Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2012, Vol. 6, No.

4, 334 340

2012 American Psychological Association 1931-3896/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029619

Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Musical Performance Quality

Laura Ritchie
University of Chichester and Royal College of Music

Aaron Williamon
Royal College of Music

Two studies explored the relationship between self-efficacy for performing and the assessed quality of a musical performance. Study 1 considered how university music students self-efficacy for performing, practice time, and self-regulated learning related to assessed performance quality. A stepwise linear regression analysis showed self-efficacy as the only significant predictor, accounting for 10% of the variance in assessors quality ratings. Study 2 examined music conservatory students and included students self-efficacy for performing, self-reports of practice time, and self-rating of their overall level of performance skill. Results showed self-efficacy for performing accounted for 17% of the variance in the assessor ratings and, together with students self-ratings of their overall level of performance skill, explained 30% of the variance. In both studies, only self-efficacy predicted students self-ratings of performance quality (accounting for 11% of the variance in Study 1 and 25% in Study 2). Also in both studies, time spent practicing was not a significant predictor of performance quality, neither as an estimate of practice time in the week before the performance nor as the accumulation of practice since the beginning of participants musical tuition. Keywords: self-efficacy, musical performance, performance quality, music practice

Listeners routinely form quality judgments about musical performances. When music is presented for the pleasure of an audience, they applaud to signal appreciation; in more formal assessment settings, performers may be ranked against one another or judged against predetermined criteria. In both academic and formal graded musical examinations, musicians typically receive a representative quality score for their performance, which considers a range of musical, technical, expressive, and communicative qualities that fall within the scope of musical skill and artistry (McPherson & Schubert, 2004). While some authors have highlighted limitations with the outcomes of formal assessment processes (Thompson & Williamon, 2003), the defined criteria in an assessment allow performance quality to be quantified, creating an empirical measurement for study and analysis. The musical learning that prepares the performer to exhibit a high level of technical consistency comes through extensive practice and experience, with research suggesting that a minimum of

This article was published Online First August 20, 2012. Laura Ritchie, Department of Music, University of Chichester, Chichester, United Kingdom, and Centre for Performance Science, Royal College of Music, London, United Kingdom; Aaron Williamon, Centre for Performance Science, Royal College of Music. We thank Ben Ritchie for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Ritchie, Department of Music, University of Chichester, College Lane, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 6PE, United Kingdom. E-mail: l.ritchie@ chi.ac.uk 334

10,000 hours are required to achieve expert standards (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Rmer, 1993; Ericsson, 2000). The time spent learning an instrument and the necessary technical, stylistic, and interpretative skills are components contributing to each individual performance. Both the development and effective use of practice time are essential skills to develop. In a study of 20 universitylevel flute students, Kenny, Fortune, and Ackermann (2009) found the greatest predictor of performance quality to be a rating of the students highest solo achievement. They also found that both dedicated time spent practicing the set piece for a performance and level of performance anxiety were significant predictors of performance quality. Personal factors such as the mental state or preparedness of the musician also impact the perceived quality of a performance (McPherson & Schubert, 2004). Of course, each musical performance presents different circumstances, with varying venues, reasons, or occasions for a performance, and even the possible combinations of performers ranging from a soloist to a large ensemble such as a choir or orchestra. In challenging situations, success requires both skill and belief, and people with high self-efficacy, a self-belief in ones abilities to complete a specified task successfully (Bandura, 1986, 2006), tend to persevere longer, use more strategic thinking, set hierarchical goals, and achieve higher levels of attainment (Zimmerman, 2000). McCormick and McPherson (2003) explored the relationship between various practical and psychological factors including grade level, cognitive strategy use, self-regulation, anxiety, the amount of practice time spent preparing for the exam, self-efficacy, and a musical performance in young instrumentalists taking graded music examinations, and found self-efficacy to be the only variable that produced a direct path to performance. A second, similar study

QUALITY OF MUSICAL PERFORMANCE

335

confirmed self-efficacy as the strongest direct path to performance (McPherson & McCormick, 2006), highlighting the importance of self-efficacy for musicians. Previously, self-efficacy was understood to have effects on other variables that were themselves related to performing, such as setting hierarchical goals and the use of strategic thinking (Zimmerman, 2000), but the research of McCormick and McPherson was the first to illustrate a direct link.

