Anxiety Disorders

19 (2005) 725–751

Development and validation of a music

performance anxiety inventory for
gifted adolescent musicians
Margaret S. Osborne*, Dianna T. Kenny
Australian Centre for Applied Research in Music Performance (ACARMP),
Sydney Conservatorium of Music C41, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Received 24 May 2004; received in revised form 3 August 2004; accepted 13 September 2004

Abstract

Music performance anxiety (MPA) is a distressing experience for musicians of all ages,
yet the empirical investigation of MPA in adolescents has received little attention to date.
No measures specifically targeting MPA in adolescents have been empirically validated.
This article presents findings of an initial study into the psychometric properties and
validation of the Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A), a new
self-report measure of MPA for this group. Data from 381 elite young musicians aged 12–
19 years was used to investigate the factor structure, internal reliability, construct and
divergent validity of the MPAI-A. Cronbach’s a for the full measure was .91. Factor
analysis identified three factors, which together accounted for 53% of the variance.
Construct validity was demonstrated by significant positive relationships with social
phobia (measured using the Social Phobia Anxiety Inventory [Beidel, D. C., Turner, S.
M., & Morris, T. L. (1995). A new inventory to assess childhood social anxiety and phobia:
The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Psychological Assessment, 7(1),
73–79; Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Social Phobia and Anxiety
Inventory for Children (SPAI-C). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.]) and
trait anxiety (measured using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory [Spielberger, C. D. (1983).
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc.]). The MPAI-A demonstrated convergent validity by a moderate to strong
positive correlation with an adult measure of MPA. Discriminant validity was established
by a weaker positive relationship with depression, and no relationship with externalizing
behavior problems. It is hoped that the MPAI-A, as the first empirically validated measure

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9351 1386; fax: +61 2 9351 1385.
E-mail address: mosb6324@mail.usyd.edu.au (M.S. Osborne).

0887-6185/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.09.002
726 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

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

gical and treatment research in this area.
# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

1. Introduction

The developmental trajectory and phenomenology of music performance

anxiety (MPA) in children and pre-tertiary adolescents has received little attention
to date. A comprehensive database search identified only three relevant studies
exploring MPA in children and early adolescents (Maroon, 2003; Ryan, 1998,
2003). All three studies are methodologically compromised because they used
volunteer students with no history or diagnosis of MPA. However, a clear
relationship emerged between MPA and standard anxiety measures, indicating
that MPA may constitute a specific manifestation of generalized anxiety
problems, and that performance was impaired in highly state anxious students.
Most studies on MPA have been undertaken on professional musicians or
young adult students studying music in tertiary institutions. These studies indicate
that music performance anxiety is highly prevalent and problematic among this
occupational group and that performance anxiety appears to be both a public
health and occupational health issue for musicians. For example, up to 59% of
professional musicians experience performance anxiety severe enough to affect
their professional and/or personal lives (Van Kemenade, Van Son, & Van Heesch,
1995), and 70% reported that their playing is adversely affected by it (James,
1997). A recent study has found that opera singers have significantly higher trait
anxiety than community samples, and this makes them more vulnerable to the
occupational stressors associated with their profession (Kenny, Davis, & Oates,
2004). Evidence also suggests a strong relationship between MPA and social
anxiety, one of the most common disorders in the community (Alfano, Beidel, &
Turner, 2002; Lewinsohn, Gotlib, Lewinsohn, Steeley, & Allen, 1998). Many
anxiety disorders first manifest in childhood and adolescence (Kashani &
Orvaschel, 1990), but it is not known whether this is true for MPA. Further,
prevalence in adolescents has not been assessed and there are no empirically
robust, reliable and valid self-report measures of MPA for adolescent musicians.
A number of theories have been developed to explain the onset of MPA in adult
musicians. MPA is commonly viewed as a constellation of three interactive yet
also partially independent factors: cognitions, autonomic arousal, and overt
behavioral responses (Craske & Craig, 1984; Lederman, 1999; Salmon, 1990).
There is some dispute amongst researchers regarding the nature of this
interaction. Zinn, McCain, and Zinn (2000) argue that performance anxiety is
primarily a psychophysiological event where the autonomic nervous system
initiates and maintains MPA. Alternatively, Kirchner (2003) maintains the
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 727

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

performer, and not the autonomic nervous system. Wilson (2002) describes threat
perception as an interaction of three variables that play important roles in the
experience of distressing anxiety: the performer’s constitutional and learned
tendency (trait anxiety) to become anxious in response to situations of social
stress; the degree of task mastery, and the amount of situational stress.

1.1. Critical review of MPA measures

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

databases identified 20 MPA self-report measures published in peer-reviewed
journals (excluding Dissertation Abstracts). These are listed (with abbreviations)
in Appendix A. All scales were developed for specific research projects with
college- and/or adult-aged samples. Most measures assessed MPA across a variety
of musical instruments and performance situations, although some were
specifically created for pianists (e.g. Piano Performance Anxiety Scale) and
string players (e.g. Stage Fright Rating Scale). All scales apart from the Music
Performance Anxiety Questionnaire (MPAQ), the Performance Anxiety Self-
statement Scale (PASSS) and the State Emotion Questionnaire (SEQ) assessed
MPA as trait anxiety, asking respondents to rate their levels of MPA based on a
retrospective evaluation of music performance across various contexts. Levels of
MPA occurring at particular points in time, such as music performances in the
research context, were assessed using a state anxiety measure [commonly
Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State subscale (Spielberger, 1983)].
Many of the available scales are adaptations of existing scales, assessing non-
music performance anxiety. For example, Appel’s Personal Report of Confidence
as a Performer (PRCP) was adapted from Paul’s (1966) Personal Report of
Confidence as a Speaker; Cox and Kenardy’s (1993) Performance Anxiety
Questionnaire (PAQ) was adapted from Schwartz, Davidson, and Goleman (1978)
Cognitive–Somatic Anxiety Questionnaire (as cited in Cox & Kenardy, 1993) and
the Performance Anxiety Inventory (PAI); the PAI was based on Spielberger’s Test
Anxiety Inventory (1980, as cited in Nagle, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989); and the
Achievement Anxiety Test Scale (Alpert & Haber, 1960) was modified by both
Sweeney and Horan (1982), and Wolfe (1989) into the Adaptive–Maladaptive
Anxiety Scale (AAS–MAS). The most recent scale, the Kenny Music Performance
Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Kenny et al., 2004) was constructed to specifically
address each of the components of Barlow’s emotion-based theory of anxiety
disorders (Barlow, 2000). Only the K-MPAI, PRCP and PAI assess all three
components—cognitive, behavioral and physiological—that are now commonly
believed to comprise MPA and other anxiety disorders (Barlow, 2002; Hardy &
Parfitt, 1991; Lang, Davis, & Öhman, 2000; Morris, 2001). Five of these scales
were reproduced in full in the journals in which they were published to facilitate
future research (K-MPAI; Musician’s Questionnaire; PAI; PAQ—Cox &
Kenardy, 1993; and PAQ—Wesner, Noyes, & Davis, 1990). Factor analytic
728 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

studies have been reported on the MPAQ, AAS–MAS and Trait Anxiety Scale
(TAS).
A critical review of the psychometric data presented in the articles was
conducted using criteria adapted for self-report measures from McCauley and
Swisher’s (1984) review of language and articulation tests. These constitute the
minimum criteria that should be considered in evaluating any norm-referenced
test (Standards for educational and psychological testing, 1985). They include a
description of the standardization population, sample sizes of 100 or more per
subgroup, systematic item analysis (including factor analysis), presentation of
raw score means and standard deviations for each subgroup, evidence of
concurrent and predictive validity, estimates of test–retest reliabilities, test
administration details, and qualifications of the administrator or scorer. Table 1
summarizes the criteria met by each MPA measure.
The reporting of basic psychometric properties was limited, and in some cases
absent. Very few of the tests reported test–retest or internal reliability. Overall,
subject numbers in the various research studies were small (20–53). Although
Wesner et al. (1990) had the largest sample size (n = 302) and described their
sample thoroughly, they provided no results other than percentages of gender, age
group and category of musician (i.e. impaired/unimpaired) who endorsed various
symptoms of MPA. No single measure satisfied all the criteria, although the K-
MPAI met most of the criteria and reported the best psychometric properties. In
sum, the MPA measures reviewed are idiosyncratic, with inadequate norms and
standardization procedures and all have been developed for and used with adult
musicians.

