 35.4% >20 h 47 28.7% Not reported 21 7.9% Participants were asked about receiving previous professional psychological support due to anxiety. In all, 51 (31.1%) reported having had anxiety-related support in the past, while 111 (67.7%) said they did not. When addressing drug intake, the data showed that 50 participants reported taking or having taken the following anxiety-related medications: anxiolytics (n = 19), antidepressants (n = 6), beta-blockers (n = 17), other drugs (e.g., valerian; cannabis tea; n = 15). 2.3. Instruments 2.3.1. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) K-MPAI [6] is a 40-item instrument that assesses MPA based on Barlow’s [7] triple vulnerability model that accounts for the development of anxiety or mood disorders in general [8], as discussed previously. Each item can be rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A total score can be obtained by summing up all the items, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety and psychological distress levels (e.g., item 4: “I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things”; item 10: “Prior to, or during a performance, I get feelings akin to panic”). 2.3.2. State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI); Portuguese Version This self-report questionnaire is one of the most widely used instruments to measure anxiety in adults [26,27]. STAI has two independent scales, one to assess state anxiety (STAI-S) and another to evaluate trait anxiety (STAI-T), each with 20 items. The STAI-S is composed of items that capture psychological and physiological transient or situational anxiety (e.g., item 17: “I am tense; I am worried”), while STAI-T is composed of items that capture individual differences associated with a tendency to experience anxiety, which are relatively stable over time (e.g., item 13: “I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be”). Each item can be rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). A total score can be obtained by summing up all the items, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety and psychological distress levels [27]. The STAI Portuguese version [26,27] showed high internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.88 for both scales [27]. 2.3.3. Sociodemographic Questionnaire The sociodemographic questionnaire collected data such as (i) sex; (ii) age; (iii) year of degree (e.g., first, second, or third undergraduate year); (iv) instrument played; (v) partici- pation in ensemble activities, rehearsal frequency (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or occasionally), and function (e.g., conductor, section leader, instrumentalist); (vi) participation in music competitions (e.g., in the past year, national or international); (vii) instrument practice time per week; and (viii) history of psychological support and medicine intake due to anxiety (e.g., in anticipation or immediately before the performance, regularity). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 5 of 11 2.4. Data Analysis Overview The data were imported from the Qualtrics platform to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences [SPSS], version 26.0 [28]. The sociodemographic data (sex, age, year of degree, and instrument played) were analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency, and percentage. According to the objectives of the present study, the K-MPAI psychometric properties were examined for validity and reliability. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis (PCA) with the varimax rotation method was carried out to determine the factor structure of the data, based on the Romanian validation results for the K-MPAI [6], in which the authors considered 30 out of the 40 items of the original instrument. The suitability of the sample’s data to perform the EFA was evaluated using Keizer–Meyer–Olkin tests (KMO; a measure of sampling adequacy) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (general significance of all correlations) [29]. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess concurrent validity by comparing the K-MPAI results with the STAI (state and trait) results. To analyse differences between groups with normally distributed data, the indepen- dent samples t-test was used for (i) sex differences, (ii) participants with vs. without a history of professional support due to anxiety, and (iii) participants with vs. without medicine intake to manage anxiety-related symptoms. These analyses allowed us to test known-group validity, as differences in MPA are expected to occur between male and female participants, with female students scoring higher than males, and with participants with previous support for anxiety reasons (professional support and medicine intake) also scoring higher than participants without a history of such support. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency. 3. Results 3.1. Validity—Factorial Structure of the K-MPAI The KMO value was 0.845, suggesting the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis (Field, 2005). Bartlett’s test of sphericity reported a significant value, 2 (435) = 2247.436, p < 0.001, confirming that the correlation matrix was appropriate (Field, 2005). A four-factor solution was a suitable option in terms of the explained variance and the items’ factor loading. The final structure proposed for the instrument is composed of the following factors: Factor 1—MPA-related symptoms (e.g., item 15: “Thinking about the evaluation I may get interferes with my performance”); Factor 2—depression and hopelessness (e.g., item 4: “I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things”); Factor 3—parental support (e.g., item 9: “My parents were mostly responsive to my needs”); and Factor 4—memory self-efficacy (e.g., item 37: “I am confident playing from memory”). The four-factor model can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. Results of exploratory factor analysis for the K-MPAI and factor loadings of the 30 items (final version). Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 K-MPAI Items MPA-Related Depression and Memory Parental Support Symptoms Hopelessness Self-Efficacy 38. I am concerned about being 0.757 scrutinised by others. 18. I am often concerned about a negative 0.739 reaction from the audience. 26. My worry and nervousness about my performance interferes with my focus 0.701 and concentration. 15. Thinking about the evaluation I may 0.687 get interferes with my performance. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 6 of 11 Table 2. Cont. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 K-MPAI Items MPA-Related Depression and Memory Parental Support Symptoms Hopelessness Self-Efficacy 10. Prior to, or during a performance, I get 0.656 0.296 feelings akin to panic. 30. Prior to, or during a performance, I 0.648 have increased muscle tension. 28. I often prepare for a concert with a 0.618 0.462 sense of dread and impending disaster. 34. I worry so much before a performance, 0.617 0.206 I cannot sleep. 11. I never know before a concert whether 0.612 0.243 I will perform well. 22. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience increased heart rate like 0.607 pounding in my chest. 14. During a performance, I find myself 0.604 0.371 0.211 thinking about whether I’ll get through it. 21. I worry that one bad performance may 0.592 ruin my career. 16. Prior to, or during a performance, I feel sick or faint or have a churning in 0.587 0.349 my stomach. 36. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience shaking or trembling 0.573 0.272 or tremor. 24. I give up worthwhile performance 0.525 opportunities due to anxiety. 25. After the performance, I worry about 0.453 0.264 whether I played well enough. 20. From early in my music studies, I remember being anxious 0.452 about performing. 3. Sometimes I feel depressed without 0.716 knowing why. 13. I often feel that I am not worth much 0.259 0.700 as a person. 4. I often find it difficult to work up the 0.693 0.266 energy to do things. 