Aims of the Present Research

This article explores self-efficacy as a predictor of the quality of performances, as perceived by the performers themselves and by a panel of expert assessors. Two studies probed self-efficacy for musical performing by sampling different types of students in higher education and examining the role of practicing. In Study 1, self-efficacy and practice time undertaken in the week before a performance were hypothesized as important and interrelated when predicting both the self-perceived and objectively assessed quality of a musical performance. Study 2 probed further into the relationship between self-efficacy, practice, students self-ratings of overall level of performance skill, and quality using a sample of students with a higher level of musical skill. Following Ericsson et al. (1993), the average amount of practice per week in the past year and the cumulative practice since the commencement of musical tuition were also considered.

summative score for this distinct type of musical self-efficacy. The lowest possible score is 9, and the maximum score is 63. In its original form, the questionnaire asked respondents to recall a performance in which they held a prominent role and to answer the questionnaire with a similar situation in mind; in the present research, respondents completed the questionnaire immediately before a performance, and so this preamble was omitted (see Appendix). Following Bandura (2006), the construct of selfefficacy was not specifically identified in the questionnaire but was addressed as perceived self-assuredness. Data about the practicing undertaken in the week before the study were collected using the 7-day recall of practice activities, which asks students to recall the amount of time spent practicing for each day over the past week (Williamon, Lehmann, & McClure, 2003). Participants chose their own repertoire for the performance.

Procedure
The implications of this study for participants were considered and the Ethics Committee at the university approved the use of these questionnaires in both of the research studies. Performances took place in front of a small audience comprising six to 10 of the participants peers and the assessment panel, which consisted of the Head of Music and another member of the music faculty who also specializes in performance and had more than five years of experience examining at the university. Students were made aware of who would be assessing them. Both assessors also had extensive experience and training in impartial adjudicating and have done so within the university as well as for festivals and competitions at a professional level. As these assessors were faculty members, it is impossible to rule out the chance that they had formed views on the students musical skills through other coursework and contact, even though they had not assessed their performances before. To ensure unbiased assessing, the rigor and fairness of assessment were checked by the universitys external examiner, as is routine for performance assessments. This assessment format is typical of this music department, and all undergraduate performance juries take place in this format to create a viable performance setting and to encourage peer learning. This assessment was for the solo performance component in the degree and represented the full assessment mark received for that module and 25% of their total marks for that semester. Students were instructed to present a polished performance that showed their technical and musical skill but were not allowed to present repertoire that they had previously presented. Students did not have regular contact performing for these assessors; the performance situation was unique. The Self-efficacy for Musical Performing and practice recall questionnaires were distributed during a 30-minute preperformance period. Students completed these and, before performing, predicted their own overall performance mark out of 100 using the universitys published assessment criteria. The two assessors agreed on an overall quality score for each performance on a 100-point scale. This is the universitys validated assessment process; in the higher education system in the United Kingdom, marks are classified according to numerical bandings, with a mark of 70 or above representing a First Class classification. Marks below 40 represent a failure. The awarded marks were

Study 1 Method Participants

Undergraduate music students (n 125) were recruited from the second largest university music department in the U.K., with more than 500 students. The institution was granted university status in 2005 and currently ranks 7th of 71 modern universities in the country for student satisfaction (OLeary, 2011). Assessed performance represents a minimum of 25% and up to 40% of these students degree. The students had a mean age of 21.02 years and were evenly represented by men (n 61) and women (n 64). The students instruments included piano (n 16), brass (n 14), woodwind (n 13), strings (n 9), voice (n 40), guitar (n 27), and percussion (n 6). These students did not have any particular professional experience at this point in their careers.

