Article

Psychology of Music
39(3) 328–344
Measuring distinct types of © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
musical self-efficacy co.uk/journalsPermission.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735610374895
pom.sagepub.com

Laura Ritchie
University of Chichester, UK and Royal College of Music, UK

Aaron Williamon
Royal College of Music, UK

Abstract
This research examines the specific nature of self-efficacy beliefs within music. Separate questionnaires
assessing self-efficacy for musical learning and self-efficacy for musical performing were developed
and tested, and the reliability of the new questionnaires was demonstrated using internal reliability
tests and exploratory factor analysis. A sample of 250 conservatoire and university music students
completed the two questionnaires and provided self-ratings of musical skills and attributes. The
learning and performing questionnaires produced robust Cronbach alphas of .82 and .78, respectively.
Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a single underlying factor within each questionnaire, and
the stability of these questionnaires over time was established through the absence of significant
differences in test–retest scores over a period of two to four weeks. Conservatoire students’ self-
efficacy for musical learning was higher than that of university students, whereas there were no
significant differences between conservatoire and university students in self-efficacy for musical
performing. The two questionnaires also showed different patterns of correlations with a range of
self-assessed musical skills and attributes, further demonstrating their distinctiveness. These results,
which underline the need for differentiation in musical self-efficacy, highlight the importance of
specificity and correspondence when measuring self-efficacy beliefs. The implications for measuring
self-efficacy within other domains are discussed.

Introduction
Musicians make complex decisions about the music they learn and perform. These decisions are
fed by personal experience, observations of the surrounding environment, beliefs surrounding
the nature of the particular task and, importantly, beliefs about their own capability to perform
that task. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that an individual’s attitudes and beliefs
play an integral role in the execution of any task, be it musical or not, as well as the level of
perseverance and the outcome achieved (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bandura & Wood, 1989;
Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). The importance of
individual beliefs led Bandura (1977, 1984, 1986, 1991) to introduce and define self-efficacy,

Corresponding author:
Laura Ritchie, Department of Music, University of Chichester, College Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6PE, UK.
[email: l.ritchie@chi.ac.uk]
Ritchie and Williamon 329

‘the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcome’
(Bandura, 1977, p. 193), which focuses on individuals’ beliefs as key factors in determining the
course of actions taken (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Greene & Miller, 1996).
Self-efficacy is strictly task-specific (Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Miller, 1995; Bandura, 2001).
Even within a single domain, one may hold a range of different self-efficacy beliefs. For instance,
self-efficacy for performing a piano concerto may differ from self-efficacy for improvising on the
piano. Self-efficacy beliefs are influenced through mastery and vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and physiological signs (Bandura, 1986). Bandura’s initial research discussed
these influences (see Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977), with subsequent studies examining self-
efficacy’s relationship to cognitive processes (Wood & Bandura, 1989; Bandura & Jourden,
1991; Zimmerman et al., 1992), the self-regulation of motivation (Bandura & Cervone, 1986;
Bandura, 1991), and affective processes (Ozer & Bandura, 1990; Bandura, 1993). In short, a
strong sense of self-efficacy enables a person to engage with more complex cognitive processes,
set more hierarchical and achievable goals, and exercise control over stress in difficult situa-
tions. Higher self-efficacy enhances the processes used in learning and allows for a more suc-
cessful outcome for a particular task.
Collins (1982) studied mathematics students with similar levels of ability, and found those
with higher self-efficacy achieved higher results on mathematics exam papers. School children
with higher self-efficacy use more cognitive strategies to complete work in school and homework
essays, leading to the suggestion that enhancing self-efficacy may result in higher achievement
(Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Self-efficacy also relates positively to the use of independent learn-
ing strategies (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) and when comparing students’ self-efficacy
beliefs, previous grades, and parents’ goals for their children, research shows that self-efficacy
beliefs have the strongest links to achievement (Zimmerman et al., 1992).
When examining self-efficacy it is important to distinguish between self-efficacy and other
psychological constructs. Bandura (1984) separates self-efficacy from expectancy value theory,
where actions are pursued because of the expectation and perceived value of the outcome.
Although outcome expectations are directly related to self-efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs do not
stem from the value or reward associated with the outcome of a task. Bandura (p. 232) argues
that ‘one cannot conjure up outcomes without giving thought to what one is doing and how
well one is doing it’. Pajares (1996) clarifies the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and
other expectancy constructs, demonstrating a need to examine specific, criterial tasks. If there
is not a correspondence between the belief and the task then the results will not measure self-
efficacy but a more generalized, global trait such as self-esteem. Zimmerman (2000) also distin-
guishes self-efficacy from self-concept and other related constructs and discusses their
interactions (Schunk, 1989a; Zimmerman, 1989).