Table 1
MPA self-report measures meeting each of the nine psychometric criterion
Criterion
1 Description of
normative sample
2 Sample size
3 Item analysis
4 Means and
standard deviations
5 Concurrent validity
6 Predictive validity
7 Test–retest reliability
8 Description of
test procedures
9 Description of
tester qualifications
Number of Measures
measures (n = 20)
10 MPSS, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, PASSS,
AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI
2 PAQ-WND, MPAQ
13 PRCP, PAQ-WND, K-MPAI, PI, MPAQ, PAI,
SSQ, AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI
10 PRCP, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, SES,
PASSS, K-MPAI, PAI, AATS, PPAS, AD
16 PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, K-MPAI, PI,
SEQ, MPAQ, SSQ, AATS, PPAS, AD,
AAS–MAS, MPAS, TAS, SAS, PMCI
0 –
0 –
18 PRCP, MPSS, PAQ-WND, PAQ-CK, SES,
PASSS, K-MPAI, MPAQ, PI, SEQ, PAI,
SSQ, AATS, PPAS, AD, AAS–MAS, MPAS
0 –
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 729

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

adolescent musicians published in the public domain. Both child and adolescent
MPA studies by Ryan (1998) and Maroon (2003) developed research-specific
measures, but neither presented any data as to their psychometric properties. In
order to address these major deficits in this research domain, we aimed to develop a
reliable and valid self-report measure of MPA for the population of young
musicians aged 12–19 years. We hope that this scale will facilitate MPA research in
this age group through the provision of a brief, reliable and valid instrument that can
serve as both a simple screening aid for high school students at risk for developing
serious MPA, and as a pre–post intervention measure for treatment outcome studies.

2. Method

Five analyses were undertaken to establish the psychometric properties of this

scale. Initially, a pilot test was conducted to assess the content of items that were
either newly developed or modifications of existing measures. We then
administered all scales to a larger sample to determine the factor structure,
internal consistency and criterion validity of the Music Performance Anxiety
Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A). Subsequent concurrent and discriminant
validity analyses were undertaken using an additional student sample.
Because all studies were conducted using schools within the NSW Department
of Education in Australia, a brief summary of the educational system is presented
below.

2.1. Australian education setting

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

6 years. There are 3 years of elementary school (Kindergarten to Year 2); 4 years
of primary school (Years 3–6) and 6 years of secondary school (Years 7–12).
Students may exit at Year 10 with their School Certificate or at Year 12 with their
Higher School Certificate (HSC).
The Conservatorium High School (CHS) is a unique selective government
school for gifted young musicians. Successful applicants must have demonstrated
musical potential and/or achievement, and have a satisfactory academic record.
The Newtown High School of the Performing Arts (NHSPA) is a government
school and one of the leading performing and visual arts schools in Australia.
Students are considered for a placement to both high schools on the basis of an
audition and interview. The McDonald College (MDC) is a private specialist
academic and performing arts school for gifted children. Entry to the school is
open to all students with a strong performance arts background, as well as students
who have a general interest in the performing arts and wish to be educated in a
creative environment. All schools teach grades 7–12. Both the MDC and NHSPA
have students majoring in dance and theater, as well as music.
730 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

2.2. Scale development

The initial item pool was generated by consulting available adult MPA scales.
Items were chosen to represent each of the three domains (cognitive,
physiological and behavioral) known to be affected in MPA. Care was taken
with the wording of the items and all were tested for readability by 12-year-olds.
The aim of the pilot study was to assess the readability and comprehension of each
of the items on each proposed scale and to examine preliminary psychometric
data.

2.2.1. Participants
Protocols were completed in class time by 19 Year 8 and 18 Year 10 students
(14 boys, 23 girls), with a mean age of 14 years (S.D. = 1.12 years) from the CHS.

2.2.2. Measures
Two scales were developed. These were:

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

instruments, length of time studied, time practised each day, desire to be a
professional musician, importance of music in the family, age first performed
in front of audience, pattern and frequency of performing.
2. Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A): This 18-item
scale was designed for use with adolescents to assess the somatic, cognitive
and behavioral components of MPA (after Cox & Kenardy, 1993; Nagle et al.,
1989). Items such as ‘‘Before I perform, I get butterflies in my stomach’’
(somatic subscale), ‘‘I often worry about my ability to perform’’ (cognitive)
and ‘‘I would rather play on my own than in front of other people’’ (behavioral)
were answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging ‘‘0—Not at all’’ to
‘‘6—All of the time’’.

2.2.3. Results
2.2.3.1. Demographic characteristics. Students had been studying for an average
of 6.83 years (S.D. = 2.76), and practiced an average of 1.5 h a day (S.D. = 0.74 h).
Forty-six percent of students indicated they wanted to be professional musicians,
49% were unsure, and 5% did not want to be a professional musician.
Approximately half of the students (53%) performed mostly solo with some
group work; 22% indicated half solo-half group performances; 11% performed
mostly in ensembles with some solo work; 8% performed only as soloists; and 6%
performed only in ensembles.

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

mean = 50.77, S.D. = 17.14, minimum and maximum scores 8 and 20, respectively.
Analysis revealed that improvements could be made to the reliability of the MPAI-A
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 731

with the deletion of some items. Cronbach’s a increased from .88 to .91 by deleting
three items ‘‘It is easier to play in front of my family and friends, than in front of
strangers’’, ‘‘It is easier to play in front of strangers, than in front of family and
friends’’, and ‘‘I usually feel well prepared before I perform’’ (reduced scale given
in Appendix B). Because of student confusion in completing the demographic scale
questions on practice, this section was modified to request daily practice time on the
major instrument only.

2.3. Psychometric properties

2.3.1. Participants
A new sample of students (124 boys and 174 girls) from the three performance
high schools in the inner Sydney metropolitan area described above agreed to
participate in the research. The respective number of participating students at each
high school were CHS n = 128, NHSPA n = 117, and MDC n = 53. The mean age
of the sample was 14.23 years (S.D. = 1.70 years, range: 11–19 years).

2.3.2. Procedure
The study was introduced to students by the head music teacher and music
staff, and consent forms were distributed and returned in advance of survey
administration. Early in Semester 1, 2002, the scales developed for the study and
some standardized psychological assessment measures were distributed to
students to complete in class. Students who did not wish to participate continued
with their schoolwork for the duration of testing. Teaching staff were not given
access to student survey results. Students then participated in a focus-group
discussion regarding their experiences of MPA and management techniques. In
addition, students completed up to four performance-based protocols throughout
the semester, which assessed state anxiety experienced during different music
performances.