Materials
The Self-efficacy for Musical Performing Questionnaire used was developed and validated by the authors in a previous study with a sample of 250 tertiary music students (see Ritchie & Williamon, 2011). In the validation study, internal reliability was robust, with a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of .78, and construct validity was demonstrated through factor analysis and convergent validity was shown through correlations with other variables. The scores were also stable over time with no significant changes over a testretest period of two to four weeks. The component items of this questionnaire are not to be considered separately, but cumulatively yield a representative,

336

RITCHIE AND WILLIAMON

reviewed and approved by the departments external examiner, who, as standard procedure, watched a random sample of the performances and confirmed that the marks awarded are accurate and consistent with other music departments within the university sector. The researchers were then given access to the agreed assessment scores.

attained mark .31, t(99) 3.21, p .01. The self-efficacy score also explained a significant proportion of variance, R2 .10, F(1, 99) 10.30, p .01. Similarly, self-efficacy for performing was the only significant predictor of the students own predicted marks, .32, t(83) 3.10, p .01, and explained a significant proportion of variance in those marks, R2 .11, F(1, 83) 9.61, p .01.

Results
Reverse coded items were realigned within the Self-efficacy for Musical Performing Questionnaire, and summative scores were created (out of a maximum 63). The total practice time during the week before the performance was also calculated. The Selfefficacy for Performing Questionnaire was shown to be a robust instrument, with Cronbachs alpha of .74. The mean scores for the variables measured were as follows: self-efficacy for performing, M 48.28 (SD 7.22); total weekly practice time 5.49 hours (SD 4.03), and the students predicted mark, M 57.44 (SD 7.53). Performances were marked using a 100-point scale and ranged from a minimum of 42 to a maximum of 76, with a mean of 57.97 (SD 6.73). The selfefficacy scores correlated with the predicted mark (r .33, p .01) and the awarded mark (r .32, p .01). The predicted mark and the awarded marks did not correlate significantly (r .17, p .05). None of the self-efficacy scores, predicted marks, or awarded marks correlated significantly with cumulated practice time for the preceding week. When examining the quantity (hours) of practice of these respondents in more detail, variation appears among the musicians: vocalists, M 4.07 (SD 2.47); string players (including guitarists), M 5.59 (SD 3.74); woodwind and brass players, M 4.64 (SD 3.15); and pianists (including percussionists), M 8.50 (SD 5.64) (see Figure 1). A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the amount of practicing as the dependent variable and the instrument group as the independent variable showed that there were significant differences in practicing habits between the instrument groups, F(1, 3) 6.47, p .01. The differences in means represent a small effect size, 2 .16. To address these deviations in practice time undertaken within different instrument families, the raw practicing times for these university students were standardized to be a function of the average practicing for each instrument group. For example, pianists practiced an average of 8.5 hours per week; therefore, a pianist who practiced 5.5 hours per week would then have a standardized practice time of 0.65, which shows practicing in relation to the mean for that instrument family. A univariate ANOVA was carried out with these standardized practicing scores, and no significant differences were found between the practicing reported in the different groups. This procedure served to ameliorate any bias incurred by the slightly uneven representation across instrument families and reduced the effect size of the differences between groups to 2 .00. A stepwise linear regression analysis was performed with the actual practice time, standardized practicing variable and the selfefficacy for performing score to predict the attained marks, and then a separate regression analysis was carried out with the same variables to predict the students self-forecasted marks. Only the self-efficacy score was a statistically significant predictor of the

Discussion
The results of Study 1 highlight the predictive power of self-efficacy and raise questions about the factors that contribute to achieving the best performance. The act of completing the questionnaire made the students actively consider their self-efficacy beliefs before the performance, and this could potentially have a mediating factor on the perception of these beliefs. The possibility of overconfidence artificially influencing judgments has not been investigated in music; however, in other domains, self-monitoring of behaviors resulted in reported self-efficacy scores being lower instead of artificially inflated (Walker, 2002). The practice time spent in the days directly before the performance did not predict the result, which concurs with findings by Williamon and Valentine (2000), nor was it correlated with the self-efficacy for performing score. The lack of a relationship between practicing time and the rated quality of the performances does not necessarily contest the findings of Ericsson et al. (1993) that many hours must be spent in deliberate practice to achieve an expert standard. Long- and short-term practicing represent separate facets of a musicians life, and the relation-

Study 2 Study 1

35

30

25 Hours per week

20

15

10

0
Voice Piano & percussion Strings & guitar Woodwind & brass

Figure 1. Practice per week as exhibited by the different instrument groups represented in both samples. The values presented for each cohort in this figure are for illustrative purposes and are not directly comparable statistically, as the university students were asked to report practice time in a single week leading up to one performance and the conservatory students reported estimated practice time in a typical week over the previous year.

