You are on page 1of 18

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318580451

Validation of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI): A


cross-cultural confirmation of its factorial structure

Article  in  Psychology of Music · July 2018


DOI: 10.1177/0305735617717618

CITATIONS READS

2 418

3 authors:

Alvaro Chang Dianna Theadora Kenny


Aalto University The University of Sydney
10 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    343 PUBLICATIONS   3,920 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andres Alberto Burga


Universidad de Lima
28 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Singing, Body Movement and Sound Intensity View project

Workplace injury, prevention, management, and rehabilitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dianna Theadora Kenny on 03 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


717618
research-article2017
POM0010.1177/0305735617717618Psychology of MusicChang et al.

Article

Psychology of Music

Validation of the Kenny Music


2018, Vol. 46(4) 551­–567
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Performance Anxiety Inventory sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735617717618
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617717618
(K-MPAI): A cross-cultural journals.sagepub.com/home/pom

confirmation of its factorial


structure

Álvaro M. Chang-Arana1, Dianna T. Kenny2


and Andrés A. Burga-León3

Abstract
This research investigated whether music performance anxiety (MPA) can be theoretically understood
as a unidimensional construct, and whether the factorial structure is robust across different populations
of musicians with different levels of expertise. K-MPAI scores were obtained from 455 Peruvian tertiary
music students (mean age = 21.19 years, SD = 3.13, range = 18–40 years) and 368 Australian
professional orchestral musicians (mean age = 42.07 years, SD = 10.21, range = 18–68 years). A
high order exploratory factor analysis with the Schmid-Leiman solution was performed on the K-MPAI
items. Unweighted Least Squares extraction method and optimal implementation of parallel analysis
revealed one high order factor and two first order factors for both samples. High Cronbach’s and
ordinal alpha levels for items belonging to each first order and high order factor in both samples were
also obtained. Structural similarities between the two samples and an invariance analysis signified
a comparable structure and conceptual interpretation of K-MPAI scores in both populations. The
factorial structure obtained supported a unidimensional interpretation of the construct of MPA. First
order level interpretations are also possible and have been demonstrated to be clinically useful.

Keywords
cross-cultural validation, factor analysis, Kenny’s typology of MPA, K-MPAI, music performance anxiety

Kenny (2011; Kenny, Arthey, & Abbass, 2014; Kenny & Holmes, 2015) has argued that music
performance anxiety (MPA) can no longer be conceptualized as a unidimensional anxiety con-
struct occurring on a continuum of severity from career stress at the low end to stage fright at the

1University of Jyväskylä, Finland


2The University of Sydney, Australia
3University of Lima, Peru

Corresponding author:
Álvaro M. Chang Arana, Department of Music, Art and Culture Studies, Master’s Programme in Music, Mind and
Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu 15, 40014, Finland.
Email: alvaro.m.chang@student.jyu.fi
552 Psychology of Music 46(4)