2.3.3. Measures
1. Demographics: As described in 2.2.2 Scale Development.
2. Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A): As described
in 2.2.2 Scale development.
3. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983): The STAI Trait
subscale measures relatively stable individual differences in the tendency to
perceive stressful situations as dangerous or threatening. This standardised test
was used to validate the MPAI-A and to provide a comparison with
standardised norms and other MPA research. This measure has excellent
stability with high school students (30 day test–retest interval males = .71,
females = .75) and internal consistency (males and females = .90) (Spielber-
ger, 1983).
4. Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) (Turner, Beidel, & Dancu, 1996),
and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAI-C) (Beidel,
732 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

Turner, & Morris, 1998): These scales screen for maladaptive social anxiety in
social encounters and settings, assess information on the intensity of distress,
and indicate possible social phobia diagnoses. The SPAI-C successfully
differentiates children with social phobia from those with other anxiety
disorders (Beidel et al., 1998). Adolescents up to and including 14 years
completed the SPAI-C, and those 14 years and older completed the SPAI.
These measures were included to examine the relationship between MPA and
social phobia. Both measures have very high stability and internal consistency
(Beidel et al., 1998; Turner et al., 1996).

2.3.4. Results
2.3.4.1. Factor analysis. The factor structure of the MPAI-A was assessed. Prior
to factor analysis, we assessed the factorability of the data. An anti-image
correlation matrix was used to assess the sampling adequacy of each variable. No
item had a measure of sampling accuracy <.5. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
large and significant and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure was >.6, hence
factorability was assumed (Coakes & Steed, 2001). To examine whether the scale
was multi- or uni-dimensional, we assessed its factor structure using principal axis
factoring with oblimin rotation.
Examination of both the number of eigenvalues greater than one and the
factor loadings supported a decision to treat the scale as multi-dimensional,
although the first factor accounted for most of the variance. Using a best-fit
solution, the factor analysis identified three eigenvalues greater than one,
which together accounted for 53% of the variance. This three factor solution
provided a better fit to the data than either a one or two factor solution (details
of factor analyses can be obtained from the authors). Individual items with
factor loadings less than .3 were eliminated (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The
items and their specific factor loadings are presented in Table 2. The first
factor, Somatic and Cognitive Features, accounted for 43% of the variance.
The majority of items loading on this factor consisted of those describing the
physical manifestations of performance anxiety immediately prior to, and
during a performance. Two items related to worry and fear of making mistakes.
The second factor, Performance Context, accounted for 6% of the variance,
and described the preference performers have for either solo or group contexts
and the nature of the audience. The third factor, Performance Evaluation,
contained items relating to the evaluation that both the audience and performer
may make of a performance, the consequences stemming from these
evaluations (particularly when a mistake is made), and difficulty concentrating
in front of an audience when performing. This factor accounted for 3% of the
variance.

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

consistency of the MPAI-A. Item-total correlations were examined, and items
with negative or item-total correlations below .3 were deleted to improve the
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 733

Table 2
MPAI-A factor analysis pattern matrix
Item number Item content Loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Somatic and cognitive features (43%)
1 Before I perform, I get butterflies .93
in my stomach
12 Just before I perform, I feel nervous .77
6 When I perform in front of an audience, .77
my heart beats very fast
4 Before I perform, I tremble or shake .73
2 I often worry about my ability to perform .61
9 When I perform in front of an audience .56
I get sweaty hands
15 My muscles feel tense when I perform .44
5 When I perform in front of an audience, .43 .38
I am afraid of making mistakes
Performance context (6%)
14 I would rather play in a group or ensemble, 1.02
than on my own
11 I try to avoid playing on my own at .58
a school concert
3 I would rather play on my own, than .36
in front of other people
Performance evaluation (3%)
13 I worry that my parents or teacher might .58
not like my performance
8 If I make a mistake during a performance, .54
I usually panic
10 When I finish performing, I usually feel .43
happy with my performance
7 When I perform in front of an audience, .33 .38
I find it hard to concentrate on my music

reliability of each scale (de Vaus, 1995). The ‘‘a if item deleted’’ column was also
examined to decide on further item deletions.
The original 18 item MPAI-A scale had high internal reliability (Cronbach’s
a = .89). Inspection of the item-total correlations revealed three problematic
items (correlations in parentheses). ‘‘It is easier to play in front of strangers, than
in front of family and friends’’ ( .07), ‘‘It is easier to play in front of my family
and friends, than in front of strangers’’ (.23) and ‘‘I usually feel well prepared
before I perform’’ (.24). Deleting these items raised Cronbach’s a to .91. The
remaining 15 items also provided the highest Cronbach’s a in the reliability
analysis on the MPAI-A in the pilot test. Cronbach’s a values for the three factors
determined in Study 2 were calculated as follows: Factor 1 ‘‘Somatic and
Cognitve Sensations’’ = .90; Factor 2 ‘‘Performance Context’’ = .77; and Factor 3
‘‘Performance Evaluation’’ = .69.
734 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

Table 3
MPAI-A descriptive statistics by gender and school grade
Gender Number Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Male 124 38.23 17.93 3 87
Female 174 46.27 19.83 0 84
Grade
7 54 39.96 20.07 0 84
8 50 43.83 20.20 10 87
9 51 43.53 19.11 5 84
10 55 47.71 20.61 0 82
11 50 42.05 18.03 7 80
12 38 39.38 17.57 5 81
Total 298 42.92 19.44 0 87

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

performing, I usually feel happy with my performance’’ (.32) and C5 ‘‘I worry
that my parents or teacher might not like my performance’’ (.40) improved the a
to .92, with item-total correlations for the reduced scale ranging from .56 to .74.
However, considering the factor analysis results, the 15 item MPAI-A scale was
retained for all future analyses, as this measure provided a desirable balance
between desired psychometric properties and the broadest possible assessment of
MPA features.
The descriptive statistics for the reduced MPAI-A measure are given in Table 3.
Girls scored significantly higher than boys [t(296) = 3.59, P < .001]. An
inspection of the means by grade shows a curvilinear trend, with a rise from grade
8 that peaks at grade 10, thereafter declining to pre-grade 8 levels.

2.4. Criterion validity

2.4.1. Procedure
In order to determine the construct validity of the MPAI-A, various well-
known, standardized self-report measures of trait and social anxiety were
administered. The STAI was used to determine baseline levels of trait anxiety, and
depending on the age of students, the SPAI-C or SPAI was used as a measure of
social anxiety.
Given previous research into both childhood (Maroon, 2003; Ryan, 1998) and
adult MPA (Kenny et al., 2004; Lehrer, Goldman, & Strommen, 1990), the MPAI-
A was hypothesized to demonstrate a moderate to strong positive correlation with
trait anxiety. Further, since a diagnosis of social phobia is warranted for those
musicians who suffer extreme performance anxiety (Clark & Agras, 1991; Cox &
Kenardy, 1993) and hence MPA as a construct is more specifically related to social
anxiety than the more general trait anxiety, it was hypothesized that there would
be a stronger positive correlation between the MPAI-A and social phobia
measures than for trait anxiety.
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 735

Table 4
Means and standard deviations for the STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI by gender (norms in italics)
Scale Boys Girls Total sample
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
STAI 41.70 10.05 42.52 10.06 42.18 10.05
Norm data 40.17 10.53 40.97 10.63 – –
SPAI-C 10.12 10.55 10.56 7.86 10.39 8.99
Whole sample 14.9 9.6 18.8 10.4 16.8 10.2
Social Phobia present 23.4 7.6 26.8 9.8 26.1 8.6
Social Phobia absent 10.2 7.6 15.1 8.4 – –
SPAI 48.48 24.69 41.87 28.92 44.60 27.35
Social Phobia present – – – – 64.7 30.6
Social Phobia absent – – – – 43.0 26.4