6. I often feel that life has not much to 0.681 offer me. 31. I often feel that I have nothing to look 0.261 0.590 forward to. 19. Sometimes I feel anxious for no 0.338 0.483 particular reason. 12. Prior to, or during a performance, I 0.257 0.289 0.275 experience dry mouth. 23. My parents always listened to me. 0.223 0.862 9. My parents were mostly responsive to 0.811 my needs. 33. My parents encouraged me to try 0.687 new things. 27. As a child, I often felt sad. 0.469 0.489 35. When performing without music, my 0.915 memory is reliable. 37. I am confident playing from memory. 0.872 R (%) 23.17% 12.52% 7.80% 7.15% Notes: bold characters indicate items retained in each factor. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 7 of 11 The four factors together accounted for 50.63% of the variance. Factor 1 explained 23.17% of the variance and comprised 18 items (10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, and 38). Factor 2 explained 12.52% of the variance and comprised seven items (3, 4, 6, 13, 19, 27, and 31). Factor 3 explained 7.80% of the variance and comprised three items (9, 23, and 33). Finally, Factor 4 explained 7.15% of the variance and comprised two items (36 and 37). 3.2. Internal Consistency The Portuguese version of K-MPAI, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.91, showed high overall internal consistency for the 30 total items. For all the factors individually, this coefficient was higher than 0.75, with a Cronbach’s = 0.99 for Factor 1, = 0.79 for Factor 2, = 0.76 for Factor 3, and = 0.89 for Factor 4. These results suggest that the proposed instrument is reliable for this sample [30]. 3.3. Concurrent Validity: Correlation of K-MPAI Scores with STAI Scores To determine the concurrent validity, a Pearson correlation analysis was also per- formed between K-MPAI and STAI data. The results indicate a significant positive correla- tion between the scores of the two measures, showing that participants who present higher levels of anxiety in STAI (particularly in the STAI-T) also present greater MPA according to K-MPAI scores. The Pearson correlation analysis is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Pearson correlation between STAI and K-MPAI factors. Depression MPA-Related Parental Memory K-MPAI and Symptoms Support Self-Efficacy Total Score Hopelessness STAI_Y1 0.40 *** 0.64 *** 0.32 *** 0.07 0.52 *** STAI_Y2 0.53 *** 0.78 *** 0.24 ** 0.11 0.67 *** ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. 3.4. Music Anxiety Performance—Group Differences Regarding the analysis of gender differences, a t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between males and females in relation to the degree of MPA. Female participants showed more significant symptoms related to MPA (Factor 1) and higher levels of MPA in general (total score) compared to male participants, t (164) = 3.40, p < 0.001, and t (160) = 2.83, p < 0.01, respectively (see Table 4). Table 4. Gender differences related to MPA (dimensions and total score). Gender Male Female (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 62 102 MPA-related t (164) = 3.40 *** 3.11 (1.23) 3.74 (1.11) symptoms Factor 2 61 102 Depression and t (163) = 0.54 2.70 (1.29) 2.81 (1.20) hopelessness Factor 3 62 101 t (163) = 0.95 Parental support 4.22 (1.33) 4.01 (1.39) Factor 4 62 102 t (164) = 1.15 Memory self-efficacy 3.27 (1.96) 2.92 (1.91) Total Score 61 101 t (160) = 2.83 ** (K-MPAI) 2.86 (1.01) 3.30 (0.94) ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 8 of 11 Differences between participants with and without a history of psychological support due to anxiety problems were also calculated, showing a statistically significant difference. Participants who reported having had anxiety-related professional support showed higher levels of symptoms related to MPA (Factor 1), greater symptoms of depression and hope- lessness (Factor 2), and a higher global level of MPA (total score) compared to participants who reported never having had professional help, t (162) = 3.28, p < 0.01, t (161) = 3.86, p < 0.001, and t (158) = 3.50, p < 0.001, respectively (see Table 5). Table 5. Differences between participants with and without a history of anxiety-related professional support (K-MPAI dimensions and total score). Anxiety-Related Professional Support With Without (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 51 111 MPA-related t (162) = 3.28 ** 3.96 (1.14) 3.31 (1.17) symptoms Factor 2 51 110 Depression and t (161) = 3.86 *** 3.31 (1.30) 2.53 (1.12) hopelessness Factor 3 51 110 t (161) = 0.11 Parental support 4.07 (1.34) 4.09 (1.39) Factor 4 51 111 t (162) = 0.61 Memory self-efficacy 3.18 (1.88) 2.98 (1.97) 51 109 Total Score(K-MPAI) t (158) = 3.50 *** 3.53 (0.93) 2.96 (0.97) ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Finally, a t-test was applied to compare participants with and without medicine intake to manage anxiety-related symptoms, revealing a statistically significant difference. Par- ticipants who reported taking or having taken medication because of anxiety symptoms showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (Factor 1), higher levels of depression and hopelessness (Factor 2), less parental support (Factor 3), and greater MPA in general com- pared to those who reported never taking medication for anxiety, t (164) = 3.84, p < 0.001, t (163) = 4.28, p < 0.001, t (136) = 1.98, p < 0.05, and t (160) = 4.57, p < 0.001, respectively (see Table 6). Table 6. Differences between participants with and without a history of medicine intake to manage anxiety symptoms (dimensions and total score). Anxiety Medicine Intake Yes No (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 50 114 t (164) = 3.84 *** MPA-related symptoms 4.03 (0.99) 3.28 (1.21) Factor 2 50 113 t (163) = 4.28 *** Depression and hopelessness 3.36 (1.13) 2.51 (1.19) Factor 3 50 113 t (163) = 1.98 * Parental support 3.77 (1.39) 4.23 (1.35) Factor 4 50 114 t (164) = 0.93 Memory self-efficacy 2.84 (2.06) 3.14 (1.88) Total Score 50 112 t (160) = 4.57 *** (K-MPAI) 3.63 (0.89) 2.91 (0.95) * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 9 of 11 4. Discussion The central goal of this study was to contribute to the validation of K-MPAI for the Portuguese adult population. Following recent adaptations of the K-MPAI [6], an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, considering 30 items and the extraction of four factors. The results showed that a four-factor structure in the Portuguese population was adequate. This structure— MPA-related symptoms (F1), depression and hopelessness (F2), parental support (F3), and memory self-efficacy (F4)—considering the large percentage of the variance explained and item loadings on each factor, ensure the construct validity of this version. In addition, the Portuguese version of K-MPAI demonstrated high levels of reliability in the four factors and total score, in line with the values obtained in the study by Faur et al. [27], with the same factorial structure. These results support the redefinition of the factorial structure of the K-MPAI in terms of the number of items and factors, in accordance with publications suggesting the use of 30 of the original 40 items [6,24]. As shown in previous studies [8,31], trait and state anxiety were positively associated with MPA, supporting the concurrent validity of this version of K-MPAI: participants who evidenced higher levels of trait and state anxiety showed higher levels of MPA. Female participants showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (F1) and global levels of MPA when compared with male participants. These results are consistent with the literature, indicating that women tend to report more anxiety than men [32–34]. The study of the differences between participants with and without a history of professional follow- up due to anxiety problems showed that the participants who reported a professional intervention for anxiety problems showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (F1), depression and hopelessness (F2), and global levels of MPA. Regarding the