Self-efficacy for learning and for performing

Bandura (1993) demonstrated that perceived self-efficacy has an influence on both goal setting
and analytical thinking (see also Collins, 1982). Self-efficacy beliefs also have a direct influence
on the motivational process (Bandura, 1991), which directly relates to the goals that people
choose and how they achieve those goals (Zimmerman et al., 1992). In academic contexts,
goals, cognitive processes, and the interaction of these with motivation are all part of the learning
process (Schunk, 1989b).
Schunk (1996, p. 3) points out that there is some disagreement about ‘when and how people
judge their self-efficacy, whether it operates uniformly across domains, and what are acceptable
330 Psychology of Music 39(3)

ways to assess it’. Even within a domain, there may be differences between self-efficacy for
learning specific tasks and for performing them. For example, learning focuses predominantly
on the acquisition of skills and knowledge, with various self-regulated learning strategies under-
pinning this, whereas performance typically centres on implementation. Self-efficacy for learning
is therefore defined as relating to a person’s beliefs in his or her capability to acquire the skills
and knowledge needed to perform a task, whereas self-efficacy for performing involves the beliefs
to execute a task successfully by implementing a previously learned set of skills (Schunk, 1996).

Studies of musical self-efficacy

Research has begun to explore self-efficacy’s relationship to other constructs within music
(see McCormick & McPherson, 2003; Nielsen, 2004; McPherson & McCormick, 2006;
StGeorge, 2006; Thompson, 2007; Silverman, 2008; Welch et al., 2009). McCormick and
McPherson (2003), for instance, investigated the role of self-efficacy in a performance set-
ting. In a sample of 332 instrumentalists aged between 9 and 18, self-efficacy was mea-
sured prior to a graded music performance examination with one item: ‘I have fully mastered
the requirements for today’s examination’. Structural equation modeling revealed that rat-
ings of agreement with this statement achieved a direct path to performance, with a stan-
dardized coefficient of .68, and that no other variables measured were directly related to
the performance scores.
In an extension of this study, McPherson and McCormick (2006) adapted their question-
naire drawing upon Bandura’s (1997, p. 44) advice to ‘measure people’s beliefs in their abilities
to fulfill different levels of task demands within the psychological domain selected for study’.
This was done by broadening the original questionnaire to five questions about the areas of the
graded examination: technical work, sight-reading, pieces, aural ability, and general musical
knowledge. Although the study reflects a marked improvement in the method for assessing the
construct, in practice, separate tasks were each represented by a single question. Future
research should further develop the research tools by exploring facets of the task within the
questionnaire, as suggested by Bandura (2001, 2006).
Nielsen (2004) studied 130 music students in higher education in relation to learning and
use of practice strategies with the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;
Pintrich et al., 1991). She investigated self-efficacy beliefs with an adaptation of one of the
motivational subscales of the MSLQ. Except for effort regulation, self-efficacy was found to
relate to all of the assessed areas: rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, meta-
cognition, time and study environment, peer learning and help-seeking.
The aforementioned studies show an awareness for the importance of increased specificity
in measuring self-efficacy, but the investigative tools used to examine it – i.e. the questions
themselves – need further development and extension. Nonetheless, the conclusion that ‘self-
efficacy relates to performance in music as it does in other academic contexts’ (McCormick &
McPherson, 2003) allows music researchers to draw upon methods employed in other
studies.

Aims of the present research

Self-efficacy is widely believed to be related to a variety of positive traits held by musicians.
Studies have begun to relate self-efficacy to some of these and, importantly, to practising and
performance quality. In order to establish these relationships robustly, a validated empirical
Ritchie and Williamon 331

measure of this construct is needed. This research develops scales fundamentally designed for
that purpose.
Specifically, we have set out to develop, test, and validate distinct measurement instruments
for assessing musicians’ self-efficacy beliefs for musical learning and performing. These ques-
tionnaires have been applied within two groups of musicians – conservatoire and university
music students – to examine potential similarities and differences relating to learning and
performing within these populations.

Method
Respondents
A sample of 250 music students (117 men and 133 women) was recruited to take part in the
study. Royal College of Music (RCM) respondents (n = 77; male = 32 and female = 45) were
aged between 18 and 51 (mean = 22.62 years, SD = 5.547, SE = .632), with a median age of
21 years. The students specialized in a broad range of musical instruments: voice (n = 8), piano
(n = 23), strings (n = 20), woodwind (n = 15), brass (n = 6), and percussion (n = 5). The
University of Chichester (UoC) respondents (n = 173; male = 85, female = 88) were aged
between 18 and 67 (mean = 22.13 years, SD = 6.946, SE = .528), with a median age of 19
years. Their instrumental specialisms were equally diverse: voice (n = 49), piano (n = 20),
strings (n = 53), woodwind (n = 40), brass (n = 7), and percussion (n = 4).
There are often differences in the performance standards and expectations of students in
these two distinct routes to higher music education training. At a conservatoire, for instance,
considerable emphasis is placed on technical, instrumental attainment, with students entering
at an accomplished level and reaching professional standards by the point of graduation, if not
before. Universities, particularly those within the UK, have a far more diverse entry profile for
students, with some pursuing majors outside of the traditional performance track, such as his-
torical musicology, music education, music administration, or music technology. One could
conjecture, therefore, that this difference in the focus and course of learning between these
groups may be reflected in students’ self-efficacy scores, and particularly that for musical
learning.