2.4.2. Results
Table 4 displays the means and standard deviations for males, females and the
whole sample, and compares these values against normative data presented in the
test manuals.
Distributions for each variable were examined and no significant deviations
from normality were detected. Norms for the STAI were taken from Spielberger
(1983). Normative data for the SPAI-C is quoted in the manual from research by
Beidel, Turner, Hamlin, and Morris (2000), on a sample of 249 children both with
(n = 63) and without social phobia diagnoses, with a mean age of 10.8 years
(S.D. = 1.5 years), ranging from 8 to 14 years. Data for the SPAI is provided in the
manual from research by Clark et al. (1994), who have provided the only
reliability and validity data on the SPAI for adolescents. Their sample of 223
adolescents ranged from 12 to 18 years (no average age was reported), 39 of which
met criteria for DSM-III-R Social Phobia. Normative values are given in italics.
There were no significant differences between male and female mean scores on
the STAI [t(296) = 0.70, P > .05]. However, girls in this sample scored
significantly higher than girls in the norm group [t(173) = 2.04, P < .05], but there
was no difference for boys in this sample and the normative group [t(123) = 1.70,
P > .05].
The scores on the SPAI-C for this study were much lower than those given by
Beidel et al. (2000) for the whole sample. The SPAI data shows the total sample
mean is comparable to the mean value reported for adolescents with no psychiatric
disorder.
Cutoffs for the SPAI-C and use of SPAI with adolescents have not been
specified. Considering that both measures were administered in order to capture
information across the entire high school age range, various investigations of the
data using different screening cutoff scores were undertaken. Using a cutoff of 18
on the SPAI-C, and including the top two categories of difference scores on the
SPAI, there is reasonable consistency in the percentage of possible social phobia
736 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

Table 5
Number of students (percentage in parentheses) meeting screening criteria for social phobia
Protocol Unlikely Social Phobia Possible Social Phobia
SPAI-C
Cutoff  18 115 (79%) 30 (21%)
Cutoff  20 123 (85%) 22 (15%)
Cutoff  15 102 (70%) 43 (30%)
Cutoff  13 94 (65%) 51 (35%)
Cutoff  10 81 (56%) 64 (44%)
SPAI 37 (28%) 94 (72%)
Mild possible = 65 (50%)
Possible = 17 (13%)
Probable = 12 (9%)
Combined SPAI-C and SPAI 152 (55%) 124 (45%)

cases in the sample across both measures (see Table 5). In addition, given that
Clark et al. (1994) found lower scores in adolescents compared to adults using the
SPAI, rates of possible and probable social phobia were investigated taking into
account all three social phobia categories (mild possible, possible and probable
social phobia), thereby lowering the cutoff score for possible social phobia
diagnosis. This second method of analysis increases the number of screened social
phobics, leading to an almost inverse relationship between unlikely and likely
presentations of social phobia across the SPAI-C and SPAI.
The mean value for this sample on the SPAI-C was significantly lower than the
whole norm sample [t(144) = 8.58, P < .01], and the social phobia group
[t(144) = 21.03, P < .01]. The mean scores for girls and boys were not
significantly different [t(143) = 0.29, P > .05]. Considering that Beidel et al.
(2000) found significant differences between boys and girls in the norm samples
for the SPAI-C, separate analyses were conduced by gender. There was no
difference between boys in this sample and the SPAI-C social phobia-absent
group [t(57) = 0.06, P > .05]. However, boys in this study scored significantly
lower than both the whole norm sample [t(57) = 3.45, P < .001] and boys
diagnosed with social phobia [t(57) = 9.59, P < .01]. The girls scored
significantly lower than the social phobia-absent [t(86) = 5.38, P < .01], whole
sample [t(86) = 9.77, P < .01] and social phobia-present [t(86) = 19.26,
P < .01] norm groups.
Similarly, there was no difference between boys and girls on the SPAI
[t(129) = 1.37, P > .05], which justified whole group comparisons to the norm
data. The total sample mean was significantly lower than the socially phobic
diagnostic group [t(130) = 8.41, P < .001], but not significantly different to
adolescents without a psychiatric disorder [t(130) = 0.67, P > .05].
The MPAI-A correlated significantly with the STAI (r = .45, P < .01), SPAI-C
(r = .42, P < .01) and SPAI (r = .43, P < .01) scales (see Table 6).
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 737

Table 6
Correlations between MPA, trait and social anxiety (r and n values respectively)
STAI SPAI-C SPAI
MPAI-A .45* .42* .43*
298 145 131
STAI .47* .46*
145 131
SPAI-C –
*
All correlations significant at P < 0.001.

2.5. Convergent and discriminant validity

In light of the unconvincing correlations between the MPAI-A and the STAI,
SPAI-C and SPAI, a follow-up study was conducted to clarify the extent to which
the MPAI-A is associated with trait anxiety and social phobia. An adult measure
of MPA was included to assess concurrent validity. Since the current sample were
gifted students, we believed that none would experience any difficulty with
understanding an adult version, and indeed we found that no student reported
difficulty. We wished to assess the correlation of the MPAI-A with another MPA
measure in order to further assess the MPAI-A’s construct validity. The Children’s
Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992) and the externalizing profile of the Youth
Self-Report (Achenbach, 1991) were included to investigate the discriminant
validity of the MPAI-A.

2.5.1. Participants
Music students, of whom 61% formed part of the criterion validity sample
(n = 64; 30 boys and 34 girls) from the NHSPA in Years 8 (Elective and Extension),
9 (Extension), 10 (Elective) and 12 (Music 2) were invited to participate. The mean
age of this sample was 14.6 years (S.D. = 1.3, range: 13–17 years).

2.5.2. Procedure
Students who were not involved in the previous validity sample were given
consent forms, and asked to obtain their parents signature as consent, and return to
the liaison music teacher. Surveys were completed in class time, with the music
teacher and one of the researchers present. Teaching staff did not have access to
individual student results.

2.5.3. Measures
1. Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Kenny et al., 2004):
Because no other child or adolescent MPA measures exist, this scalewas included
to test the convergent validity of the MPAI-A. This inventory was developed
to assess the emotion-based theory of anxiety proposed by Barlow (2000).
738 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

Items were either specially constructed or selected from other scales to address
each of Barlow’s theoretical components, including evocation of anxious
propositions (e.g. uncontrollability, unpredictability, negative affect, situa-
tional cues); attentional shift (e.g. task or self-evaluative focus, fear of negative
evaluation); physiological arousal and memory bias. Questions are answered
on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘0—Strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘6—
Strongly agree’’. The maximum score is 156, with higher scores indicating
greater anxiety and psychological distress. This scale demonstrated excellent
internal reliability (Cronbach’s a = .94) (Kenny et al., 2004).
2. Youth Self-Report-Externalizing Scale (YSR-Ext) (Achenbach, 1991): The
YSR is a self-report form used to assess the feelings and behaviors of 11–18
year olds. Thirty questions included in the externalizing scale of the YSR
(comprising Delinquent and Aggressive Behavior factors) were used to assess
discriminant validity. These items are answered on a three-point Likert scale of
0—Not true to 2—Very true or often true. The Internalizing scale of the YSR
was not included due to administration time constraints. However, the STAI-
Trait and CDI scales were considered adequate in assessing internalizing
characteristics such as worry and depression. The externalizing scale has
acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s a = .89) and 1-week test–retest
reliability (r = .81). The scale significantly differentiates the competence and
problem scores of non-referred and referred youth presenting for mental health
services, and thus demonstrates acceptable validity (Achenbach, 1991).
3. Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI) (Turner et al., 1996), and Social
Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children (SPAI-C) (Beidel et al., 1998).
4. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983).
5. Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) (Kovacs, 1992): The CDI was included
to further assess the construct and discriminant validity of the MPAI-A. The CDI
is a 27-item self-rated symptom oriented scale measuring symptoms associated
with depression such as sleep disturbance, appetite loss, and anhedonia. It is
suitable for school-aged adolescents aged 7–17 years. It quantifies a range of
depressive symptoms including disturbed mood, hedonic capacity, vegetative
functions, self-evaluation, and interpersonal behaviors, providing a total score
(CDI-Total), and five subscale scores: Negative Mood (CDI-NM), Interpersonal
Problems (CDI-IP), Ineffectiveness (CDI-IF), Anhedonia (CDI-AN), and
Negative Self-Esteem (CDI-NS). For each item, the child rates the degree to
which each statement describes him or her for the past 2 weeks, using one of
three choices, keyed 0 (Absence of symptom), 1 (Mild symptom), or 2 (Definite
symptom). Higher scores indicate increasing severity, with scores ranging from
0 to 54. It has been used extensively with normal and clinical children’s
populations. The measure effectively distinguishes normal from clinical
samples, with improved accuracy obtained when included as part of a multi-
instrument battery. It shows good concurrent validity with other measures of
depressive symptoms and demonstrates good internal consistency (r = .71–.89)
and test–retest reliability (r = .38–.87) (Kovacs, 1992).
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 739