differences found between participants with and without a history of medication use for anxiety, the participants who reported using medication for anxiety presented higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (Factor 1), depression and hopelessness (F2), and global levels of MPA and less parental support (Factor 3) compared to those who reported never taking medication for anxiety. These results suggest that a history of previous anxiety problems is associated with higher levels of MPA, in line with research indicating that trait anxiety is a risk factor for the development of MPA [35]. Taken together, known-group differences reinforce the construct validity of the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI. 5. Conclusions This was the first study of the psychometric properties of the K-MPAI in the Portuguese population. The results concerning validity and reliability were appropriate and consistent with recent validation studies of this instrument in other countries. The study of the concurrent validity and known-group differences contribute to a deeper understanding of MPA. Additional research with the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI is still needed, consid- ering that this is a relevant tool for researchers and psychologists working with musicians and music students, allowing an appropriate screening of anxiety related to musical per- formance. Future studies must include larger samples, enabling the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI, as well as the study of different populations (e.g., professional musicians). It is also relevant to further examine the specificity of two of the K-MPAI dimensions (depression and hopelessness and memory self-efficacy) and their relationship with demographic variables. Finally, taking into consid- eration the latest developments on this instrument and this study’s results, future studies combining data from different cultures could provide additional evidence supporting the appropriateness of a revised and shorter version of the K-MPAI. The existence of a robust and validated instrument that assesses music performance anxiety is a powerful contribution to music teaching and learning. The Portuguese version of the K-MPAI will allow, in the context of higher education, the assessment and monitoring Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 10 of 11 of students’ anxiety, and, consequently, the appropriate management of its impact on performance quality. This is particularly important in this stage of professional training, considering that students must develop their music skills, but also skills to cope with stressful performance situations. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.D. and L.V.; methodology, P.D., N.F., L.V., P.O.-S., S.S. and D.C.; formal analysis, P.D. and L.V.; writing—original draft preparation, N.F., L.V., and P.D.; writing—review and editing, P.D., L.V., P.O.-S., S.S. and D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This publication was partially funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (UIDB/04872/2020). Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Scientific Board of the Faculty of Education and Psychology—Universidade Católica Portuguesa (September 2019). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dianna Kenny, author of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory, for the authorisation to translate the scale, as well as the higher education institutions and their students for their participation in the study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Kenny, D.T. The Psychology of Music Performance Anxiety; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. 2. Vaag, J.; Bjoerngaard, J.H.; Bjerkeset, O. Symptoms of anxiety and depression among Norwegian musicians compared to the general workforce. Psychol. Music 2016, 44, 234–248. [CrossRef] 3. Burin, A.B.; Osorio, F.L. Music performance anxiety: A critical review of etiological aspects, perceived causes, coping strategies and treatment. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2017, 44, 127–133. [CrossRef] 4. Kenny, T.; Driscoll, T.; Ackermann, B. Psychological well-being in professional orchestral musicians in Australia: A descriptive population study. Psychol. Music 2014, 42, 210–232. [CrossRef] 5. Brugués, A.O. Music Performance Anxiety: A Comprehensive Update of the Literature; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019. 6. Faur, A.L.; Vaida, S.; Opre, A. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Romanian version. Psychol. Music 2020, 49, 777–788. [CrossRef] 7. Barlow, D.H. Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. Am. Psychol. 2020, 55, 1247–1263. [CrossRef] 8. Kenny, D.T.; Davis, P.; Oates, J. Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. J. Anxiety Disord. 2004, 18, 757–777. [CrossRef] 9. Kenny, D.T.; Osborne, M.S. Music performance anxiety: New insights from young musicians. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 2006, 2, 103–112. [CrossRef] 10. Brotons, M. Effects of Performing Conditions on Music Performance Anxiety and Performance Quality. J. Music. Ther. 1994, 31, 63–81. [CrossRef] 11. Cox, W.J.; Kenardy, J. Performance anxiety, social phobia, and setting effects in instrumental music students. J. Anxiety Disord. 1993, 7, 49–60. [CrossRef] 12. Robinson, G.; Nigbur, D. Experiences of musical performance anxiety in final-year undergraduate music students: An interpreta- tive phenomenological analysis. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 20, 1–28. 13. Salmon, P.; Schrodt, R.; Wright, J. A temporal gradient of anxiety in a stressful performance context. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1989, 4, 77–80. 14. Sinico, A.; Winter, L.L. Ansiedade na Performance Musical: Definições, causas, sintomas, estratégias e tratamentos. Rev. Do Conserv. De Música 2012, 5, 36–64. 15. Taborsky, C. Musical performance anxiety: A review of literature. Update: Appl. Res. Music Educ. 2007, 26, 15–25. [CrossRef] 16. Coskun- ¸ Sentürk, ¸ G.; Çırakoglu, ˘ O.C. How guilt/shame proneness and coping styles are related to music performance anxiety and stress symptoms by gender. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 682–698. [CrossRef] 17. Papageorgi, I.; Hallam, S.; Welch, G.F. A conceptual framework for understanding musical performance anxiety. Res. Stud. Music Educ. 2007, 28, 83–107. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 11 of 11 18. Castiglione, C.; Rampullo, A.; Cardullo, S. Self representations and music performance anxiety: A study with professional and amateur musicians. Eur. J. Psychol. 2018, 14, 792–805. [CrossRef] 19. Hanton, S.; Mellalieu, S.D.; Hall, R. Re-examining the competitive anxiety trait-state relationship. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 33, 1125–1136. [CrossRef] 20. Kenny, D.T. The factor structure of the revised Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory. In International Symposium on Performance Science; Association Européenne des Conservatoires: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. 21. Barbar, A.E.M.; Souza, J.A.D.; Osório, F.D.L. Exploratory factor analysis of Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) in a Brazilian musician sample. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2015, 42, 113–116. [CrossRef] 22. Chang-Arana, A.M. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Kenny-Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI). In Proceedings of the X Latin-American Regional Conference and III Pan American Regional Conference of Music Education, Lima, Peru, 4–7 August 2015. 23. Peschke, S.; Georgi, R. The competence of performance: Mental aspects of succeeding and failing in musicians. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 100, 363. [CrossRef] 24. Chang-Arana, Á.M.; Kenny, D.T.; Burga-León, A.A. Validation of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI): A cross-cultural confirmation of its factorial structure. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 551–567. [CrossRef] 25. International Test Commission. The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests, 2nd; International Test Commission: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 2017. 26. Spielberger, C.D. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (form Y) (“Self-Evaluation Questionnaire”); Consulting Psycholo- gists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1983. 27. Cruz, J.F.; Mota, M.P. Adaptação e características psicométricas do POMS–“Profile of Mood States” e do STAI–“State Trait Anxiety Inventory”. In Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos; Gonçalves, M., Ribeiro, I., Araújo, S., Machado, C., Almeida, L., Simões, M., Eds.; APPORT: Braga, Portugal, 1997; pp. 539–545. 28. IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0; IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USA, 2018. 29. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2005. 30. Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [CrossRef] 31. Rocha, S.F.; Dias-Neto, E.; Gattaz, W.F. Ansiedade na performance musical: Tradução, adaptação e validação do Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) para a língua portuguesa. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2011, 38, 217–221. [CrossRef] 32. González, A.; Blanco-Piñeiro, P.; Díaz-Pereira, M.P. Music performance anxiety: Exploring structural relations with self-efficacy, boost, and self-rated performance. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 831–847. [CrossRef] 33. Nagel, J.J. In pursuit of perfection: Career choice and performance anxiety in musicians. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1988, 3, 140–145. [CrossRef] 34. Widmer, S.; Conway, A.; Cohen, S.; Davies, P. Hyperventilation: A correlate and predictor of debilitating performance anxiety in musicians. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1997, 12, 97–106. 35. Liston, M.; Frost, A.A.; Mohr, P.B. The prediction of musical performance anxiety. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 2003, 18, 120–125. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Behavioral Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Contribution for the Portuguese Validation

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/kenny-music-performance-anxiety-inventory-contribution-for-the-auZ05RqsCx

References (35)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-328X
DOI
10.3390/bs12020018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

behavioral sciences Article Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Contribution for the Portuguese Validation 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 Pedro Dias *, Lurdes Veríssimo , Nânci Figueiredo , Patrícia Oliveira-Silva , Sofia Serra and Daniela Coimbra Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal; lverissimo@ucp.pt (L.V.); nanci.figueiredo.psi@hotmail.com (N.F.); posilva@ucp.pt (P.O.-S.) CEDH-Research Centre for Human Development, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal CITAR-Research Centre for Science and Technology of the Arts, School of Arts, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal; sserra@ucp.pt i2ADS—Research Institute of Art, Design and Society, School of Music and Performing Arts, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, 4000-045 Porto, Portugal; DanielaCoimbra@esmae.ipp.pt * Correspondence: pmbdias@ucp.pt Abstract: (1) Background: The aim of the present study was to contribute to the validation of the Portuguese version of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) and to study its psychometric properties. (2) Methods: A sample of 164 undergraduate music students in Portugal (62.2% female; mean age = 22.63; SD = 4.36) completed an online survey composed of the K-MPAI Portuguese version, the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, and a sociodemographic questionnaire. The K-MPAI psychometric properties were examined using exploratory factor analyses, known-group differences, and Cronbach’s alpha. (3) Results: A four-factor structure was identified, in line with recent validation of this measure in other countries: music performance anxiety-related symptoms, depression and hopelessness, parental support, and memory self-efficacy. Concurrent and known- group validity were established, and reliability scores were appropriate for the dimensions and total score. (4) Conclusions: The results provide initial evidence of the appropriateness of the Portuguese Citation: Dias, P.; Veríssimo, L.; version of the K-MPAI. Figueiredo, N.; Oliveira-Silva, P.; Serra, S.; Coimbra, D. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Keywords: music performance anxiety; assessment; K-MPAI; validation; psychometric properties Contribution for the Portuguese Validation. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020018 1. Introduction Academic Editor: Andrew Soundy Music performance anxiety (MPA) is defined as the experience of feeling anxious and Received: 10 November 2021 apprehensive about one’s music performance skills in a severe and persistent way in a Accepted: 20 January 2022 music performance context when this distress is not justified by the individual’s ability Published: 23 January 2022 and level of preparation. It is frequently associated with a setting where there is a high Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral investment, an evaluation situation, and a consequent possibility of failure [1]. Although with regard to jurisdictional claims in many other professions may also be associated with high anxiety levels, some evidence published maps and institutional affil- suggests that musicians display more symptoms of performance anxiety than the general iations. working population [2]. MPA is one of the most frequently described disorders among musicians [3,4], with recent literature reporting prevalence ranging between 24% and 70% of orchestra musi- cians [5]. MAP can affect musicians in all stages of professional trajectory with different Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. levels of experience, practice, and musical level of attainment [6]. There are different de- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. grees of severity, and musicians suffering from MPA often display emotional (e.g., anxious This article is an open access article apprehension towards a performance), cognitive (e.g., focused attention on fear), somatic distributed under the terms and (e.g., increased heart rate or shaking hands), and behavioural symptoms (e.g., avoiding conditions of the Creative Commons auditions, solos, and rehearsals) [1]. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// With regard to its aetiology, Barlow’s model [7] suggests that MPA could arise by creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the presence or interaction of three types of vulnerabilities that influence the degree of 4.0/). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020018 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 2 of 11 the anxiety response: (i) generalised biological vulnerability, explained by biological fac- tors that influence the development of negative emotions; (ii): generalised psychological vulnerability, based on early experiences that induce a perception that certain events are uncontrollable; and (iii) specific psychological vulnerability, when the experience of feeling anxious occurs due to specific environmental stimuli which are reinforced by different types of learning [5–9]. Research in MPA has focused on several predisposing individual, social, and situa- tional factors, such as age, sex, motivation, personality traits, audience presence, type of instrument, performance setting, repertoire, and level of demand [1,10–15]. The results of some of these studies indicate a predisposition of women to feel higher levels of dys- functional anxiety in the contexts of musical performance [16,17]. Extrinsic motivation (e.g., meeting parental expectations) [18] and personality characteristics (e.g., higher lev- els of trait anxiety or high perfectionism) [19] are also predictors of performance anxiety. Studies also showed the central role of social and situational variables on MPA, suggesting significantly higher anxiety levels when the performance has an audience, highlighting concerns such as fear of being negatively judged, the size and status of the audience, and the competitive nature of the performance [11,12,18]. While some musicians manifest adaptive and focused anxiety, many others experience deep and prolonged physical and psychological suffering, which impacts the quality of performance [1]. Thus, a valid and reliable tool for assessing MPA is crucial to identify musicians in need of intervention to manage their anxiety effectively and to study this phenomenon in different cultures [1]. One of the most-used instruments developed to assess MPA is the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) [8]. Based on Barlow’s model [7] adapted to MPA, K-MPAI assesses symptoms of anxiety, memory bias, negative cognitions related to MPA, and elements related to personal history (e.g., primary experiences during development) (Kenny, 2011). The first version of the K-MPAI includes 26 items [8]. A revised version contains 40 items [20]. The psychometric properties of the revised version of the K-MPAI [20] were analysed with sample populations of professional and amateur musicians and music university students. This version was adapted and validated in several countries (e.g., Spain, Brazil, Germany, Australia, Peru, and Romania) [6,20–23]. Through these validation studies, different factorial structures were tested. Recent studies have tested the factor structure of K-MPAI using 30 of the original 40 items in Peru and Australia, and in Romania [6,24]. In the Romanian version, a four-factor structure showed appropriate psychometric properties [6]. Assessing MPA in adult musicians and music students is essential for screening and intervention design purposes. Considering this need and the absence of a valid measure for such assessment in Portugal, the present study aimed to contribute to the validation of the K-MPAI in Portugal and to perform the first study of its psychometric properties in a sample of university music students. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Procedures For the K-MPAI translation and validation procedures to Portuguese, the criteria proposed by the International Test Commission [25] were followed: a bilingual expert per- formed a process of translation and a different expert performed a blind back-translation from the original K-MPAI version to achieve linguistic equivalence; then, the research team reached an agreement about the best version of the instrument in terms of com- prehension, conceptualisation, content, semantics, and culture. Moreover, a think-aloud focus group involving 14 music master ’s students and instrumentalists changed 12 items to meet their suggestions regarding clarity and comprehension for the target sample (K-MPAI Form Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29946189 5KennyMusicPerformanceAnxietyInventoryK-MPAIandscoringform (accessed on 01 November 2021)). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 3 of 11 Participants were recruited through an online invitation sent through the coordinators of degree programs in music higher education institutions from all the regions of Portugal. Participants who agreed to participate responded to an online survey implemented via the survey platform Qualtrics .Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (accessed on 14 September 2020). Complete ethical assessments and approvals were sought in advance of the project. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. They were informed that participation in the study was voluntary, that all the information gathered would be confidential and anonymous, and about their right to withdrawal at any time. Only the research team had access to the database, stored safely in a university- owned computer with password protection. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Scientific Board of the Faculty of Education and Psychology in September 2019. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 18 years old and less than 40 years old, and enrolment in an instrument degree at a higher education institution in Portugal. These criteria were defined in order to obtain a diverse sample regarding age, country regions, and instruments played. A total of 336 responses to the online survey were obtained. However, 172 responses were excluded due to incomplete protocols and the presence of participants who did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. 2.2. Participants The study included data on 164 undergraduate music students (62.2% female) from diverse higher education institutions from different regions in Portugal (north, centre, and south). Students’ age ranged from 18 to 39 years old (M = 22.63; SD = 4.36). The characterisation of participants’ music-related variables is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Characterisation of participants. n = 164 % Undergraduate year 1st year 29 17.7% 2nd year 39 23.8% 3rd year 81 49.4% Not reported 15 9.1% Instruments played Woodwind 50 30.5% Brass 41 25% String 35 21.3% Keyboard 19 11.6% Voice 15 9.1% Percussion 3 1.8% Not reported 1 0.7% Another instrument Yes 45 27.3% No 118 72% Not reported 1 0.7% Involvement in ensemble activities (group/band/orchestra) Yes 127 77.3% No 35 21.3% Not reported 2 1.4% Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 4 of 11 Table 1. Cont. n = 164 % Participation in music competitions Yes 129 78.7% No 35 21.3% National 84 51.2% International 38 23.2% Weekly instrument practice time <11 h 46 28% 11–20 h 50 35.4% >20 h 47 28.7% Not reported 21 7.9% Participants were asked about receiving previous professional psychological support due to anxiety. In all, 51 (31.1%) reported having had anxiety-related support in the past, while 111 (67.7%) said they did not. When addressing drug intake, the data showed that 50 participants reported taking or having taken the following anxiety-related medications: anxiolytics (n = 19), antidepressants (n = 6), beta-blockers (n = 17), other drugs (e.g., valerian; cannabis tea; n = 15). 2.3. Instruments 2.3.1. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) K-MPAI [6] is a 40-item instrument that assesses MPA based on Barlow’s [7] triple vulnerability model that accounts for the development of anxiety or mood disorders in general [8], as discussed previously. Each item can be rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A total score can be obtained by summing up all the items, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety and psychological distress levels (e.g., item 4: “I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things”; item 10: “Prior to, or during a performance, I get feelings akin to panic”). 2.3.2. State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI); Portuguese Version This self-report questionnaire is one of the most widely used instruments to measure anxiety in adults [26,27]. STAI has two independent scales, one to assess state anxiety (STAI-S) and another to evaluate trait anxiety (STAI-T), each with 20 items. The STAI-S is composed of items that capture psychological and physiological transient or situational anxiety (e.g., item 17: “I am tense; I am worried”), while STAI-T is composed of items that capture individual differences associated with a tendency to experience anxiety, which are relatively stable over time (e.g., item 13: “I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be”). Each item can be rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). A total score can be obtained by summing up all the items, with higher scores indicating higher anxiety and psychological distress levels [27]. The STAI Portuguese version [26,27] showed high internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.88 for both scales [27]. 