QUALITY OF MUSICAL PERFORMANCE

337

ship of long-term practicing and expertise is a different issue to the impact of immediate practice on a particular performance, as in this research. Practice time in this study was examined only in the week before the performance. Musicians spend hours in preparation for specific performances, and over months they learn skills, develop stamina, and formulate musical interpretations. The snapshot illustrated in this research may not have shown enough of that developmental window. It is also possible that this sample has not yet reached a level where performance quality is predicted by their practice time, or that their practice is not as meaningful as it could be. The positive relationship of dedicated practice to achievement was highlighted by Sloboda, Davidson, Howe, and Moore (1996). Because musical development spans years, examining the practice during a single week did not yield significant information about its perceived value with the university students sampled in Study 1, and this point is revisited in Study 2. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is an extramusical factor, representing beliefs about capabilities, that does not measure actual musical qualities or quantities (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; McPherson & Schubert, 2004). Its development, or accumulation, is not externally visible in the same way as practicing. It is a rather unintuitive predictor of performance and a factor that clearly contributes to more than a performance without technical blemishes. The results show students selfefficacy beliefs to be the only factor measured here that predicted a significant percentage of performance quality, both from self- and professional objective-appraisal perspectives.

place in well-attended public venues (e.g., Lunchtime recitals in large local churches). Two external assessors with internationally recognized performing careers and more than 10 years experience of professional assessment and adjudication were recruited. The assessors had no previous contact or association with the participants.

Materials
Participants chose their own repertoire for the performance. Questionnaire materials used in gathering data included the Selfefficacy for Performing Questionnaire described in Study 1, and a practice inventory adapted from Ericsson et al. (1993) where students recalled how much practice alone per week had been done on average for each successive year since beginning to study their principal instrument. This practice inventory allows a longer-term view to be taken of practice than the single-week snapshot in Study 1. Using an estimated 40 working weeks per annum, the amount of practice for each year was calculated and then added together per participant to show an overall accumulation of practice time over each persons career. Students also used a Likert-typed scale to rate their overall level of performance skill, as compared with musicians on the same instrument and of a similar age and level of experience. For each performance, assessor ratings were collected for the overall quality of the performance and for their perception of the performers self-efficacy during the performance, using a rating labeled as the self-assuredness of the performer. Both ratings were recorded using a seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent).

Study 2
Study 2 examined the particular relationship of self-efficacy beliefs to the performance quality among students who have achieved entry to a highly selective conservatory where students are required to pass technical and recital examinations as a part of their studies. It sought to replicate the finding of Study 1 that self-efficacy is a predictor of performance quality and considered the relationship of assessed performance quality to accumulated long-term practice, the students self-rating of overall standard of performance skill, and assessors perceptions of the students self-efficacy beliefs.

Procedure
Two weeks before the study, participants were asked to rate their own overall level of performance skill and to estimate how much time they spent practicing alone per week in each year since they had begun to study music. The Self-efficacy for Performing Questionnaire was completed 10 minutes before the scheduled performance, measuring the students confidence in their capabilities to perform in the minutes to come. Participants performed to an audience consisting of both their peers and staff members from the conservatory and were all recorded using a digital video camera. Performers also rated their performances on a scale of 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) immediately after the event. Assessors were informed that the participants were asked to present high-quality, polished performances. The recordings were checked by the researcher present at the recording for comparable audio and visual quality. After the order of the performers was randomized, the DVDs were sent to the assessors. For each performer, they rated the overall quality of the performance and their perception of the students self-assuredness on a scale of 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent).

Method Participants
Music students (n 30) from a conservatory volunteered to participate in a study advertised as a performance opportunity in which they would give a polished performance lasting not more than 15 minutes in front of an audience. Because this was not a required performance for the students degree, and there was no additional incentive for participating, fewer students volunteered to participate than in Study 1. The students (12 men and 18 women) had a mean age of 22.69 years and represented a range of instruments including piano (n 7), woodwind and brass (n 8), strings and guitar (n 10), and voice (n 5). Although these students did not have any particular professional experience, some termly recital assessments do take

Results
The Self-efficacy for Performing Questionnaire was again shown to be a robust instrument with a reliable Cronbachs alpha of 0.84. Summative scores were created for Self-efficacy for