Table 7
MPAI-A descriptive statistics by gender and school grade
Gender Number Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum
Male 30 29.43 13.28 7 57
Female 34 38.24 15.21 5 72
Grade
8 27 35.04 14.32 5 69
9 13 29.31 17.19 7 61
10 17 35.71 15.36 9 72
12 7 35.57 12.58 20 53
Total 64 34.11 14.90 5 72

2.5.4. Results
Descriptive statistics for the MPAI-A are presented in Table 7. Distributions for
each variable were examined and no significant deviations from normality were
detected. The reduced 15-item scale again demonstrated acceptable internal
reliability for this sample (Cronbach’s a = .88). This sample evidenced much
lower scores on the MPAI-A than the criterion validity sample. As in the previous
sample, girls scored significantly higher than boys [t(62) = 2.45, P < .05].
Similarly, scores in this sample were lower on the social anxiety measures (see
Table 8). The mean value obtained for boys on the SPAI-C was half that obtained
in the criterion validity sample (see Table 4), although the gender difference in this

Table 8
Means and standard deviations for all scales by gender (norms in italics)
Scale Males Females Total sample
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
STAI 39.20 9.74 43.56 11.73 41.52 10.98
SPAI-C 4.94 3.45 9.88 10.41 7.41 8.03
SPAI 30.79 17.38 40.06 29.90 35.87 25.09
K-MPAI 34.10 19.69 50.74 26.19 42.94 24.65
YSR-externalising 13.93 8.92 14.12 8.05 14.03 8.40
11.6 7.0 10.3 6.3 – –
CDI-
Total 10.36 10.05 13.18 9.24 11.86 9.66
11.36 – 9.74 – 9.18 –
Negative Mood 1.86 1.86 2.62 2.12 2.26 2.02
2.41 – 2.35 – 2.38
Interpersonal Problems 1.03 1.67 0.79 1.12 0.90 1.40
1.02 – 0.64 – 0.81 –
Ineffectiveness 2.14 2.00 2.53 1.69 2.35 1.84
2.35 – 1.66 – 1.98 –
Anhedonia 3.17 3.31 3.60 2.77 3.40 3.02
3.60 – 3.34 – 3.46 –
Negative Self-Esteem 1.36 2.08 2.97 2.38 2.22 2.37
1.98 – 1.75 – 1.86 –
740 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

sample was not significant [t(30) = 1.80, P > .05]. The female mean was
consistent on this measure across both samples, for both the SPAI-C and SPAI.
However, the boys’ scores on the SPAI were highly discrepant between samples. In
this sample, on average, boys scored much lower than girls, although the difference
was not significant [t(29) = 1.03, P > .05], whereas in the criterion validity
sample, boys scored significantly higher overall. Their mean score is almost 18
points higher than the current score. The STAI results are reasonably consistent
across both samples for boys and girls, who did not score significantly differently
from each other in this sample [t(62) = 1.60, P > .05]. Considering that this
convergent and discriminant validity analysis was conducted using NHSPA
students only, it was conceivable that these differences could be attributed to sample
differences. Therefore, criterion validity sample results for NHSPA only were
compared with the NHSPA data to determine whether values in this sample were
consistent for NHSPA students. Means and standard deviations for the SPAI-C in
the criterion validity sample were as follows: boys = 7.97 (S.D. = 9.96), girls = 9.97
(S.D. = 7.27), total sample = 8.93 (S.D. = 8.73). SPAI means and standard
deviations for boys = 49.74 (S.D. = 21.45), girls = 43.95 (S.D. = 21.23), and total
sample = 46.70 (S.D. = 21.26). Thus, NHSPA students obtained mean scores
comparable to all three high schools combined. Therefore, differences in this
sample cannot be attributed to differences in the three high school samples.
Boys scored lower than girls on the K-MPAI [t(62) = 2.84, P < .01], and
obtained much lower average scores than the girls on the CDI-Negative Self-
Esteem subscale [t(62) = 2.86, P < .01]. Norms for the STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI
are presented in Table 4. Norms for non-referred youth were used to compare the
YSR-Externalizing scale (Achenbach, 1991). Means for the CDI are given for the
age group 13–17 as presented in the test manual (Kovacs, 1992).
The percentage of this sample that met criteria for possible or probable social
phobia (Table 9) was much lower than the percentage of students participating in
the criterion validity sample (Table 5).

Table 9
Number of students (percentage in parentheses) meeting screening criteria for social phobia
Protocol Unlikely Social Phobia Possible Social Phobia
SPAI-C
Cutoff  18 30 (94%) 2 (6%)
Cutoff  20 30 (94%) 2 (6%)
Cutoff  15 30 (94%) 2 (6%)
Cutoff  13 27 (84%) 5 (16%)
Cutoff  10 26 (81%) 6 (19%)
SPAI 14 (45%) 17 (45%)
Mild possible = 10 (32%)
Possible = 6 (19%)
Probable = 1 (3%)
Combined SPAI-C and SPAI 44 (70%) 19 (30%)
Table 10
Correlations between MPA, trait, social anxiety, externalising and depression scales (r, n and P values, respectively)
K-MPAI STAI SPAI-C SPAI YSR-Ext CDI-Total CDI-NM CDI-IP CDI-IF CDI-AN CDI-NS
MPAI-A .69 .54 .65 .63 .128 .39 .48 .02 .21 .34 .50
64 64 32 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 .313 <.01 <.001 .874 .09 <.05 <.001

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

K-MPAI .81 .59 .73 .44 .66 .62 .26 .51 .60 .70
64 32 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.05 <.001 <.001 <.001
STAI .55 .69 .40 .85 .80 .47 .63 .80 .75
32 31 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
<.01 <.001 <.01 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
SPAI-C – .11 .35 .49 .04 .20 .35 .36
32 32 32 32 32 32 32
.54 <.05 <.01 .84 .27 <.05 <.05
SPAI .08 .57 .50 .15 .30 .55 .67
31 31 31 31 31 31 31
.67 <.01 <.01 .43 .10 <.01 <.001
YSR-Ext .31 .23 .23 .28 .31 .18
64 64 64 64 64 64
<.05 .07 .07 <.05 <.05 .16
CDI-Total .90 .73 .78 .91 .89
64 64 64 64 64
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
CDI-NM .54 .62 .78 .81
64 64 64 64
<.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
CDI-IP .53 .60 .60
64 64 64
<.001 <.001 <.001
CDI-IF .60 .63
64 64
<.001 <.001
CDI-AN .71

741
64
<.001
742 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

Pearson’s correlations between the MPAI-A and STAI, SPAI-C and SPAI were
all slightly higher than obtained in criterion validity sample and all highly
significant (see Table 10). As hypothesized, correlations with the social phobia
measures were greater than with the STAI. The MPAI-A correlations with the
social phobia measures showed that these measures share approximately 40% of
their variance. The concurrent validity of the MPAI-A was established by a higher
correlation with the K-MPAI than any other measure. Discriminant validity was
established in two ways; firstly, by the very low and non-significant correlation
between the MPAI-A and the YSR-Externalizing scale, and secondly by the weak
correlations between the MPAI-A and the CDI-Total, Negative Mood and
Negative Self-Esteem subscales.