Materials
Two musical self-efficacy questionnaires were adapted from Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante,
Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, and Rogers’ (1982) General Self-efficacy Scale, addressing respectively
(1) musical learning and (2) musical performing. The original Sherer et al. scale was devised
through a process of testing, retesting, and statistical analysis. With each item, a Likert-type
rating scale was presented, ranging from 1 (not at all sure, 0%) to 7 (completely sure, 100%).
Each of the 17 items in the original scale was specifically oriented to musical learning and/or
performing. Certain basic word changes were made in light of recent research into the assess-
ment of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001). ‘Try’ was changed to ‘work’ because there is an implied
lack of completion in the word ‘try’ (e.g., ‘The prospect of failure for this performance makes me
work harder in preparation’). Each scale was then made task-specific through a preliminary
instruction for the respondent to recall a past performance in which they had played a promi-
nent role (e.g., as a soloist), to imagine preparing for and performing in a similar situation, and
then to respond to each statement with the learning or performing task in mind. Following
recommendations by Bandura (2001), the scales were titled ‘Attitudes toward musical activities
332 Psychology of Music 39(3)

and performance’ and not ‘Self-efficacy questionnaires’. The Appendix contains the new scales
in their entirety.
An inventory of 21 musical skills and attributes, devised in consultation with expert per-
formers and teachers (Williamon, 2004), was implemented in this study. These included areas
of skill acquisition and technique as well as attributes that relate to the processes of musical
learning and performing. Respondents were asked to consider their abilities in relation to other
musicians on their first study instrument (of similar experience or age) and to rate the 21 skills
and attributes individually using a Likert-type rating scale, from 1 (much less ability) to 7
(excellent ability; see Table 4 for a complete list of the skills).

Procedure
The sample of 250 completed the scales for musical learning and musical performing as well as
the self-ratings of musical skills. A subset of 51 respondents from UoC completed the scales for
musical learning and performing twice, with a gap of between two and four weeks from the first
completion to the retest. The suite of questionnaires was mostly completed online, although in
collecting some of the responses a paper version was requested and used.

Data analysis
Six items were reverse-coded in each of the learning and performing scales (i.e., 2, 4, 5, 8, 10,
and 11 in learning, and 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 in performing; see Appendix for the wording of the
individual items), and summative learning and performing scores were calculated. Subsequent
analyses were performed to establish the internal reliability of the self-efficacy scales, to exam-
ine the stability of the self-efficacy scores over time, and to establish the differences between
music students being trained in different institutional settings.
To test the robustness of the questionnaires and the individual integrity of sub-items within
the questionnaires, Cronbach alpha scores were calculated for each questionnaire (Cronbach,
1951). In order to explore the questionnaires’ validity, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA),
which extracts factors that are discretely responsible for the variance, was employed, and in
accordance with Pedhauzer and Schmelkin (1991), both oblique and orthogonal rotations
were carried out. To demonstrate the stability, robustness, and validity of the hypothesized sin-
gle-factor solution, both the Cronbach alphas and the EFA were repeated using a randomly
selected subsample representing approximately 60% of the entire sample.

Results
Internal reliability
Cronbach’s alpha, used as a measure of internal reliability of the two questionnaires, offers an
empirical test of the overall reliability of the scales as well as the effect on the overall score of
deleting individual items. Coefficients of .70 and above are commonly accepted as robust
(Cortina, 1993; Kline, 1999). The coefficient for the learning scale was α = .82. The perform-
ing scale initially yielded α = .76. Although this represents an acceptable level of internal reli-
ability for both scales, a detailed examination of individual scale components in the performing
questionnaire suggested that the removal of two specific items would raise the alpha to achieve
a higher score. The decision to remove these two items from the musical performing scale was
further explored and confirmed through the EFA undertaken, as reported in the ‘Validity’ section
Ritchie and Williamon 333

Table 1.  Cronbach alpha (α) achieved by removing each of the 11 items in the musical learning and
musical performing questionnaires

Question Self-efficacy for musical learning Self-efficacy for musical performing

α α

11 items (original) 9 items (final version)

1 .82 .74 .76
2 .81 .72 .74
3 .81 .73 .76
4 .80 .73 .75
5 .79 .73 .76
6 .80 .74 .77
7 .81 .74 .76
8 .81 .73 .75
9 .81 .72 .76
10 .80 .76* Removed
11 .81 .77* Removed
Overall .82 .76 .78
Note. See the Appendix for the full text for each question. * indicates items that, if removed, would increase the
Cronbach alpha.

below. When the spurious sub-items were removed, the Cronbach alpha for the remaining 9-item
performing scale rose to α = .78, and all of the sub-items were shown to be robust (see Table 1).
In order to ensure that this analysis was robust, a random subsample of approximately 60%
of the sample was selected and Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated again for each of
the questionnaires. These results replicated and confirmed the results of the initial analysis.
The coefficient for the learning questionnaire was α = .80. The performing questionnaire pro-
duced an initial coefficient of α = .77 and confirmed the removal of the same two items, with a
final coefficient of α = .80 after removing the two sub-items.