high end (Brodsky, 1996). The focus of this unidimensional conceptualization of MPA is on the
symptom complex called the General Activation Syndrome, or the fight–flight–fright response, in
which the somatic manifestations of anxiety occur in response to an impending musical perfor-
mance as if it were a physical threat that posed a real and present danger to the musician.
Clinical work with severely performance-anxious musicians alerted the second author
(Kenny) to the severity of the underlying psychopathology, which is more severe in the most
anxious musicians. This pathology has been conceptualized as an attachment disorder (Kenny,
2011; Kenny et al., 2014; Kenny, Arthey, & Abbass, 2016; Kenny & Holmes, 2015). Such indi-
viduals presenting to mental health facilities are likely to be given diagnoses of an anxiety
disorder – in particular, social anxiety disorder, other anxiety disorder, panic or panic disorder,
and/or depression. Kenny (2011) concluded that while some musicians experienced reality-
based focal anxiety that centered on the proximal somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms
typical of most performers when undertaking competitive or demanding public performances,
others, while also frequently manifesting the same symptom constellation as those with focal
anxiety, also experienced deeper, long-standing psychological distress that pervaded their lives,
and which found excruciating expression in the performance context. Hence, Kenny proposed
that MPA is better understood as a typology comprising three subtypes of MPA to account for
qualitative differences in clinical presentation as well as variations in severity. The three sub-
types proposed were: (a) MPA as a focal anxiety, where there is no generalized social anxiety,
depression or panic; (b) MPA that co-occurs with other social anxieties; and (c) MPA that co-
occurs with panic and depression. There are different levels of severity within each subtype.
The theoretical model underpinning this typology is that MPA represents an intersection
between an individual’s developmental history, which may be more or less disturbed – mildly, or
not at all, in the case of focal anxiety and more severely in the third subtype – and the specific
psychosocial conditions of musicianship – talent, achievement of technical mastery, prepared-
ness, performance demands, exposure, competitiveness, and so on. Accordingly, MPA will have
some of the general characteristics of other psychological disorders, in particular, the anxiety
disorders, which are shared with nonmusicians, and some that are specific to MPA.
To understand these clinical presentations, Kenny applied Barlow’s triple vulnerability
model for the development of anxiety disorders to further understand music performance anxi-
ety. Barlow (2000) proposed an emotion-based model of anxiety development that owes much
to Lazarus (1991) and Lazarus and Folkman (1987) whose relevance to understanding perfor-
mance anxiety has been discussed in detail elsewhere (see Kenny, 2009, 2011). Barlow’s model
proposes an integrated set of triple vulnerabilities that can account for the development of an
anxiety or mood disorder. These are

1. a generalized biological (heritable) vulnerability;


2. a generalized psychological vulnerability;
3. specific life experiences that establish specific psychological vulnerabilities.

The generalized biological vulnerability infers a genetic contribution to the development of


particular temperaments that have been labeled at various times “neuroticism,” “negative
affect,” or “behavioural inhibition.” The generalized psychological vulnerability is based in
early experiences, in particular negative relational experiences that result in a sense that life is
unpredictable and uncontrollable and that one does not have the necessary coping resources
to manage such experiences. Uncontrollability is strongly associated with negative affect and,
subsequently, anxiety and depression (Allen, McHugh, & Barlow, 2008). The first two pro-
cesses (a biological vulnerability and a generalized psychological vulnerability based on early
Chang et al. 553

experiences) may be sufficient conditions for the development of anxious apprehension, and
genetic predisposition and sensitizing early life experiences may be sufficient to produce a gen-
eralized anxiety or mood (depression) disorder.
Barlow (1988, 2000, 2002) argued that panic attacks, which he called “false alarms,” arise
in response to stressful life events (such as music performance) in people who experience high
levels of general anxiety. Those at risk of panic attacks have also experienced specific psycho-
logical vulnerabilities whereby anxiety comes to be associated with certain internal (somatic
sensations or intrusive thoughts) or environmental (social evaluation) stimuli that have become
associated with heightened threat or danger. Social evaluation may be accompanied by height-
ened somatic sensations (false alarms or fear responses in the absence of a real threat or dan-
ger) that become associated with a perceived increase in threat or danger, in the case of social
evaluation, the fear of others’ disapproval or rejection. Those perceiving most threat are likely
to experience the greatest anxiety, and those who are most anxious are more likely to perceive
the social evaluative context as more threatening. If individuals have both high negative affect
and high anxiety sensitivity, this renders them more at risk of serious anxiety responses such as
high music performance anxiety (Kenny, 2011; Kenny & Holmes, 2015; Kenny, Arthey, &
Abbass, 2016). High anxiety sensitivity constitutes the first component (i.e., biological vulner-
ability) and negative affect the second component (i.e., psychological vulnerability) of the three
factor model. Performance breakdown or adverse evaluations of performance are examples of
the third component in the model.
Notwithstanding the commonalities between social anxiety and panic disorders with severe
MPA presentations, the conceptual autonomy of MPA from other anxiety disorders has also
been specified (Chang-Arana, 2015b; Kenny, 2009, 2011). For example, those with MPA are
more likely than those with social phobia to (a) have higher expectations of themselves (Abbott
& Rapee, 2004); (b) have greater fear of their own evaluation of their performance, as opposed
to fear of the scrutiny of others in social phobia (Stoeber & Eismann, 2007), although the latter
is also present in music performance anxiety; (c) have a higher degree of post-event rumination
(Abbott & Rapee, 2004); and (d) a continued commitment to the feared performance situation,
as opposed to avoidance of, or escape from the feared situation in social phobia (Powell, 2004);
further, (e) the feared task in MPA is cognitively and physically challenging, unlike in social
phobia in which the feared tasks are already in the behavioral repertoire (Kenny, 2011).
In response to the clinical findings and the conceptual specificity of MPA, Kenny (2009)
developed a music performance anxiety inventory (K-MPAI) that aimed to assess the underly-
ing psychopathology as well as the symptoms of MPA. It was administered to 379 professional
orchestral musicians in Australia and to 159 tertiary music students in New Zealand. Principal
axis factoring with varimax rotation of the K-MPAI revealed, for the tertiary level music stu-
dents, 12 underlying factors, which could be subsumed under the following meta-factors:

1. Early relationship context: [(7) Generational transmission of anxiety; (4) Parental empathy];
2. Psychological vulnerability: [(1) Depression/Hopelessness (9); Controllability; (11) Trust
(12); Pervasive performance anxiety]; and
3. Proximal performance concerns: [(3) Proximal somatic anxiety; (2) Worry/dread (nega-
tive cognitions); (6) Pre- and post-performance rumination; (8) Self/other scrutiny; (10)
Opportunity cost; (5) Memory reliability].

Over the last ten years, Peru has experienced an increase in its capacity to offer higher level
musical education at two new music faculties in two universities. The formation of two new
youth symphony orchestras and one nonprofit organization inspired by the Venezuelan El
554 Psychology of Music 46(4)

Sistema (which targets high-risk and low-income children) have created more opportunities for
young musicians. Consequently, the risk for non-adaptive anxiety-coping-behaviors are more
likely to occur (Chang-Arana, 2015a, 2015b) particularly when there is fierce competition for
places in these universities and orchestras.
In Peru, the empirical study of MPA is in its infancy. One of the hindrances to empirical research
has been the absence of psychometrically robust psychological instruments to reliably assess
MPA. Consequently, Chang-Arana (2015a, 2015b) adapted the K-MPAI for Spanish-speaking
populations and estimated its psychometric properties in a sample of 455 Peruvian tertiary music
students. Evidence for validity was based on intended test purpose, test content, internal structure
and the relationship with other variables (American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014).
One of the key findings in Chang-Arana (2015b) was a high order factorial structure for the
K-MPAI named “negative affectivity in relation to music performance anxiety” which underlay
two first order factors: “music performance anxiety” and “depression,” which corresponded to
Kenny’s identification of a somatic symptoms cluster associated with MPA and an underlying
psychological vulnerability. These categories were adopted in line with the tripartite model of
anxiety and depression (Anderson & Hope, 2008; Brown, Chorpita, & Barlow, 1998; Clark &
Watson, 1991). This structural model stated that generalized negative affectivity underlies
both anxiety and depression and can account for the high correlation and the difficulty in find-
ing discriminant differences between them. Thus, for the Peruvian sample it is possible to inter-
pret MPA using the K-MPAI as a unidimensional construct comprised of two first order factors
that independently measure music performance anxiety and depression.
In this article, we examined, first, whether MPA can be understood theoretically as a unidi-
mensional construct and, if so, the nature and content of that construct; and, second, whether
the factor structure is robust across culturally different populations of musicians, and musi-
cians at different levels of expertise.

Methods
Participants
Two samples were used in this study. The first comprised 457 tertiary music students from three
Peruvian music institutions; the second comprised 379 professional orchestral musicians from
Australia who were each members of one of the eight premier state orchestras in Australia.
Two participants from the Peruvian sample (0.44%) and 11 from the Australian sample
(2.90%) had a high percentage of missing responses on the questionnaires (around 50%).
Since they represented less than 5% for each sample, these cases were deleted from the analysis
(Graham, 2009; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Missing data in both samples was replaced with
regression imputation (Little & Rubin, 1987).