2.3.3. Sociodemographic Questionnaire The sociodemographic questionnaire collected data such as (i) sex; (ii) age; (iii) year of degree (e.g., first, second, or third undergraduate year); (iv) instrument played; (v) partici- pation in ensemble activities, rehearsal frequency (e.g., weekly, biweekly, or occasionally), and function (e.g., conductor, section leader, instrumentalist); (vi) participation in music competitions (e.g., in the past year, national or international); (vii) instrument practice time per week; and (viii) history of psychological support and medicine intake due to anxiety (e.g., in anticipation or immediately before the performance, regularity). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 5 of 11 2.4. Data Analysis Overview The data were imported from the Qualtrics platform to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences [SPSS], version 26.0 [28]. The sociodemographic data (sex, age, year of degree, and instrument played) were analysed using descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency, and percentage. According to the objectives of the present study, the K-MPAI psychometric properties were examined for validity and reliability. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis (PCA) with the varimax rotation method was carried out to determine the factor structure of the data, based on the Romanian validation results for the K-MPAI [6], in which the authors considered 30 out of the 40 items of the original instrument. The suitability of the sample’s data to perform the EFA was evaluated using Keizer–Meyer–Olkin tests (KMO; a measure of sampling adequacy) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (general significance of all correlations) [29]. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to assess concurrent validity by comparing the K-MPAI results with the STAI (state and trait) results. To analyse differences between groups with normally distributed data, the indepen- dent samples t-test was used for (i) sex differences, (ii) participants with vs. without a history of professional support due to anxiety, and (iii) participants with vs. without medicine intake to manage anxiety-related symptoms. These analyses allowed us to test known-group validity, as differences in MPA are expected to occur between male and female participants, with female students scoring higher than males, and with participants with previous support for anxiety reasons (professional support and medicine intake) also scoring higher than participants without a history of such support. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency. 3. Results 3.1. Validity—Factorial Structure of the K-MPAI The KMO value was 0.845, suggesting the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis (Field, 2005). Bartlett’s test of sphericity reported a significant value, 2 (435) = 2247.436, p < 0.001, confirming that the correlation matrix was appropriate (Field, 2005). A four-factor solution was a suitable option in terms of the explained variance and the items’ factor loading. The final structure proposed for the instrument is composed of the following factors: Factor 1—MPA-related symptoms (e.g., item 15: “Thinking about the evaluation I may get interferes with my performance”); Factor 2—depression and hopelessness (e.g., item 4: “I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things”); Factor 3—parental support (e.g., item 9: “My parents were mostly responsive to my needs”); and Factor 4—memory self-efficacy (e.g., item 37: “I am confident playing from memory”). The four-factor model can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. Results of exploratory factor analysis for the K-MPAI and factor loadings of the 30 items (final version). Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 K-MPAI Items MPA-Related Depression and Memory Parental Support Symptoms Hopelessness Self-Efficacy 38. I am concerned about being 0.757 scrutinised by others. 18. I am often concerned about a negative 0.739 reaction from the audience. 26. My worry and nervousness about my performance interferes with my focus 0.701 and concentration. 15. Thinking about the evaluation I may 0.687 get interferes with my performance. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 6 of 11 Table 2. Cont. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 K-MPAI Items MPA-Related Depression and Memory Parental Support Symptoms Hopelessness Self-Efficacy 10. Prior to, or during a performance, I get 0.656 0.296 feelings akin to panic. 30. Prior to, or during a performance, I 0.648 have increased muscle tension. 28. I often prepare for a concert with a 0.618 0.462 sense of dread and impending disaster. 34. I worry so much before a performance, 0.617 0.206 I cannot sleep. 11. I never know before a concert whether 0.612 0.243 I will perform well. 22. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience increased heart rate like 0.607 pounding in my chest. 14. During a performance, I find myself 0.604 0.371 0.211 thinking about whether I’ll get through it. 21. I worry that one bad performance may 0.592 ruin my career. 16. Prior to, or during a performance, I feel sick or faint or have a churning in 0.587 0.349 my stomach. 36. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience shaking or trembling 0.573 0.272 or tremor. 24. I give up worthwhile performance 0.525 opportunities due to anxiety. 25. After the performance, I worry about 0.453 0.264 whether I played well enough. 20. From early in my music studies, I remember being anxious 0.452 about performing. 3. Sometimes I feel depressed without 0.716 knowing why. 13. I often feel that I am not worth much 0.259 0.700 as a person. 4. I often find it difficult to work up the 0.693 0.266 energy to do things. 6. I often feel that life has not much to 0.681 offer me. 31. I often feel that I have nothing to look 0.261 0.590 forward to. 19. Sometimes I feel anxious for no 0.338 0.483 particular reason. 12. Prior to, or during a performance, I 0.257 0.289 0.275 experience dry mouth. 23. My parents always listened to me. 0.223 0.862 9. My parents were mostly responsive to 0.811 my needs. 33. My parents encouraged me to try 0.687 new things. 27. As a child, I often felt sad. 0.469 0.489 35. When performing without music, my 0.915 memory is reliable. 37. I am confident playing from memory. 0.872 R (%) 23.17% 12.52% 7.80% 7.15% Notes: bold characters indicate items retained in each factor. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 7 of 11 The four factors together accounted for 50.63% of the variance. Factor 1 explained 23.17% of the variance and comprised 18 items (10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, and 38). Factor 2 explained 12.52% of the variance and comprised seven items (3, 4, 6, 13, 19, 27, and 31). Factor 3 explained 7.80% of the variance and comprised three items (9, 23, and 33). Finally, Factor 4 explained 7.15% of the variance and comprised two items (36 and 37). 3.2. Internal Consistency The Portuguese version of K-MPAI, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.91, showed high overall internal consistency for the 30 total items. For all the factors individually, this coefficient was higher than 0.75, with a Cronbach’s = 0.99 for Factor 1, = 0.79 for Factor 2, = 0.76 for Factor 3, and = 0.89 for Factor 4. These results suggest that the proposed instrument is reliable for this sample [30]. 3.3. Concurrent Validity: Correlation of K-MPAI Scores with STAI Scores To determine the concurrent validity, a Pearson correlation analysis was also per- formed between K-MPAI and STAI data. The results indicate a significant positive correla- tion between the scores of the two measures, showing that participants who present higher levels of anxiety in STAI (particularly in the STAI-T) also present greater MPA according to K-MPAI scores. The Pearson correlation analysis is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Pearson correlation between STAI and K-MPAI factors. Depression MPA-Related Parental Memory K-MPAI and Symptoms Support Self-Efficacy Total Score Hopelessness STAI_Y1 0.40 *** 0.64 *** 0.32 *** 0.07 0.52 *** STAI_Y2 0.53 *** 0.78 *** 0.24 ** 0.11 0.67 *** ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. 