Validity
The hypothesis in this research was that there would be a single underlying factor that emerged
from each of these two new, specific, and independent musical self-efficacy scales. Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA) was undertaken using the Maximum Likelihood method separately with
each scale, preliminarily employing both orthogonal rotation and oblique rotation (see Gaudry,
Vagg, & Spielberger, 1975). There was more clarity between the loadings on the factors with the
orthogonal rotation, as was expected, since the hypothesis involves a single underlying factor
(Stewart, 1981). The Quartimax method of orthogonal rotation was then employed, as is appro-
priate when a single underlying factor is hypothesized (Gorsuch, 1983). An approximate cutoff of
.40 was set as a prerequisite to define a significant loading on a factor (Guadagnoli & Velicer,
1988). The Kaiser rule, where factors with eigenvalues of 1 or greater are considered for retention
(Kaiser, 1960), and the examination of the Scree plot (Cattell, 1966) were used to test the hypoth-
esis of a single underlying factor for each of the new self-efficacy scales under examination.
Initially, the performing questionnaire produced a three-factor solution. When the analysis
was rerun with the removal of the two sub-items highlighted by the Cronbach alpha analysis
(see the ‘Internal reliability’ section above), both the learning and performing questionnaires
followed the same trend and produced what appeared to be a two-factor solution containing one
334 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Table 2.  Quartimax factor loadings with Kaiser normalization in the self-efficacy for musical learning
and musical performing questionnaires on reverse-coded and non-reverse-coded items

Question Factor loadings for musical learning Factor loadings for musical performing

I II I II

1 .223 .398 .343 .567

2 .500 .140 .699 .054
3 .223 .688 .544 .038
4 .576 .156 .587 .153
5 .687 .263 .350 .657
6 .234 .730 .529 -.050
7 .624 .070 .509 .115
8 .671 .161 .600 .139
9 .546 .055 .391 .706
10 .327 .450 Removed
11 .238 .582 Removed
% of var. 36.7 13.5 39.1 14.3
Name Reverse-coded Non-reverse-coded Reverse-coded Non-reverse-coded

strong factor and one weaker factor, with eigenvalues of 4.01 and 1.49 for learning and 3.31
and 1.36 for performing. The two factors produced for both the learning and performing ques-
tionnaires represent the different codings of items within each scale, illustrating a slight bias in
the way respondents reacted to the positive or negative wording of the questions rather than a
true second factor (see Table 2). This is a trend seen in the validation of other psychological
questionnaires (Gaudry et al., 1975). To retest and confirm the factor structure, it was repro-
duced with a random subsample of approximately 60% of the respondents. The size was selected
to maintain an adequate sample size for the analysis to be undertaken. As in the initial analysis,
both questionnaires produced a two-factor solution, where there was one strong factor and a
weak factor representing the reverse-coded items. The eigenvalues of the factors were 3.86 and
1.70 for the learning questionnaire, and 3.52 and 1.29 for the performing questionnaire.
The trend to find a second factor representing the reverse-coded items was seen separately in
both the learning and performing questionnaires. The fact that the same structure appears
separately in both questionnaires and in the random subsample reaffirms the initial hypothesis
that there is a single underlying factor being represented, and that the two-factor solution pro-
duced simply represents a bias to the wording and not a second underlying variable.
The implications of these analyses are that the learning scale was confirmed to be reliable as
an 11-item questionnaire, and the performing scale was reduced to a 9-item questionnaire. The
rigorous development of these questionnaires for measuring distinct types of self-efficacy gives
researchers tools with which to approach the construct in music and in other domains.

Reliability over time

A subsample of the respondents (n = 51) completed the questionnaires a second time after a
gap of between two and four weeks. As before, specified items were reverse-coded, and casewise
summative scores were created for each of the scales, with high scores representing high
self-efficacy beliefs. Summative scores for self-efficacy for musical learning and performing
were calculated for the subsample for their first completion of the scales and for the retest. To
Ritchie and Williamon 335

Table 3.  Raw and standardized mean scores (100% of the maximum score for each questionnaire) for
the initial test and retest of the self-efficacy for musical learning and performing questionnaires (n = 51)

Raw score Standardized score

Mean SD, SE Mean SD, SE

Learning (max. score = 77)

   Initial test 62.24 9.36, 1.26 80.83 12.16, 1.64
   Retest 61.76 8.88, 1.24 80.21 11.54, 1.62
Performing (max. score = 63)
   Initial test 47.87 7.22, .98 75.98 11.46, 1.56
   Retest 49.45 7.34, 1.03 78.49 11.64, 1.63

facilitate comparisons between the questionnaires, the scores were standardized through
conversion into percentages of the maximum score. The raw and standardized scores for both
the learning and performing questionnaires are presented in Table 3.
A paired samples t-test was carried out with types of musical self-efficacy (learning and per-
forming), comparing the initial completion of the questionnaires and the retest. The analysis
revealed no significant differences overall between the test and the retest (learning: t(49) =
–1.20, p = .23; performing: t(50) = – 0.72, p = .48], suggesting that, in the absence of any
direct intervention, the learning and performing scores remained similar and the scales appear
to measure a stable construct over time – at least over the period of two to four weeks.