Sample 1.  Eligible participants were undergraduate music students who were majoring in per-
formance and were at least 18 years old. Students studying composition, music education,
musicology, and music production were excluded. The final sample (n = 455 participants) was
distributed among three music institutions – two private (69.01%) and one public (30.99%).
The private institutions presented both contemporary and classical music curricula; the public
institution was exclusively classical in focus. Mean age was 21.19 years (SD = 3.13; range =
18–40 years). There were more male (n = 337, 74.1%) than female participants (n = 113,
24.8%); five participants did not specify their sex (1.1%).
Chang et al. 555

Sample 2.  Australia has eight full-time professional symphonic and pit orchestras located in
each of the capital cities of Australia. Their musicians represent the country’s most elite orches-
tral musician population. All members of these eight orchestras were invited to participate, of
whom 379 agreed, representing a response rate of 72%. The final sample comprised 180 males
(48.9%) and 188 females (51.1%). Their mean age was 42.07 years (SD = 10.21, range =
18–68 years). A comparison of the age, sex and instrument group of participants and nonpar-
ticipants was undertaken in order to ascertain the possible presence of systematic bias in the
sample. Independent t-tests indicated that there were no differences on these dimensions.

Procedure
Sample 1.  Authorizations from the music faculties were obtained to enter the classrooms to
administer the test protocol. Data collection took place during either the first or last 30 minutes
of each class which all music students attended. Prior to distributing the questionnaires, a con-
sent form was presented to the students, read aloud, and signed. Questionnaires were com-
pleted successively in the following order: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Spielberger &
Díaz-Guerrero, 1970), and Beck Anxiety Inventory (Thornberry, 2011). Participants were
reminded about the anonymity of their answers. Some data collection sessions required
research assistants who were trained to follow a standard data collection protocol. Data were
analyzed with FACTOR version 10 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006).

Sample 2.  Ethical approval for the Australian study was granted by The University of Sydney
Human Research Ethics Committee. Each participant received a package of questionnaires to
be completed and returned in the pre-paid envelope provided or dropped into a confidential
mailbox at each orchestra’s home venue. This was a large cross-sectional study (see, for exam-
ple, Ackermann, Driscoll, & Kenny, 2012; Ackermann, Kenny, O’Brien, & Driscoll, 2014; Kenny
& Ackermann, 2015; Kenny, Driscoll, & Ackermann, 2014, 2016) but only the results of the
K-MPAI are of interest in this article.
High order exploratory factor analysis (HOEFA) was performed in both samples using
FACTOR version 10 (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). Following these analyses an invariance
analysis was performed using R (version 3.2.5) and packages “semTools” (semTools
Contributors, 2016) and “lavaan” (Rosseel, 2012).

Measures
Revised K-MPAI (Kenny, 2009).  This 40-item inventory was developed to assess the emotion-
based theory of anxiety proposed by Barlow (2000) as it applies to anxiety in the context of
music performance (see Kenny, 2011). This is a revised expanded version of the original
26-item inventory (Kenny, Davis, & Oates, 2004). Questions are answered on a seven-point
Likert scale (0 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater anxiety
and psychological distress. Items from this scale demonstrated excellent internal reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha = .94; Kenny, 2009) and a robust factor structure with two music popula-
tions—professional orchestral musicians and tertiary music students.

Spanish version of the K-MPAI.  A Spanish adaptation of the K-MPAI was developed for use with
sample 1 by Chang-Arana (2015a, 2015b). All adaptations used blind back-translations until
the precise meaning of each item was captured. Content, construct and discriminative validity,
and clinical utility of the Spanish and Portuguese adaptations of the K-MPAI (both
556 Psychology of Music 46(4)

the 26-item-version and the 40-item-version) have been demonstrated in studies of Brazilian
(Barbar, Crippa, & Osório, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Barbar, Souza, & Osório, 2015; Rocha, Dias-
Neto, & Gattaz, 2011), Spanish (Zarza, Hernandez, López, & Gil, 2016), and Peruvian (Chang-
Arana, 2015a, 2015b) musicians. Construct validity and clinical utility for the K-MPAI has
also been reported using a German adaptation of the K-MPAI with German musicians (Peschke
& von Georg, 2015), and with the English version of K-MPAI with Indian rock musicians under-
going yogic meditation treatment for severe MPA (Meitei & Kumari, 2014).

