MUSIC PSYCHOLOGY

ASSINGMENT HELP I!

STUDY METHODS ACROSS

THREE STUDIES

• Kokotsaki, D., & Davidson, J.W. (2003). Investigating

musical performance anxiety among music college
singing students: A quantitative analysis Links to an
external site. Music Education Research, 5 (1), 45-

Music Psychology
59.

Week 10 Seminar • Wesner, R. B., Noyes, R. Jr., & Davis, T. L. (1990).

The occurrence of performance anxiety among
musicians. Journal of Affective Disorders, 18, 177-
185.

We will start At 9:05 am Melbourne time

allowing people 5 mins to arrive. • Osborne, M. S., & Franklin, J. (2002) Cognitive
processes in music performance anxiety, Australian
Journal of Psychology, 54:2, 86-93,
MUSIC PSYCHOLOGY ASSINGMENT
HELP II
METHODS ACROSS THREE STUDIES
A/Prof Jinah Kim
TURNITIN added AI
Writing Detection
Tool
• From 5th April, Turnitin’s new
Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing
detection tool is included in the
similarity report fuction. This tool
has 98% confidence.
 WEEK 10: Methods across three studies
Topic: Music & Performance anxiety
• Kokotsaki, D., & Davidson, J.W. (2003). Investigating musical performance
anxiety among music college singing students: A quantitative
analysis. Links to an external site. Music Education Research, 5 (1), 45-59.

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

performance anxiety among musicians. Journal of Affective Disorders, 18,
177-185.

• Osborne, M. S., & Franklin, J. (2002) Cognitive processes in music

performance anxiety, Australian Journal of Psychology, 54:2, 86-93,
Let’s delve into each
article one by one
What to look for in the method section
(approx. 500 words)?
Does the purpose of the study align with the study design?
Overall guideline: Compare the research methods used by the investigators in
three studies and reflect on the similarities and differences in their research
questions, approach to data collection and analysis
Did the authors presented details of the method used ?
The principle of scientific study is about replicability. Can we replicate the study based on
the methods presented by the authors?

Design: e.g., Survey, quasi-experimental study, randomized controlled trial, observational study, systematic review, a
single-case research, etc.

Participants and Settings

Measurements (data sources)

Procedure/Intervention (If you are looking at experimental studies)

Data analysis

Ethical consideration: Did authors specify whether ethics approval and informed consent/assent were obtained from
study participants.
 • Did the authors explain how they selected/
recruited their participants and where?
Participants • What were the characteristics of participants in
each study?
•Did the authors state ethics approval and
informed consent? If not, what does it mean?
• This topic specific question: How did they
identify participants with MPA and social phobia?
Did they use traditional diagnostic tools involving
mental health professionals or something else?
Measures

• Various measures
•Physical measures: blood pressure, breathing, heart rate, EEG, fMRI, blood, saliva, etc.
•Self-report measures: Standardized vs. non-standardized
•Third person (expert or carer-report) measures

•Did the authors report the reliability and validity of chosen measurements?
• Reliability is about the consistency of a measure: if you measure a cup of coffee beans three times,
you expect the same result each time that result is reliable/ replicable under the same condition).
Validity is about whether a measurement measures what it is supposed to measure.

•Look at appendices, as some studies include measures in the appendices. First, try out the measurement of
each study if you can. Then, use your appraisal of each measure to critique the study.
What else?
• Procedures and interventions • Data analysis
• Did the authors explain step-by- • Did the authors specify the
step procedures for participants? method of data analysis?
• Did the authors explain what an
intervention entails clearly?
• Wesner et al. 1990
• How would you describe the study design?
• Do the study aims align with the study design?
• “To learn about the nature and extent of
performance anxiety among present-day
musicians.”
• “To survey the attitudes and experiences of
these musicians in order to judge how their
problems with anxiety might best be dealt with.”
• Who were participants of this study (n=454)?
• Students and teachers of music major, but 20%
of students with music education major.
• What did they measure?
• Performance Anxiety Questionnaires (21 items,
five points LIKERT scale; self-report)
• Did the authors report reliability and validity of
the PAQ?
• Did the authors specify data analysis?
• Chi square/Fisher’s exact tests: %
• Ethical consideration?
 • In methods, what have you noticed ?
• How would you summarize Wesner et al.’s
methods in terms of participants, measures,
Reflect on.. procedure and data analysis?
Osborne & Franklin, 2002
• Participants (n=84)

• Recruitment: Poster advertisements,

classified advertisements, internet links to
the survey on the web, radio interviews.

• Recruitment survey: information sheet,

consent forms in a self-addressed
envelope.
• Response rate for printed questionnaires
70%
• Included: Professionals (n=46), students
(n=20), amateurs (n=18). Classical, jazz
and popular music, various instruments
• Female (n=53)
• Male (n=31), sig. lower MPA, but gender
explained only 4% of the total variance in
MPA.
1. Performance Anxiety Inventory: 20 items
2. The CIDI (Composite International Diagnostic
Interview-Auto): self-report type of diagnostic
tool based on DSM-IV & ICD-10
3. The Performance Perception Scales (PPS):
To test Rapee & Heimberg’s theory
4. The Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
5. MPA developmental data with age of onset &
specific events.