Differences between types of self-efficacy

The raw mean self-efficacy scores for the sample of 250 were: learning = 61.48 (SD = 9.18, SE
= .60) and performing = 48.41 (SD = 7.76, SE = .50). These means were out of a maximum
score of 77 for learning and 63 for performing. To facilitate comparison between the two ques-
tionnaires, the scores were standardized by converting them into percentages. The standard-
ized mean scores were: learning = 79.84 (SD = 11.92, SE = .78) and performing = 76.84
(SD = 12.31, SE = .78). Pearson correlations yielded the following relationships between the
summative scores: learning–performing (r = .57, p < .01).
In order to determine whether there were differences between students at conservatoire and
at university, a repeated measures ANOVA was carried out with type of self-efficacy (learning
and performing) as the within-subjects factor and institution and sex as the between-subjects
factors. The analysis revealed a significant overall difference between self-efficacy for musical
learning and for musical performing (F(1,226) = 23.28, p < .01, partial η2 = .14), which sug-
gests that these music students have more confidence in their abilities to learn than to perform.
This initially seems surprising, as the objective of musical training (particularly within the
western classical tradition) is to perform music in public. However, it is clear that musicians
spend far more of their time practising than performing, and the familiarity and frequency of
the learning situation may explain the higher self-efficacy scores.
The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between the two types of self-efficacy
and the institution [F(1,226) = 11.89, p < .01, partial η2 = .07]. As shown in Figure 1, the
overall mean scores for self-efficacy for learning and for performing initially appear to be simi-
lar, with learning at 79.84 (SD = 11.92, SE = .78) and performing at 76.84 (SD = 12.31,
336 Psychology of Music 39(3)

88

86

84

82
Whole sample

80 RCM
UoC
78

76

74

72
Self-efficacy for Musical Self-efficacy for Musical
Learning Performing

Figure 1.  Standardized mean self-efficacy scores from the whole sample and the individual institutions
(bars indicate standard error)

SE = .79). When the sample is divided by institution, it becomes clear that RCM students pro-
duced different scores for self-efficacy for learning (mean = 83.62, SD = 11.00, SE = 1.25)
and performing (mean = 77.15, SD = 11.94, SE = 1.36), whereas there is a less distinguish-
able difference between those from UoC, where learning = 77.96 (SD = 11.94, SE = .96) and
performing = 76.70 (SD = 12.51, SE = 1.25). There was no overall difference between men
and women, and no significant three-way interaction between type of self-efficacy, sex, or
institution.

Types of self-efficacy reinforced through skills

In order to explore the distinction between the two questionnaires and the differences between
respondents’ musical skills, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated with the self-
efficacy for musical learning and performing scores and self-ratings along 21 musical skills and
attributes. Table 4 lists the mean scores and standard deviations for each of these and high-
lights the statistically significant correlations with the skills and attributes that have been iden-
tified with the RCM and UoC respondents.
When examining musical skills and attributes, there were both expected similarities and
unexpected differences between the correlations of skills with self-efficacy scores for the differ-
ent students. For RCM students, the following skills correlated with learning: ‘quality of prac-
tice’, ‘interpretative or expressive skills’, ‘sense of stylistic appropriateness’, ‘motivation or drive
to excel’, and ‘level of perseverance’. These seem to reflect the processes of persistence and
detailed refinement during learning, when a musician explores the nuances and expression of
sound through individual practice. The skills that correlated solely with performing – i.e.
‘ability to manage everyday stress’, ‘technical proficiency’, ‘ability to manage stage fright’, and
‘overall standard of performance’ – relate to strategies for dealing with performance anxiety,
preparedness, and the ability to manage a performance situation. The differences between
Ritchie and Williamon 337

Table 4.  Mean scores and standard deviations for musical skills and attributes, as well as Pearson
correlation coefficients (all p < .01) between skills and attributes and the self-efficacy for learning and
self-efficacy for performing scores from RCM and UoC respondents

Music skill/attribute RCM RCM RCM UoC UoC UoC

Mean (SD) Learning Performing Mean (SD) Learning Performing

Ability to collaborate/ 5.55 (1.15) 5.13 (1.14) .28 .37

work with other
performers
Management of 4.72 (1.45) .43 4.16 (1.60) .25
everyday stress
Stamina 4.79 (1.39) 5.00 (1.91)
Acute ear/detailed 5.16 (1.15) 4.73 (1.34)
listening
Ability to memorize 4.61 (1.65) 4.67 (1.64) .27
Ability to sight-read 4.93 (1.67) 3.38 (1.79)
Ability to improvise 3.89 (1.74) 4.14 (1.83)
Quantity of practice 4.56 (1.42) 4.48 (1.34)
Technical proficiency 5.13 (1.22) .31 4.59 (1.14) .28 .29
Quality/effectiveness 5.11 (1.23) .34 .30 4.72 (1.13) .34
of practice
Quality and control 5.48 (1.23) 5.17 (1.03) .35
of tone
Ability to engage 5.07 (1.37) 4.53 (1.33) .26 .31
in effective mental
rehearsal
Musicality, 5.65 (1.12) .35 5.19 (1.11) .35
interpretative or
expressive skills
Sense of stylistic 5.33 (1.12) .30 5.00 (1.20) .30
appropriateness
Ability to 5.64 (1.18) 4.97 (1.38) .33
communicate
musically with the
audience
Ability to learn new 5.24 (1.18) 4.69 (1.16) .30 .31
musical material and
concepts quickly and
easily
Level of perseverance 5.48 (1.36) .38 5.10 (1.12) .29 .22
Ability to manage 4.69 (1.78) .50 4.57 (1.64) .49
stage fright
Motivation and drive 5.72 (1.29) .44 .34 5.50 (1.22) .31 .33
to excel
Overall musical ability 5.26 (1.16) 5.16 (1.10) .40
Overall standard of 5.18 (1.28) .39 5.08 (1.20) .39
performance