3. Discussion

The aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of
a new scale of music performance anxiety for use with child and adolescent
musicians. To be considered a reliable and valid measure, a scale should
demonstrate good internal consistency, with an a of at least .9 when total test
scores are used in placement decisions (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988) and good
construct, concurrent and discriminant validity. Although validity coefficients in
the order of .3–.4 are considered high, and values >.6 are rare (Kaplan &
Saccuzzo, 1989) we considered a coefficient greater than or equal to .8 to be a
more stringent and appropriate criteria. Inter-correlations among items (the
internal consistency) may be used to support the assertion that a scale primarily
measures a single construct. Substantial relationships of a scale to other measures
that purportedly assess the same construct, and weaknesses of relationships to
measures of different constructs, support both the identification of constructs and
the differentiation (discrimination) between them (Standards for educational and
psychological testing, 1985).
The MPAI-A displayed a parsimonious three-factor structure of Somatic
and Cognitive Features, Performance Context and Performance Evaluation,
which together accounted for 53% of the variance. The majority of
the loading (43%) was attributed to the first factor, Somatic and Cognitive
Features. Interestingly there are some parallels between these factors and
those of the MPAQ, particularly between Somatic and Cognitive Features and
the MPAQ Factor 2 High standards/Judgmental attitudes toward performance,
and Performance Evaluation with the MPAQ Factor 5: Concern about
distraction in self and audience. These results are currently being cross
validated using a new sample of young American band musicians in Grades 6
and 7.
Reliability analyses demonstrate that the MPAI-A is a psychometrically robust
measure, with very good internal consistency (.91). The 15-item MPAI-A
achieved this same high level of internal reliability in the scale development and
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 743

reliability samples, although it did reduce slightly to .88 in the concurrent and
discriminant validity sample.
Construct validity was demonstrated by the MPAI-A correlating most highly
with the adult measure of MPA, the K-MPAI, the least with the YSR, and
obtaining moderate and highly significant correlations with the STAI, SPAI-C
and SPAI. The MPAI-A shared between 18% and 44% of the variance with the
two measures of social phobia. These findings are at odds with previous
research that compared MPA and social anxiety. Huston (2001) found a
correlation in the order of .35 (12% of variance shared) and concluded that MPA
and social phobia were relatively unrelated. This difference may be attributable
to sample differences. Huston’s sample consisted of an older sample of
predominantly professional musicians with much performance experience,
where number of years playing an instrument was associated with lower rates of
MPA. Slightly weaker yet significant correlations were obtained with the CDI-
Total and CDI-Negative Self-Esteem scales, which is consistent with the
frequent comorbidity between anxiety, particularly social anxiety, and
depressive disorders (Essau, Conradt, & Petermann, 1999; Kerr, 2003).
Interestingly, this research replicated Ryan’s (1998) correlation between the
STAI and Negative Self-esteem in 12-year-old piano students, a finding that is
consistent across test and sports performance anxiety research, but equivocal in
the MPA field. McCoy (1999) did not find a significant relationship between the
two constructs, yet Sinden (1999) found self-esteem to significantly predict
MPA.
The significant weak to moderate correlations between the MPAI-A and the
CDI can be explained by virtue of anxiety and depressive disorders both
factoring on the internalizing syndrome of children’s behavioral and emotional
problems (Achenbach, 1991). Further, as measures of anxiety and depression
are highly intercorrelated in adults, adolescents, researchers have suggested
there is a general negative affectivity component that is common to both
anxiety and depression (Clark & Watson, 1991; Lonigan, Carey, & Finch,
1994).

3.1. Rates of social phobia

The diagnosis of social phobia in this research was impeded not only by the
inconclusive screening cutoffs prescribed by the instruments themselves but also
by the inconsistent population social phobia morbidity rates found in other
research using different assessment tools (Essau et al., 1999; Kashani & Orvashel,
1990; Kerr, 2003).
SPAI-C normative results for females across the whole sample suggests
that a large proportion of females met criteria for social phobia, which
calls into question the validity of using 18 as a suggested cutoff, although
the social phobia absent group scored lower than the cutoff overall (Beidel et
al., 2000). The authors of the SPAI-C state that the development of separate
744 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

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

if this difference is replicated with other samples. What these figures
do emphasise is the somewhat arbitrary nature of the normative data provided
for this test. The range of SPAI-C cutoff scores provided in the manual allows
users to determine their own cutoff according to the percentage of false-
negatives to false-positives the user is prepared to accept. Unfortunately,
the authors have determined these initial normative data using separate
research (Beidel, Turner, & Morris, 1995), with a sample of 52 socially
anxious and 48 normal control children, without presenting means and
standard deviations for the two groups either in the manual or other published
literature, thus making normative comparisons difficult. However, for the
purposes of screening and determining the potential presence or absence of
social phobia, a cutoff score of 18 was used as suggested in the test manual
(Beidel et al., 1998).
The authors of the SPAI also fail to provide screening cutoff scores for
adolescents. The test authors observe from the research by Clark et al. (1994)
that the mean score for the socially phobic adolescents on the social
phobia and agoraphobia subscales is much lower than that for adults and
closer to the figures reported by the socially anxious (but not phobic)
college group. They postulate that it may be attributable to adolescents having
fewer opportunities to engage in some of the activities listed on the SPAI
because they are not as relevant for this age group. Thus, they advise that
‘‘when used with adolescents as a screening device, adjustments to the
recommended cutoff need to be made’’ (Turner et al., 1996, p. 32). The APA
(1995) reports lifetime presentation rates of social phobia in epidemiological
and community studies as between 3 and 13%. Studies specifically assessing
the 12–17-year-age group using diagnostic interviews place the social phobia
rate lower, between 1.4 and 1.6% (Essau et al., 1999; Kashani & Orvashel,
1990). The prevalence of social anxiety symptoms is much higher, ranging
between 46 and 56% for ‘‘fear of social situations’’, and 67% for ‘‘worry
what others think of me’’ (Kashani & Orvaschel, 1990). Fear of doing
something in front of other people was the most frequent symptom of social
phobia, followed by public speaking and/or talking with others (social talk)
(Essau et al., 1999). The resonance and similarity of these types of social fears
with the context of performing music before an audience is striking. Indeed,
studies of social phobia in college and adult musicians with high MPA
place diagnosis rates higher, between 27% (Osborne, 1998) and 95% (Clark &
Agras, 1991).
Further evidence for the arbitrary and inconclusive cutoffs in the SPAI-C and
SPAI can be seen in the almost inverse relationships between unlikely and
combined likely probabilites of social phobia across the two measures.
Investigations using the recommended cutoff score for the SPAI-C in the
criterion validity sample found that 79% of 11–14-year-olds assessed using the
SPAI-C were unlikely to have social phobia, which reduces dramatically to 28%
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 745