338

RITCHIE AND WILLIAMON

12000

Performing, M 47.37 (SD 7.72). The mean practice per week over the past year was 17.47 hours (SD 9.60), and the mean total practice time since the commencement of study was 6142 hours (SD 3802). The overall quality of the performances was rated on a sevenpoint scale, and the scores from the two assessors were averaged to give a final score. Pearson correlations showed the marks from the two assessors to be significantly correlated (r .53, p .01). The marks from assessor 1 ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6, with a mean of 3.97 (SD 1.07), and from assessor 2 the range spanned from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 7, with a mean score of 5.13 (SD 1.04). The mean overall quality mark awarded was 4.6 (SD .92). The students selfratings of the quality of their performances ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6, with a mean rating of 4.14 (SD 1.41). Performers self-ratings of quality correlated with the assessor quality ratings of the performances (r .45, p .05). The average of the two assessors ratings of students self-assuredness ranged from 1 to 6.5, with a mean rating of 4.86 (SD 1.05). Students self-ratings of overall level of performance skill ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 6, with a mean rating of 4.47 (SD 1.11). There were significant correlations between the performers self-efficacy scores and self-ratings of performance quality and the assessors perceptions and ratings. Specifically, self-efficacy scores correlated with the assessors quality ratings (r .42, p .05) and with the participant ratings of performance quality (r .50, p .01). The self-assuredness of the performer was intended to explore the assessors perception of the performers self-efficacy during the performance. The experts perception of the performers self-assuredness correlated significantly with the self-efficacy for performing scores (r .41, p .05) and with their final quality rating (r .87, p .01). Average practice time per week for the past year correlated with the assessors rating of the quality of the performance (r .40, p .05). Practice time did not correlate with any other variables, either as an average practice per week for the past year or as a cumulative amount of practice since the commencement of study. When the practice time of the respondents was examined according to their instrument family or voice, dramatically different patterns arose. For example, pianists practiced nearly four times as much per week as singers. The mean practice times (in hours) for the musicians represented in Study 2 were as follows: singers, M 7.00 (SD 2.55); pianists, M 27.57 (SD 9.38); string players (including guitarists), M 20.00 (SD 7.02); and woodwind and brass players, M 12.00 (SD 3.93) (see Figure 1). As in Study 1, a univariate ANOVA with amount of practice as the dependent variable and instrument group as the independent variable confirmed significant differences in practice time between the groups in this sample, F(1, 3) 12.27, p .01, showing a medium overall effect size, 2 .59. The mean practice times (in hours) accumulated over the students musical lifetime for the musicians represented in Study 2 were as follows: singers 2861 (SD 2240), pianists 9210 (SD 2219), string players (including guitarists) 9404 (SD 5342), and woodwind and brass players 5568 (SD 3637) (see Figure 2). As in Study 1, the raw practice times for each student, both for the average practice time per week for the past year and as a

10000 Cumulative practice (hours)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 Voice Piano Strings & guitar Woodwind & brass

Figure 2. Cumulative practice since the commencement of musical tuition as reported within the different instrument groups in Study 2.

cumulative amount of practice since the commencement of study, were converted as a function of the average practicing for each instrument group, thus reflecting the amount of practicing in relation to the different instrument families. Separate univariate ANOVAs were then carried out with these standardized practicing scores, and there were no significant differences between the practicing present in the different groups. The standardized practice values had very similar standard deviations across instrument families (as illustrated in the per week values): piano (SD 0.33), woodwinds and brass (SD 0.33), strings and guitar (SD 0.35), and voice (SD 0.36), and the overall effect of the differences between groups was reduced to 2 .00. The self-efficacy beliefs had a direct impact on the outcome of the performance. The predictive power of the self-efficacy beliefs was shown by performing a stepwise linear regression analysis using self-efficacy scores, weekly practice time for the past year, and the overall accumulation of practice since the commencement of study to predict the assessor rating of performance quality and also, in a separate regression analysis, to predict students own self-ratings of performance quality. This analysis showed a striking relationship with the self-efficacy score, which was the only significant predictor of both the self and assessor ratings of performance quality. The performers self-efficacy, as recorded before the performance, significantly predicted the experts rating, .416, t(29) 2.42, p .05. The self-efficacy score also explained a significant proportion of variance in these performance scores, R2 .17, F(1, 29) 5.86, p .05. When the self-rating of overall level of performance skill and the average practice time per week for the past year, as standardized according to instrument families, were added to the model, the predictivity increased; however, none of the practice variables were significant predictors of the assessors quality ratings. The significant predictors were self-efficacy, .38, t(29) 2.32, p .05, and overall level of performance skill, .36, t(29) 2.20, p .05, together