the specific learning and performing scales shown here and the significant relationships with
different sets of musical skills demonstrate and reinforce the theoretical understanding of the
need for measurement specificity according to task demands.
338 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Discussion
This research has developed robust questionnaires for examining self-efficacy for musical learning
and musical performing. This moves away from the method employed in past research of using
a general assessment of self-efficacy within a domain to one employing a task-specific measure
focused on the skills required within a subset of the domain. The Cronbach alpha scores for the
self-efficacy for musical learning (α = .82) and for musical performing (α = .78) were well within
the acceptability boundary of α = .70 (Cortina, 1993; Kline, 1999) and showed consistency of
the measures after a two- to four-week retest. The questionnaires have been subjected to a rigor-
ous factor analysis which confirmed a single underlying factor in each questionnaire.
The results showing the measures’ stability over time provide an insight into the nature of
these beliefs for the music students. Minor fluctuations in mean scores are to be expected as the
students explore and learn within higher education, but these results raise questions about what
pattern of learning results in constant self-efficacy scores. Does progression, as shaped through
regular contact with a teacher, result in a constant self-efficacy belief for learning over time?
Conversely, if the student ceased to progress steadily but merely maintained a constant level,
would this be sufficient for self-efficacy scores to decrease? Further research should explore both
the type of intervention and the strength of experience needed to influence self-efficacy beliefs.
Differences were found in self-efficacy for musical learning scores between conservatoire and
university students. These could be attributed to the fact that conservatoire students spend many
hours practising and are more accustomed to specific musical learning than university students,
who usually follow a broader academic curriculum. The higher mean learning self-efficacy score
for RCM students may be a positive reflection on the learning environment and experience of these
students; much one-to-one and group teaching is delivered around mastery and modelling experi-
ences, which are precisely what self-efficacy beliefs are built upon (Bandura et al., 1977). Although
instrumental lessons are taught one-to-one in both institutions, the UoC students receive approxi-
mately half the tuition allotment of the RCM students, and at UoC students may choose to divide
these lessons between study of the primary instrument and study of a secondary or even a com-
pletely new instrument, instead of focusing on their primary performance instrument.
However, these differences did not extend to self-efficacy for performing, a task relatively unfa-
miliar to both groups of students by comparison with the amount of day-to-day learning and
practising that musicians are known to carry out (see Williamon & Valentine, 2000). The higher
instrumental achievement of the conservatoire students did not give them higher self-efficacy
for musical performing scores than the university students. Performance constitutes and relates
to many skills and behaviours, including several that are non- or extra-musical (see Elliott, 1995;
Flores & Ginsburgh, 1996; McPherson & Schubert, 2004; Nielsen, 2004; McPherson &
McCormick, 2006), beyond the technical mastery of the instrument and repertoire in question.
The level of musical and technical performance may differ notably between these groups of
students. The RCM requires a professional level of performance in all examinations, whereas at
UoC some performance examinations assess a public-ready performance and others require stu-
dents to demonstrate engagement with new challenges; indeed, some performances may be
delivered at levels not yet ready for a public audience but that still demonstrate a high level of
personal achievement or the application of some intellectual concept. The data nonetheless sug-
gest that performing self-efficacy is similar for both groups of students. This is surprising and is
most likely reflected in the relatively infrequent performance examination opportunities across
the whole sample. The gap between self-efficacy for learning and performing for RCM students
may signal a need for more mastery experiences centred on performance opportunities and per-
haps reflects an avenue for possible development and improvement in conservatoire training.
Ritchie and Williamon 339