• Five measures (using self-report

LIKERT scales): Why this much data
sets?
• Did methods align well with the study
aims and hypotheses?
• What do you think about
measurements? Are these valid and
reliable tools?
Imagine that you are a
musician answering
Performance Perception
Scale.

What do you think about this

scale?
The authors consider ‘situation formality’ as mediating
variable for MPA (low to high) in their hypotheses at
the end of introduction section.
Sub-sets of procedures
Two procedures:
1. Web-based survey
2. Phone: Demographic questions and
screening with the PAI (Low, medium and
high MPA) + mail the questionnaire battery
1) The low MPA returned the
questionnaire by mail (The Performance
Perception Scales (PPS); The Fear of
Negative Evaluation Scale; MPA
developmental data with age of onset &
specific events)
2) The high MPA: The CIDI (Diagnostic tool)
first, and PSS, FNES, MPA developmental
data.
Practice research appraisal
skills

• In methods, what have you noticed?

• How would you summarize Osborne &
Franklin’s methods regarding participants,
measures, procedure and data analysis?
• Can you compare Wesner et al. and Osborne
& Franklin’s methods?
Kokotsaki & Davidson,
2003
• Who were the participants?
• n=43
• Measure: STAI
Memos
• State and trait characteristics of the
performing musician under differing
conditions of stress
• STAI having greater reliability than
physiological measures? Perhaps, more
convenient.
• Two forms: The State-Anxiety Inventory
(how you feel right now) & The Trait-
Anxiety Inventory (how you feel
generally)
• 1. General anxiety level: 2 weeks before
the mid-exam (the Trait)
• 2. Pre-performance anxiety: 10 mins prior
to entering the recital room (the State)
• 3. During-performance state anxiety:
After the end of the performance
• 4. Post-performance state anxiety: 15-
mins
Repeated measures (4 times), total 172 questionnaires to complete.
Association between the actual performance and the perceived
performance anxiety.
Read each study, introduce a summary and
highlight facts and issues that interest you!
• WHAT IS YOUR APPRAISAL OF •WERE THERE ANY
EACH METHOD ACROSS THREE METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES YOU
STUDIES? WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OR
HIGHLIGHT?
•AGAIN, YOU DO NOT NEED TO •BUT WE NEED YOU TO PRESENT
UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON EACH
AUTHORS PRESENTED. METHOD ACROSS THREE STUDIES
AND HIGHLIGHT ANY FACT OR ISSUE
YOU HAVE BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT.
Methods example (Jinah, 510 words)
All three studies used various self-report types of questionnaires. While Wesner et al. (1990) and Osborne &
Franklin measured their musician participants only once (survey), Kokotsaki and Davidson measured vocal
students four times (within-subject repeated measures design). However, none of the authors reported their
research design clearly in the method section. Nonetheless, the methods of each study design aligned well
with their study aims.
Wesner et al. (1990) designed the Performance Anxiety Questionnaire (PAQ) but did not report the
reliability and validity of the measure. Some wordings of items 15 and 16 appeared to be leading ("… the use of
recreational drugs or alcohol… is justified?"), which may have influenced the way participants responded to
these items.
Osborne & Franklin (2002) reported online, phone, and paper survey methods and used primarily
standardized questionnaires with established reliability and validity. However, they used five different
measurements, including diagnostic measures such as the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Auto
(CIDI) and the Performance Anxiety Inventory (PAI). How reliable are these diagnostic tools using self-report
measures? Moreover, who responded to a web-based survey and who to a phone-based survey needed to be
clarified. Participants who responded to the telephone survey were screened for MPA using the PAI to
determine the levels of MPA (high, medium and low). It sounded as if they only screened phone survey
participants. Then only a group of people with high-performance anxiety were asked to complete the CIDI-A,
but not the low and medium MPA group. The diagnostic procedures among participants could have been more
explicit. It is also questionable whether collecting that much data was necessary as the participants might have
felt fatigued by so many questionnaires to answer.
Jinah’s example writing continues..
The method by Kokotsaki & Davidson (2003) sounded neat as they used the well-established
Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) four times. They measured vocal students' general anxiety
level 2 weeks before the mid-exam, pre-performance state anxiety 10 mins prior to the mid-exam, during-
performance anxiety, and post-performance state anxiety 15 mins later. While Wesner et al. (1990) and
Osborne & Franklin used a survey retrospectively asking how their participants remembered their MPA,
Kokotsaki & Davidson investigated more immediate MPA from the student-musicians. However, was the mid-
exam situation, a rehearsal for the final exam for these student-musicians, analogous to the real-world anxiety-
inducing performance situation?
College students were recruited across all three studies. Wesner et al. recruited 454 people; Osborne &
Franklin, professional, amateur and student (n=84); Kokotsaki and Davidson, vocal students (n=43). As a former
music major student, I wondered whether amateur musicians and music education students (20% of
participants in Wesner et al.) could be considered musicians as their MPA levels differ from the professional
musician's MPA. Lastly, none of the authors mentioned ethics approval across three studies. Only one study
(Osborne & Franklin, 2002) mentioned a 'consent form', but whether they gained 'informed consent' from all
participants was unclear. Given that the studies were published 20 to 33 years ago, one assumes that human
ethics regulations were more relaxed than today.