QUALITY OF MUSICAL PERFORMANCE

339

significantly increasing the total variance explained by the model, R2 .30, F(1, 29) 5.75, p .01. The self-efficacy rating was even more predictive of the performers self-ratings of performance quality, .50, t(27) 2.96, p .01, and explained a significant proportion of variance in those self-ratings, R2 .25, F(1, 27) 8.79, p .01. Neither of the normalized practicing variables nor the self-rating of overall level of performance skill were significant predictors of the students self-ratings of performance quality.

sample in Study 2 was 17%, nearly twice that of the university students in Study 1 at 10%. This result suggests that selfefficacy for performing played a more critical role in the performance of the more skilled performers despite their performances being voluntary. Future research should study the role of self-efficacy across different categorized skill levels to explore this relationship with musicians at a professional level as well as with those at the beginning of their studies.

Conclusions Discussion
The samples in Studies 1 and 2 comprised student musicians with differing levels of expertise and practical experience. At the selective, performance-focused conservatory, students enter already having some considerable performance skills, and they are formally assessed in concert-type performance settings from their entrance audition to their final recitals. Both the entrance profile and the curriculum are more diverse at the university, and students may not have achieved advanced accreditation or qualification before studying there. Some of the university music students may choose to specialize in music technology, music administration, teaching, or even to study music jointly with other subject areas. Although performance still features as a large proportion of this music degree, it is often assessed across the curriculum in more informal settings that may involve performing to a small number of peers in a closed, nonpublic environment or working within a group, where the quality of the performance is a secondary goal of the coursework. Practicing did not significantly predict the assessed quality in either the university or conservatory setting. Although the conservatoire students practiced more than the university sample, they still did not report achieving the amount of dedicated practice associated with an expert level (Ericsson, 1993). It is possible that these students underreported, as seen in Tsay and Banaji (2011), although the participants in Study 2 were encouraged to be accurate and honest as their data would directly contribute to a research study. This does not exclude practicing from influencing assessed performance but suggests that further study is needed with professional musicians. Also, neither study categorized the practice time (e.g., scales, new repertoire, polishing finished works, technique, or improvising), and identifying how this time was spent could clarify results. For example, if students were undertaking dressrehearsal activity, this may have different relationships with other variables than time spent learning new repertoire. The significant correlation at the conservatory of the assessors ratings of the students self-assurance to the students own selfefficacy for performing scores highlights the visibility of these beliefs. If performers become aware that these personal beliefs are perceptible to others and that the results of these beliefs are tangible and significant, then self-efficacy may begin to hold a different level of importance in musicians training. The university students mark awarded was responsible for a terms coursework, whereas the conservatory students volunteered to participate. If the importance of the performance in determining the degree award was an influential factor in predicting performance quality, one might have expected different results. In the regression analyses, the percentage of the variance explained by self-efficacy scores from the conservatory It is important for students, teachers, and researchers to become aware of self-efficacys contribution to the seen and unseen factors that influence performance. In Study 2, selfefficacy for performing and the self-rating of overall level of performance skill accounted for 30% of the variance, but the factors examined here do not provide a definitive model to predict assessed performance quality. The issue of practice time needs to be carefully considered in future studies. It is essential that any data collected be correctly attributed to reflect types of deliberate practice (such as a run through of a performance, work focused on specific details, or technical skills practice) to explore and exhaust the possible contribution of practice to performance quality. Live performance is preferable to maintain sound quality for research purposes, but where recordings are used, future studies should consider incorporating mechanisms to rate or compare the quality of recordings with audio expectations in a live setting. Neither psychological factors of stress and performance anxiety nor physiological factors of fitness, pulse rate, or shortness of breath were measured in this research. However, it is well documented that these affect musicians and their performances (Lehmann, Sloboda, & Woody, 2007; Williamon, Wasley, BurtPerkins, Ginsborg, & Hildebrandt, 2009), and they should be considered in future research investigating the prediction of performance quality ratings. Having identified that self-efficacy has an impact on performance quality, its interaction with a more complete list of variables and the possibility of reverse directionality should be addressed in follow-on studies. Educators may not fully realize or understand their potential to influence students self-efficacy. Students practical performing experience is essential, as self-efficacy beliefs are built mainly on mastery experiences (Bandura, 1977, 1986). Secondary influences on self-efficacy through vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion are also present in educational environments through peer performances and teacher comments. The high degree of independent learning and the relative infrequency of assessed solo performance (each semester or term) increases the importance of each success or failure, as each performance experience will contribute to perceived selfefficacy. The direct contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to the success of a performance should be highlighted to students and teachers in learning, teaching, and performing contexts so that realistic performance experiences can be adopted within a curriculum to enhance and enrich performance quality.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