Additional support for validation has been achieved through examining correlations with
other variables (cf. Hewlett, Cockshott, Kirwan, Barrett, Stamp, & Haslock, 2001; Patterson,
2005; Bursch, Tsao, Meldrum, & Zeltzer, 2006; Sales, Milhausen, Wingood, DiClemente,
Salazar, & Crosby, 2008). Showing that self-efficacy for musical performing significantly cor-
relates with ‘ability to manage stage fright’ and ‘overall standard of performance’ supports its
convergent validity by demonstrating correlations between the scale and other related vari-
ables. There is no correlation of these variables to the self-efficacy for musical learning scores,
supporting discriminate validity (see Brand, 1985) by demonstrating a lack of relationship
between external variables and the learning scale. These results demonstrate that there are
distinct types of self-efficacy within a domain that are independently influenced by task-specific
experience. They support the theorized need for continued specificity within domains (Pajares,
1996; Schunk, 1996; McPherson & McCormick, 2006).
The correlations between self-efficacy scores and various musical skills from those conserva-
toire students sampled suggest that they used different skills in performing and learning. This
reinforces the theoretical foundation that self-efficacy needs to be assessed through task-specific
questionnaires, as a different skill base is required for a sub-area of a domain (Pajares, 1996).
Both sets of correlations are consistent with qualities demonstrated by highly self-efficacious
people, such as resilience, persistence, and higher levels of achievement (Zimmerman, 2000).
The correlations between the skills and attributes and the UoC students’ learning and per-
forming scores showed a greater overlap between learning and performing, and there were
many more skills that correlated with performing. This suggests that for UoC students there may
have been less of a distinction between, or clear understanding of, the skills most important for
learning and for performing. There was some noticeable conflict between UoC students’ correla-
tions and those of the RCM students. Both ‘musicality’ and ‘sense of stylistic appropriateness’
were correlated only with learning for the RCM students, whereas the UoC ratings of these skills
correlated only with performing. Other instances occurred where the UoC students’ correla-
tions were not specific to either learning or performing. This suggests that the UoC students may
have a more difficult time differentiating between which skills are, or are perceived as, the most
beneficial for performing or for learning. This may be because of the diverse curriculum taught
at university or the different base levels of musical achievement of the university students.
Further investigations are needed to understand the underlying reasons for these differences.

Directions for further research

Past research has shown the predictive power of self-efficacy (Schunk, 1984; Zimmerman et
al., 1992; McPherson & McCormick, 2006) and its direct link with achievement. Performance
quality and attainment is often at the forefront of students’ minds, and thus self-efficacy for
performing, its effect on attainment, and how it could be enhanced should be investigated. The
primary purpose of this study was to produce questionnaires that were valid and that measured
self-efficacy beliefs about the task-specific areas in music being assessed. The scope of the
research was limited to initial testing and analysis of the data. The findings did not show any
significant differences or interaction with gender, and this is supported by similar findings by
Welch, Papageorgi, Haddon, Creech, Morton, de Bézenac et al. (2008) into the relationship of
gender and aspects of the musical self, where no differences in self-efficacy beliefs were reported
with respect to gender. However, future studies are needed to explore further the relationship
between gender and self-efficacy with regards to various specific tasks. Studies analyzing the
predictive power of self-efficacy in a performance situation with a validated instrument will
build on past research (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006) to
340 Psychology of Music 39(3)

illustrate the practical link to these beliefs and further explain the process of performing in a live
situation. Empirical evidence supporting how various types of self-efficacy affect and predict
attainment will be valuable to teachers and performers.
Research must explore how self-efficacy develops, is reinforced, and relates to musical expe-
riences gained through performances and contact with teachers. Now with a validated scale for
measuring self-efficacy, we suggest that these areas, as investigated by Nielsen (2004), should
be considered a priority for future investigations in this area in order to confirm and further
explicate the results of earlier research on self-efficacy in music.
Self-efficacy beliefs are specific, but the core skills used in accomplishing the tasks may be
found in several settings within music or in other areas. There is a growing understanding of
the nature of self-efficacy beliefs within many domains, and the separate types of self-efficacy
illustrated in this research begin to elucidate these beliefs within music. Exploring the correla-
tions with the different skills in a broader context, such as in other domains that also use those
skills, will reveal whether musical self-efficacy beliefs have links to self-efficacy beliefs in those
other fields. Discovering whether enhancing skills or learning behaviours has a direct effect on
self-efficacy beliefs about separate tasks that share skills would bring a new area for investiga-
tion within self-efficacy research.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Graham Welch and the Investigating Musical Performance research team based at the
University of London’s Institute of Education for their assistance in piloting the self-efficacy question-
naires, and Ben Ritchie for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
8, 231–255.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms.
In R.A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation: Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38, pp.
69–164). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (revised). Available from F. Pajares, Emory
University, USA .
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5., pp. 307–337) Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A., Adams, N., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125–139.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92–113.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social compari-
son on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 941–951.
Ritchie and Williamon 341