for 15–19-year-olds assessed using the SPAI. Developmentally, this suggests that
rates of social phobia increase as people progress through adolescence, which is
consistent with previous research indicating social phobia onset in mid-to-late
adolescence (APA, 1995; Liebowitz et al., 1985; Turner et al., 1986). However,
considering the aforementioned psychometric problems with these tests, this
result needs to be treated cautiously.
The percentage of this sample who met criteria for possible or probable social
phobia in the convergent and discriminant validity sample was much lower than
the percentage in the criterion validity sample. These discrepancies can be at
least partially explained by the difference in the time of year that the studies were
conducted. The criterion validity study was conducted during the middle of Term
1 in the new school year, at the beginning of class assessments and concert
preparation. The convergent and discriminant validity study was conducted at
the end of the school year, in the week after the last major music and other
academic assessments, and in the third last week before the end of school year
and summer break. Students were less concerned about academic and social
pressures at this time than they had been at the start of the school year, and this
may have been reflected in their second group of scores. Consistent with
research by Bandura (1991), this may be a case where very small changes in
context or task-expectancy may change a person’s appraisal of a situation as
anxiety-provoking or not.
Although there are inconsistencies in the screening procedures for social
phobia using the SPAI-C and SPAI, the various investigations of unlikely-possible
social phobia percentages (particularly in Table 5) provide evidence for
substantially higher rates of social phobia in this sample of elite adolescent
performers than found in general adolescent epidemiological research.
Considering that Dadds et al. (1999) found that up to 54% of anxious children
can progress to a formal anxiety disorder in adulthood if left untreated, these
figures indicate a need for further research into valid and reliable assessments of
prevalence, prevention and early intervention of clinical levels of anxiety in this
population.

3.2. Gender differences on measures of trait and social anxiety

Gender differences were apparent on the three normed measures. Girls

demonstrated significantly higher trait anxiety than the norm group but boys’
average scores were not significantly different. Prior research has found that
girls consistently present with more anxiety diagnoses and social anxiety fears
than boys, often in the ratio 2:1 (Essau et al., 1999; Ford, Goodman, &
Meltzer, 2003; Kashani, Orvaschel, Rosenberg, & Reid, 1989; Lewinsohn et
al., 1998). The current results are at odds with theses findings. In criterion
validity sample girls obtained an equivalent mean score to boys on the SPAI-C,
and scored lower (though not significantly) than boys on the SPAI. In the
convergent and discriminant validity sample, however, girls scored higher on
746 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

average than boys on both the SPAI-C and SPAI, although the differences were
not significant.

3.3. Gender differences in MPA

Levels of MPA are generally higher in women than men (Huston, 2001;
Steiner, 1998), although Ryan (2003) found a differential pattern of anxious
responding across boys and girls. Girls had substantially higher heart rates than
boys immediately prior to but not during performance. Boys had significantly
more anxious behaviors than girls both prior to, and during a performance.
Social/interpersonal anxiety is common for boys and girls as peers become the
increasing focus of attention (Kashani et al., 1989). Girls but not boys, become
increasingly concerned with age (Kashani et al., 1989). Girls also have
significantly greater fears of performing in front of others (Essau et al., 1999).
Consistent with these findings, girls obtained significantly higher MPAI-A
scores than boys.

3.4. Conclusion

This paper presents data on a new instrument for assessing MPA in adolescent
musicians. The MPAI-A is a 15-item self-report measure that assesses the
somatic, cognitive and behavioral components of anxiety experienced by
adolescent musicians. Although further research is needed to confirm its
discriminant, external and predictive validity, these initial studies indicate that the
MPAI-A is psychometrically robust according to current accepted standards
(Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988). Consistent with previous research, there was a
moderate relationship between MPA and social phobia. Similarly, there was a
modest positive relationship between high in trait anxiety music performance
anxiety. There was a strong situational effect in the self-reporting of subjective
experience of anxiety according to the time of school year and related
performance demands. Situational factors appear to impact on the degree to which
young musicians report performance anxiety, and these deserve further research
attention. Additional questions regarding the basis of identified gender differences
and the developmental trajectory of performance anxiety from late childhood
through adolescence need further investigation to determine if possible protective
factors against MPA can be identified. The MPAI-A will be useful to pedagogues,
researchers and clinicians in the assessment and/or treatment of MPA in young
performers.

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank Associate Professor Ross G. Menzies for his advice on the
design of the convergent and discriminant validity study.
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 747

Appendix A List of MPA measures

Abbreviation Measure Citation

AAS–MAS Adaptive–Maladaptive Wolfe (1989)
Anxiety Scale
AATS Achievement Anxiety Sweeney and Horan (1982)
Test Scale
AD Anxiety Differential Sweeney and Horan (1982)
K-MPAI Kenny Music Performance Kenny (2004)
Anxiety Inventory
MPAS Music Performance Wolfe (1989)
Anxiety Scale
MPAQ Music Performance Lehrer et al. (1990)
Anxiety Questionnaire
MPSS Music Performance Brodsky, Sloboda,
Stress Survey and Waterman (1994)
MQ Musician’s Questionnaire Wills and Cooper (1988)
PAI Performance Anxiety Inventory Nagle et al. (1989)
PASSS Performance Anxiety Kendrick, Craig, Lawson,
Self-statement Scale and Davidson (1982)
PAQ-CK Performance Anxiety Cox and Kenardy (1993)
Questionnaire-CK
PAQ-WND Performance Anxiety Brodsky et al. (1994);
Questionnaire-WND Wesner et al. (1990)
PI Performance Inventory Kubzansky and Stewart (1999)
PPAS Piano Performance Sweeney and Horan (1982)
Anxiety Scale
PRCP Personal Report of Appel (1976)
Confidence as a Performer
SES Self-efficacy Scale Craske and Craig (1984)
SEQ State Emotion Questionnaire Kubzansky and Stewart (1999)
SFRS Stage Fright Rating Scale Neftel et al. (1982)
SSQ Self-statement Questionnaire Steptoe and Fidler (1987)
TAS Trait Anxiety Scale Wolfe (1990)
748 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

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

Please think about music in general and your major instrument and answer the
questions by circling the number, which describes how you feel.
Not About All
at all half the of the
time time
1 Before I perform, I get butterflies 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
in my stomach
2 I often worry about my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ability to perform
3 I would rather play on my own, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
than in front of other people
4 Before I perform, I tremble or shake 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 When I perform in front of an 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
audience, I am afraid of making mistakes
6 When I perform in front of an audience, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
my heart beats very fast
7 When I perform in front of an audience, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I find it hard to concentrate on my music
8 If I make a mistake during a performance, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I usually panic
9 When I perform in front of an audience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I get sweaty hands
10 When I finish performing, I usually 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
feel happy with my performance
11 I try to avoid playing on my own at 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a school concert
12 Just before I perform, I feel nervous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 I worry that my parents or teacher 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
might not like my performance
14 I would rather play in a group or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ensemble, than on my own
15 My muscles feel tense when I perform 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
#
M. S. Osborne and D. T. Kenny (2001) .