3.4. Music Anxiety Performance—Group Differences Regarding the analysis of gender differences, a t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between males and females in relation to the degree of MPA. Female participants showed more significant symptoms related to MPA (Factor 1) and higher levels of MPA in general (total score) compared to male participants, t (164) = 3.40, p < 0.001, and t (160) = 2.83, p < 0.01, respectively (see Table 4). Table 4. Gender differences related to MPA (dimensions and total score). Gender Male Female (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 62 102 MPA-related t (164) = 3.40 *** 3.11 (1.23) 3.74 (1.11) symptoms Factor 2 61 102 Depression and t (163) = 0.54 2.70 (1.29) 2.81 (1.20) hopelessness Factor 3 62 101 t (163) = 0.95 Parental support 4.22 (1.33) 4.01 (1.39) Factor 4 62 102 t (164) = 1.15 Memory self-efficacy 3.27 (1.96) 2.92 (1.91) Total Score 61 101 t (160) = 2.83 ** (K-MPAI) 2.86 (1.01) 3.30 (0.94) ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 8 of 11 Differences between participants with and without a history of psychological support due to anxiety problems were also calculated, showing a statistically significant difference. Participants who reported having had anxiety-related professional support showed higher levels of symptoms related to MPA (Factor 1), greater symptoms of depression and hope- lessness (Factor 2), and a higher global level of MPA (total score) compared to participants who reported never having had professional help, t (162) = 3.28, p < 0.01, t (161) = 3.86, p < 0.001, and t (158) = 3.50, p < 0.001, respectively (see Table 5). Table 5. Differences between participants with and without a history of anxiety-related professional support (K-MPAI dimensions and total score). Anxiety-Related Professional Support With Without (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 51 111 MPA-related t (162) = 3.28 ** 3.96 (1.14) 3.31 (1.17) symptoms Factor 2 51 110 Depression and t (161) = 3.86 *** 3.31 (1.30) 2.53 (1.12) hopelessness Factor 3 51 110 t (161) = 0.11 Parental support 4.07 (1.34) 4.09 (1.39) Factor 4 51 111 t (162) = 0.61 Memory self-efficacy 3.18 (1.88) 2.98 (1.97) 51 109 Total Score(K-MPAI) t (158) = 3.50 *** 3.53 (0.93) 2.96 (0.97) ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Finally, a t-test was applied to compare participants with and without medicine intake to manage anxiety-related symptoms, revealing a statistically significant difference. Par- ticipants who reported taking or having taken medication because of anxiety symptoms showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (Factor 1), higher levels of depression and hopelessness (Factor 2), less parental support (Factor 3), and greater MPA in general com- pared to those who reported never taking medication for anxiety, t (164) = 3.84, p < 0.001, t (163) = 4.28, p < 0.001, t (136) = 1.98, p < 0.05, and t (160) = 4.57, p < 0.001, respectively (see Table 6). Table 6. Differences between participants with and without a history of medicine intake to manage anxiety symptoms (dimensions and total score). Anxiety Medicine Intake Yes No (n) (n) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Factor 1 50 114 t (164) = 3.84 *** MPA-related symptoms 4.03 (0.99) 3.28 (1.21) Factor 2 50 113 t (163) = 4.28 *** Depression and hopelessness 3.36 (1.13) 2.51 (1.19) Factor 3 50 113 t (163) = 1.98 * Parental support 3.77 (1.39) 4.23 (1.35) Factor 4 50 114 t (164) = 0.93 Memory self-efficacy 2.84 (2.06) 3.14 (1.88) Total Score 50 112 t (160) = 4.57 *** (K-MPAI) 3.63 (0.89) 2.91 (0.95) * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 9 of 11 4. Discussion The central goal of this study was to contribute to the validation of K-MPAI for the Portuguese adult population. Following recent adaptations of the K-MPAI [6], an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, considering 30 items and the extraction of four factors. The results showed that a four-factor structure in the Portuguese population was adequate. This structure— MPA-related symptoms (F1), depression and hopelessness (F2), parental support (F3), and memory self-efficacy (F4)—considering the large percentage of the variance explained and item loadings on each factor, ensure the construct validity of this version. In addition, the Portuguese version of K-MPAI demonstrated high levels of reliability in the four factors and total score, in line with the values obtained in the study by Faur et al. [27], with the same factorial structure. These results support the redefinition of the factorial structure of the K-MPAI in terms of the number of items and factors, in accordance with publications suggesting the use of 30 of the original 40 items [6,24]. As shown in previous studies [8,31], trait and state anxiety were positively associated with MPA, supporting the concurrent validity of this version of K-MPAI: participants who evidenced higher levels of trait and state anxiety showed higher levels of MPA. Female participants showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (F1) and global levels of MPA when compared with male participants. These results are consistent with the literature, indicating that women tend to report more anxiety than men [32–34]. The study of the differences between participants with and without a history of professional follow- up due to anxiety problems showed that the participants who reported a professional intervention for anxiety problems showed higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (F1), depression and hopelessness (F2), and global levels of MPA. Regarding the differences found between participants with and without a history of medication use for anxiety, the participants who reported using medication for anxiety presented higher levels of MPA-related symptoms (Factor 1), depression and hopelessness (F2), and global levels of MPA and less parental support (Factor 3) compared to those who reported never taking medication for anxiety. These results suggest that a history of previous anxiety problems is associated with higher levels of MPA, in line with research indicating that trait anxiety is a risk factor for the development of MPA [35]. Taken together, known-group differences reinforce the construct validity of the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI. 5. Conclusions This was the first study of the psychometric properties of the K-MPAI in the Portuguese population. The results concerning validity and reliability were appropriate and consistent with recent validation studies of this instrument in other countries. The study of the concurrent validity and known-group differences contribute to a deeper understanding of MPA. Additional research with the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI is still needed, consid- ering that this is a relevant tool for researchers and psychologists working with musicians and music students, allowing an appropriate screening of anxiety related to musical per- formance. Future studies must include larger samples, enabling the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the Portuguese version of the K-MPAI, as well as the study of different populations (e.g., professional musicians). It is also relevant to further examine the specificity of two of the K-MPAI dimensions (depression and hopelessness and memory self-efficacy) and their relationship with demographic variables. Finally, taking into consid- eration the latest developments on this instrument and this study’s results, future studies combining data from different cultures could provide additional evidence supporting the appropriateness of a revised and shorter version of the K-MPAI. The existence of a robust and validated instrument that assesses music performance anxiety is a powerful contribution to music teaching and learning. The Portuguese version of the K-MPAI will allow, in the context of higher education, the assessment and monitoring Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 10 of 11 of students’ anxiety, and, consequently, the appropriate management of its impact on performance quality. This is particularly important in this stage of professional training, considering that students must develop their music skills, but also skills to cope with stressful performance situations. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.D. and L.V.; methodology, P.D., N.F., L.V., P.O.-S., S.S. and D.C.; formal analysis, P.D. and L.V.; writing—original draft preparation, N.F., L.V., and P.D.; writing—review and editing, P.D., L.V., P.O.-S., S.S. and D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This publication was partially funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (UIDB/04872/2020). Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Scientific Board of the Faculty of Education and Psychology—Universidade Católica Portuguesa (September 2019). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dianna Kenny, author of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory, for the authorisation to translate the scale, as well as the higher education institutions and their students for their participation in the study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Kenny, D.T. The Psychology of Music Performance Anxiety; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. 2. Vaag, J.; Bjoerngaard, J.H.; Bjerkeset, O. Symptoms of anxiety and depression among Norwegian musicians compared to the general workforce. Psychol. Music 2016, 44, 234–248. [CrossRef] 3. Burin, A.B.; Osorio, F.L. Music performance anxiety: A critical review of etiological aspects, perceived causes, coping strategies and treatment. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2017, 44, 127–133. [CrossRef] 4. Kenny, T.; Driscoll, T.; Ackermann, B. Psychological well-being in professional orchestral musicians in Australia: A descriptive population study. Psychol. Music 2014, 42, 210–232. [CrossRef] 5. Brugués, A.O. Music Performance Anxiety: A Comprehensive Update of the Literature; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019. 6. Faur, A.L.; Vaida, S.; Opre, A. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Romanian version. Psychol. Music 2020, 49, 777–788. [CrossRef] 7. Barlow, D.H. Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. Am. Psychol. 2020, 55, 1247–1263. [CrossRef] 8. Kenny, D.T.; Davis, P.; Oates, J. Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. J. Anxiety Disord. 2004, 18, 757–777. [CrossRef] 9. Kenny, D.T.; Osborne, M.S. Music performance anxiety: New insights from young musicians. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 2006, 2, 103–112. [CrossRef] 10. Brotons, M. Effects of Performing Conditions on Music Performance Anxiety and Performance Quality. J. Music. Ther. 1994, 31, 63–81. [CrossRef] 11. Cox, W.J.; Kenardy, J. Performance anxiety, social phobia, and setting effects in instrumental music students. J. Anxiety Disord. 1993, 7, 49–60. [CrossRef] 12. Robinson, G.; Nigbur, D. Experiences of musical performance anxiety in final-year undergraduate music students: An interpreta- tive phenomenological analysis. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 20, 1–28. 13. Salmon, P.; Schrodt, R.; Wright, J. A temporal gradient of anxiety in a stressful performance context. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1989, 4, 77–80. 14. Sinico, A.; Winter, L.L. Ansiedade na Performance Musical: Definições, causas, sintomas, estratégias e tratamentos. Rev. Do Conserv. De Música 2012, 5, 36–64. 15. Taborsky, C. Musical performance anxiety: A review of literature. Update: Appl. Res. Music Educ. 2007, 26, 15–25. [CrossRef] 16. Coskun- ¸ Sentürk, ¸ G.; Çırakoglu, ˘ O.C. How guilt/shame proneness and coping styles are related to music performance anxiety and stress symptoms by gender. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 682–698. [CrossRef] 17. Papageorgi, I.; Hallam, S.; Welch, G.F. A conceptual framework for understanding musical performance anxiety. Res. Stud. Music Educ. 2007, 28, 83–107. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 18 11 of 11 18. Castiglione, C.; Rampullo, A.; Cardullo, S. Self representations and music performance anxiety: A study with professional and amateur musicians. Eur. J. Psychol. 2018, 14, 792–805. [CrossRef] 19. Hanton, S.; Mellalieu, S.D.; Hall, R. Re-examining the competitive anxiety trait-state relationship. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 33, 1125–1136. [CrossRef] 20. Kenny, D.T. The factor structure of the revised Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory. In International Symposium on Performance Science; Association Européenne des Conservatoires: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. 21. Barbar, A.E.M.; Souza, J.A.D.; Osório, F.D.L. Exploratory factor analysis of Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) in a Brazilian musician sample. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2015, 42, 113–116. [CrossRef] 22. Chang-Arana, A.M. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Kenny-Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI). In Proceedings of the X Latin-American Regional Conference and III Pan American Regional Conference of Music Education, Lima, Peru, 4–7 August 2015. 23. Peschke, S.; Georgi, R. The competence of performance: Mental aspects of succeeding and failing in musicians. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 100, 363. [CrossRef] 24. Chang-Arana, Á.M.; Kenny, D.T.; Burga-León, A.A. Validation of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI): A cross-cultural confirmation of its factorial structure. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 551–567. [CrossRef] 25. International Test Commission. The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests, 2nd; International Test Commission: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 2017. 26. Spielberger, C.D. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (form Y) (“Self-Evaluation Questionnaire”); Consulting Psycholo- gists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1983. 27. Cruz, J.F.; Mota, M.P. Adaptação e características psicométricas do POMS–“Profile of Mood States” e do STAI–“State Trait Anxiety Inventory”. In Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos; Gonçalves, M., Ribeiro, I., Araújo, S., Machado, C., Almeida, L., Simões, M., Eds.; APPORT: Braga, Portugal, 1997; pp. 539–545. 28. IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0; IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USA, 2018. 29. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2005. 30. Cortina, J.M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 98–104. [CrossRef] 31. Rocha, S.F.; Dias-Neto, E.; Gattaz, W.F. Ansiedade na performance musical: Tradução, adaptação e validação do Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) para a língua portuguesa. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2011, 38, 217–221. [CrossRef] 32. González, A.; Blanco-Piñeiro, P.; Díaz-Pereira, M.P. Music performance anxiety: Exploring structural relations with self-efficacy, boost, and self-rated performance. Psychol. Music 2018, 46, 831–847. [CrossRef] 33. Nagel, J.J. In pursuit of perfection: Career choice and performance anxiety in musicians. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1988, 3, 140–145. [CrossRef] 34. Widmer, S.; Conway, A.; Cohen, S.; Davies, P. Hyperventilation: A correlate and predictor of debilitating performance anxiety in musicians. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 1997, 12, 97–106. 35. Liston, M.; Frost, A.A.; Mohr, P.B. The prediction of musical performance anxiety. Med. Probl. Perform. Artist. 2003, 18, 120–125. [CrossRef]

Journal

Behavioral Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jan 23, 2022

Keywords: music performance anxiety; assessment; K-MPAI; validation; psychometric properties

There are no references for this article.