340

RITCHIE AND WILLIAMON Ritchie, L., & Williamon, A. (2011). Measuring distinct types of musical self-efficacy, Psychology of Music, 39, 328 344. doi:10.1177/ 0305735610374895 Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J. A., & Moore, D. G. (1996). The role of practice in the development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 287309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996 .tb02591.x Thompson, S., & Williamon, A. (2003). Evaluating evaluation: Musical performance assessment as a research tool. Music Perception, 21, 21 41. doi:10.1525/mp.2003.21.1.21 Tsay, C., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 460 465. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.010 Walker, N. R. (2002). Understanding self-efficacy for alcohol use: The role of self-monitoring and hypothesized source variables. (Masters thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05232002134007/ unrestricted/ThesisDefenseETD.pdf Williamon, A., Lehmann, A. C., & McClure, K. (2003). Studying practice quantitatively. In R. Kopiez, A. C. Lehmann, I. Wolther, & C. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth triennial ESCOM conference (pp. 182 185). Hanover, Germany: Hanover University of Music and Drama. Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors of performance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353376. doi:10.1348/000712600161871 Williamon, A., Wasley, D., Burt-Perkins, R., Ginsborg, J., & Hildebrandt, W. (2009). Profiling musicians: An applied investigation of fitness for performance. In A. Williamon, S. Pretty, & R. Buck (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science 2009 (pp. 85 90). Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Association of Conservatoires (AEC). Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 8291. doi:10.1006/ceps .1999.1016

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, (pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Ericsson, K., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Roemer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363 406. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 Ericsson, K. (2000). How experts attain and maintain superior performance: Implications for the enhancement of skilled performance in older individuals. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 8, 366 372. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 183211. Kenny, D. T., Fortune, J., & Ackerman, B. (2009). What predicts performance excellence in tertiary level music students? In A. Williamon, S. Pretty, & R. Buck (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science 2009 (pp. 487 492). Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Association of Conservatoires (AEC). Lehmann, A., Sloboda, J., & Woody, R. (2007). Psychology for musicians: Understanding and acquiring the skills. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Psychological Archive, 22, 155. McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance. Psychology of Music, 31, 3750. doi:10.1177/ 0305735603031001322 McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34, 322336. doi:10.1177/ 0305735606064841 McPherson, G. E., & Schubert, E. (2004). Measuring performance enhancement in music. In A. Williamon, (Ed.) Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 61 84). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. OLeary, J. (2011). The Times good university guide. London, England: Harper Collins.

Appendix Self-Efficacy for Musical Performing Questionnaire

Attitudes Toward Specific Musical Performance Activities
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, specifically regarding how you will perform during this activity 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I am confident that I can give a successful performance. I have set important goals to attain during this performance, but I cannot achieve them. I am likely to avoid difficulties and challenges during the performance itself. If I perceive the events or context surrounding this performance to be too stressful, I cannot even attempt to perform. If something unexpected happens during the performance, I can handle it well. I am likely to avoid this performance if the music looks or sounds too difficult for me. I feel insecure about my playing for this performance. I am likely to give up easily during the performance. I am capable of dealing with problems that might come up during the performance. Not at all sure 0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Completely sure 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 100% 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Received May 23, 2011 Revision received May 21, 2012 Accepted May 21, 2012