References

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University
of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Alfano, C. A., Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2002). Cognition in childhood anxiety: conceptual,
methodological, and developmental issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1209–1238.
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 749

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology., 61, 207–215.
American Psychiatric Association. (1995). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
international version (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Appel, S.S. (1976). Modifying solo performance anxiety in adult pianists. Journal of Music Therapy,
13(1), 2–16.
Bandura, A. (1991). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In: R. Schwarzer & R. Wicklund (Eds.),
Anxiety and self-focused attention. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Barlow, D.H. (2000). Unravelling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of
emotion theory. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1247–1263.
Barlow, D.H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders. The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., Hamlin, K., & Morris, T. L. (2000). The Social Phobia and Anxiety
Inventory for Children (SPAI-C): external and discriminative validity. Behavior Therapy, 31(1),
75–87.
Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1995). A new inventory to assess childhood social anxiety
and phobia: the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children. Psychological Assessment, 7(1),
73–79.
Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Morris, T. L. (1998). Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for Children
(SPAI-C). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Bracken, B.A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of
technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 313–326.
Brodsky, W., Sloboda, J. A., & Waterman, M. G. (1994). An exploratory investigation into auditory
style as a correlate and predictor of music performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing
Artists, 9, 101–112.
Clark, D. B., & Agras, W. S. (1991). The assessment and treatment of performance anxiety in
musicians. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 598–605.
Clark, D. B., Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Donovan, J. E., Kirisci, L., & Jacob, R. G. (1994). Reliability
and validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory for adolescents. Psychological Assess-
ment, 6(2), 135–140.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence
and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.
Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS: analysis without anguish: version 10.1 for Windows.
Milton, Qld: John Wiley.
Cox, B. J., & Kenardy, J. (1993). Performance anxiety, social phobia, and setting effects in instrumental
music students. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 49–60.
Craske, M. G., & Craig, K. D. (1984). Musical performance anxiety: the three-systems model and self-
efficacy theory. Behavior Research and Therapy, 22(3), 267–280.
Dadds, M. R., Holland, D. E., Laurens, K. R., Mullins, M., Barrett, P. M., & Spence, S. H. (1999). Early
intervention and prevention of anxiety disorders in children: results at 2-year follow-up. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 145–150.
de Vaus, D.A. (1995). Surveys in social research. (4th ed.). St Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Essau, C. A., Conradt, J., & Petermann, F. (1999). Frequency and comorobidity of social phobia and
social fears in adolescents. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 831–843.
Ford, T., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. (2003). The British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Survey
1999: the prevalence of DSM-IV Disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(10), 1203–1211.
Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British Journal of
Psychology, 82, 163–178.
Huston, J.L. (2001). Familial antecedents of musical performance anxiety: a comparison with social
anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, 62(1-B),
551.
750 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751

James, I. (1997). Federation Internationale des Musiciens 1997 survey of 56 orchestras worldwide.
London: British Association for Performing Arts Medicine.
Kaplan, J., & Saccuzzo, D. D. (1989). Psychological testing: principles, applications and issues.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Kashani, J. H., & Orvaschel, H. (1990). A community study of anxiety in children and adolescents.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(3), 313–318.
Kashani, J. H., Orvaschel, H., Rosenberg, T. K., & Reid, J. C. (1989). Psychopathology in a community
sample of children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 28(5), 701–706.
Kendrick, M. J., Craig, K. D., Lawson, D. M., & Davidson, P. O. (1982). Cognitive and behavioural
therapy for musical-performance anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(3),
353–362.
Kenny, D. T., Davis, P. J., & Oates, J. (2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress
amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders., 18(6), 757–777.
Kerr, M. (2003, 17 October). Social Anxiety Disorder much more prevalent than previously thought
[Internet]. Medscape Medical News.
Kirchner, J.M. (2003). A qualitative inquiry into musical performance anxiety. Medical Problems of
Performing Artists, 18, 78–82.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Kubzansky, L. D., & Stewart, A. J. (1999). At the intersection of anxiety, gender and performance.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18(1), 76–97.
Lang, P. J., Davis, M., & Öhman, A. (2000). Fear and anxiety: animal models and human cognitive
psychophysiology. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 137–159.
Lederman, R.J. (1999). Medical treatment of performance anxiety: a statement in favor. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists, 14(3), 117–121.
Lehrer, P. M., Goldman, N. S., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). A principal components analysis assessment
of performance anxiety among musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 12–18.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Gotlib, I. H., Lewinsohn, M., Seeley, J. R., & Allen, N. B. (1998). Gender
differences in anxiety disorders and anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 107(1), 109–117.
Liebowitz, M. R., Gorman, J. M., Fyer, A. J., & Klein, D. F. (1985). Social phobia: review of a
neglected anxiety disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 729–736.
Lonigan, C. J., Carey, M. P., & Finch, A. J. J. (1994). Anxiety and depression in children and
adolescents: negative affectivity and the utility of self-reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 62(5), 1000–1008.
Maroon, M.T.J. (2003). Potential contributors to performance anxiety among middle school students
performing at solo and ensemble contest. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2-A), 437.
McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for
preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 34–42.
McCoy, L.H. (1999). Musical performance anxiety among college students: an integrative approach.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4-A), 1059.
Morris, T.L. (2001). Social phobia. In: M. W. Vasey & M. R. Dadds (Eds.), The developmental
psychopathology of anxiety. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nagle, J. J., Himle, D. P., & Papsdorf, J. D. (1989). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of musical
performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17, 12–21.
Neftel, K. A., Adler, R. H., Kappeli, L., Rossi, M., Dolder, M., Kaser, H. E. et al. (1982). Stage fright in
musicians: a model illustrating the effect of beta blockers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44(5), 461–469.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Osborne, M. S. (1998). Determining the diagnostic and theoretical adequacy of conceptualizing music
performance anxiety as a social phobia. Unpublished Honours thesis, Macquarie University,
Sydney.
 M.S. Osborne, D.T. Kenny / Anxiety Disorders 19 (2005) 725–751 751

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

Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Ryan, C. (1998). Exploring musical performance anxiety in children. Medical Problems of Performing
Artists, 13, 83–88.
Ryan, C. A. (2003). A study of the differential responses of male and female children to musical
performance anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences 63(7-A), 2487.
Salmon, P. (1990). A psychological perspective on musical performance anxiety: a review of the
literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 2–11.
Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1978). Cognitive and somatic processes in anxiety.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 321–328.
Sinden, L.M. (1999). Music performance anxiety: contributions of perfectionism, coping style, self-
efficacy, and self-esteem. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(3-A), 0590.
Spielberger, C.D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1985). Washington, DC: American Psycholo-
gical Association.
Steiner, A. (1998). The relationship between performance anxiety and narcissism in musicians.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(4-B), 1869.
Steptoe, A., & Fidler, H. (1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: a study of cognitive and
behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 241–249.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1988). Assessment in special remedial education. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sweeney, G. A., & Horan, J. J. (1982). Separate and combined effects of cue-controlled relaxation and
cognitive restructuring in the treatment of music performance anxiety. Journal of Counseling
Psychology., 29(5), 486–497.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (4th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Pearson.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Dancu, C. V. (1996). SPAI: Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. North
Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Dancu, C. V., & Keys, D. J. (1986). Psychopathology of social phobia and
comparison to avoidant personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 389–394.
Van Son, M. J. M. & Van Heesch, N. C. A. (1995). Performance anxiety among professional musicians
in symphonic orchestras: a self-report study. Psychological Reports, 77, 555–562.
Wesner, R. B., Noyes, R., Jr., & Davis, T. L. (1990). The occurrence of performance anxiety among
musicians. Journal of Affective Disorders, 18(3), 177–185.
Wilson, G. D. (2002). Psychology for performing artists (2nd ed.). London, UK, Whurr.
Wills, G., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Pressure sensitive: popular musicians under stress. London: Sage.
Wolfe, M.L. (1989). Correlates of adaptive and maladaptive musical performance anxiety. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists, 4(1), 49–56.
Zinn, M., McCain, C., & Zinn, M. (2000). Musical performance anxiety and the high-risk model of
threat perception. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 15, 65–71.