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through
proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-
regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.
Brand, M. (1985). Development and validation of the home musical environment scale for use at the early
elementary level. Psychology of Music, 13, 40–48.
Bursch, B., Tsao, J.C.I., Meldrum, M., & Zeltzer, L.K. (2006). Preliminary validation of a self-efficacy scale
for child functioning despite chronic pain (child and parent versions). Pain, 125, 35–42.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 629–637.
Collins, J. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability on achievement behavior. In Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, March.
Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Elliott, C. (1995). Race and gender as factors in judgements of musical performance. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 127, 50–56.
Flores, R., & Ginsburgh, V. (1996). The Queen Elizabeth musical competition: How fair is the final rank-
ing? The Statistician, 45, 97–104.
Gaudry, E., Vagg, P.R., & Spielberger, C.D. (1975). Validation of the state-trait distinction in anxiety
research. Multivariate Behavior Research, 10, 331–341.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greene, B., & Miller, B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability and cognitive engage-
ment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–275.
Hewlett, S., Cockshott, Z., Kirwan, J.R., Barrett, J., Stamp, J., & Haslock, I. (2001). Development and valida-
tion of a self-efficacy scale for use in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RASE). Rheumatology,
40, 1221–1230.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G.E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance. Psychology
of Music, 31, 37–51.
McPherson, G.E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34,
332–336.
McPherson, G.E., & Schubert, E. (2004). Measuring performance enhancement in music. In A. Williamon
(Ed.), Musical excellence (pp. 61–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, S.G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice: A
study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431.
Ozer, E., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472–486.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics outcomes: The need for speci-
ficity of assessment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 42, 190–198.
Pedhauser, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
342 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Pintrich, P., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-b-004). Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan.
Sales, J.M., Milhausen, R.R., Wingood, G.M., DiClemente, R.J., Salazar, L.F., & Crosby, R.A. (2008).
Validation of a parent–adolescent communication scale for use in STD/HIV prevention interventions.
Health Education & Behavior, 35(3), 332–334.
Schunk, D. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19, 48–58.
Schunk, D. (1989a). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 173–208.
Schunk, D. (1989b). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Arnes & R. Arnes (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3: Goals and Cognitions, pp. 13–44). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Schunk, D. (1996). Self-efficacy for learning and performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Research Association, New York, USA.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. (1982). The self-efficacy
scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Review, 51, 663–671.
Silverman, M. (2008). A performer’s creative processes: Implications for teaching and learning musical
interpretation. Music Education Research, 10, 249–269.
StGeorge, J. (2006). The relationship of practice to continued participation in musical instrument learn-
ing, In P. de Vries and J. Southcott (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVIIIth Annual Conference, Music Education:
Standards and Practices (pp. 126–137). Melbourne: AARME.
Stewart, D.W. (1981). The application and mis-application of factor analysis in marketing research.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 207–214.
Thompson, L. (2007). Considering beliefs in learning to teach music. Music Educator’s Journal, 93, 30–35.
Welch, G., Papageorgi, I., Haddon, L., Creech, A., Morton, F., de Bézenac, C. et al. (2008). Musical genre
and gender as factors in higher education learning in music. Research Papers in Education, 23, 203–217.
Welch, G., Himonides, E., Papageorgi, I., Saunders, J., Stewart, C., Preti, C. et al. (2009). The National Singing
Programme for primary schools in England: An initial baseline study. Music Education Research, 11, 1–22.
Williamon, A., ed. (2004). Musical excellence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors of perfor-
mance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353–376.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 361–384.
Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 82–91.
Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attain-
ment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.
Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic achievement:
The role of self-efficacy and personal goal setting. American Education Research Journal, 29, 663–676.
Zimmerman, B., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating
grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.
Ritchie and Williamon 343

Appendix

Attitudes toward specific musical performance activities 1

[i.e. self-efficacy for musical learning]
We would like for you to think of one specific performance activity in which you have recently
had a prominent role (e.g. a solo performance of a particular sonata/concerto, an ensemble
performance of a well-known chamber piece, a gig requiring improvised solos around a stan-
dard tune, etc.). Please describe this performance activity:

Music played: Estimated size of audience:

Location:

Very poorly Excellently

Rate how well the above performance went: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Imagine that you have been asked to perform a similar activity within the next few weeks (i.e. with
music of comparable musical and technical difficulty, performing in a similar context, with the same
level of expectations and demands, etc.). Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements, specifically regarding how you would learn and prepare for this performance.
Not at all sure Completely sure
0% 100%

1. I am confident that I can successfully learn the music 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for this performance.
2. One of my problems is that I cannot get down to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
practising or rehearsing for this specific performance
when I should.
3. If I cannot play the music for this performance at first, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
will keep practising until I can.
4. When I set important learning goals leading up to this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance, I can rarely achieve them.
5. I am likely to give up preparing for this performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
before completing it.
6. When I have something unpleasant to do in preparation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
for this performance, I can stick to it until I finish it.
7. When I decide to do this performance, I go right to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
on the music.
8. When first playing the music for this performance, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
soon give up if I am not initially successful.
9. The prospect of failure in this performance makes me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
work harder in preparation.
10. I am likely to give up on working toward this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance easily.
11. I am not capable of dealing with most problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that may come up when working toward this
performance.
344 Psychology of Music 39(3)

Attitudes toward specific musical performance activities 2

[i.e. self-efficacy for musical performing]
Now, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements,
specifically regarding how you will perform during this activity.

Not at all sure Completely sure

0% 100%
1.  I am confident that I can give a successful performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I have set important goals to attain during this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance, but I cannot achieve them.
3. I am likely to avoid difficulties and challenges during the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance itself.
4. If I perceive the events or context surrounding this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance to be too stressful, I cannot even attempt to
perform.
5. If something unexpected happens during the performance, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I can handle it well.
6. I am likely to avoid this performance if the music looks or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sounds too difficult for me.
7.  I feel insecure about my playing for this performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8.  I am likely to give up easily during the performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I am capable of dealing with problems that might come up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
during the performance.

*The prospect of failure for this performance makes me work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

harder.
*I am a self-reliant musician with regard to this performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
* Items removed from the original version (see ‘Internal Reliability’ above), which do not appear in the final self-
efficacy for musical performing questionnaire.