Results
Validity evidence for the Spanish K-MPAI (Chang-Arana, 2015a, 2015b)
Validity evidence based on test content.  Adequate evidence for face and content validity based on
test content was reported for the Peruvian sample by subject matter experts who rated item
congruence. Of the 40 items, 39 reached a significant consensus (p < .05, consensus range =
.88 – 1.00). The exception was item 27 (consensus level = .68): “As a child, I often felt sad.”

Validity evidence based on internal structure.  Validity evidence based on the internal structure of
the inventory was obtained by both first order and high order exploratory factor analysis.

First order exploratory factor analysis.  A principal axis factor analysis with orthogonal-varimax
rotation was performed on the 40 items of the K-MPAI. An appropriate Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and a statistically significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity
were obtained, KMO = .91, χ2(496) = 5281.36, p < .001. Four factors were extracted and
retained according to the parallel analysis. Factors were named “proximal performance con-
cerns” (20 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .91), “psychological vulnerabilities” (seven items, Cron-
bach’s alpha = .80), “confidence in memory” (two items, Conbrach’s alpha = .82), and “early
parental relationship context” (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .71).

High order exploratory factor analysis.  The factorial structure obtained was only slightly different
from the one proposed by Kenny (2011). In order to explore a higher order structure that could
articulate the obtained factors, a first HOEFA with Schmid–Leiman solution (SLS, Schmid &
Leiman, 1957) was performed.
The HOEFA with Minimum Rank Factor Analysis (MRFA) as the extraction method was per-
formed on the K-MPAI 40 items using an oblique rotation of promin type since the estimation of a
higher/second order factor (G) implies a theoretical dependence between the first order factors. A
polychoric correlation matrix was factorized because items were ordinal variables and were com-
pleted using a polychoric (i.e., Likert) scale (Burga, 2006). An orthogonal correction was performed
using SLS which allowed identification of factorial loading contributions from every item with its
first and second order factor, KMO = .91, χ²(780) = 6390.8, p < .001. A minimum average partial
(MAP) method suggested retaining three first order factors. Items with factorial loadings equal to or
higher than .30 were retained since HOEFA lowers factorial loadings (Wolff & Preising, 2005).
The HOEFA was repeated multiple times given that every item deletion resulted in an adjust-
ment to factorial loadings. The procedure was repeated until a stable structure was achieved,
i.e., the high order factor did not contain values lower than .30. At this point, both KMO and
Bartlett’s sphericity tests presented adequate values, KMO = .93, χ²(435) = 4948.9, p < .001.
MAP suggested retaining two first order factors which explained 58.65% of common shared
variance. Based on the tripartite model of anxiety and depression (Anderson & Hope, 2008;
Chang et al. 557

Table 1.  Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal alpha and SEM for high order factor scores and first order scores.

Cronbach’s α Ordinal α SEM


G (30 items) .92 .97 4.87
F1 (21 items) .91 .93 6.11
F2 (10 items) .81 .92 3.01

Note: Item 14 scored both in F1 and F2.

Brown et al., 1998; Clark & Watson, 1991), these two first order factors were named “music
performance anxiety” and “depression”; the G (higher order) factor was named “negative affec-
tivity in relation to music performance.” Items that did not reach a minimum factorial loading
of .30 on G and, hence, were eliminated, were:

- Item 2: I find it easy to trust others (G = .190).


- Item 8: I find it difficult to depend on others (G = .129).
- Item 9: My parents were mostly responsive to my needs (G = .181).
- Item 22: Prior to or during a performance, I experience increased heart rate like pounding
in my chest (G = .261).
- Item 23: My parents almost always listened to me (G = .203).
- Item 25: After a performance, I worry whether I played well enough (G = .229).
- Item 33: My parents encouraged me to try new things (G = .141).
- Item 35: When performing without music, my memory is reliable (G = .220).
- Item 37: I am confident playing from memory (G = .261).
- Item 40: I remain committed to performing even though it causes me great anxiety (G = .001).

Scores derived from items belonging either to first or second order factors presented ade-
quate reliability levels according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1995). Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal
alpha, and standard error of measurement (SEM; calculation based on ordinal alpha levels) are
presented in Table 1.

Validity evidence based on relationships with other variables.  K-MPAI scores were correlated with
both subscales of STAI and BAI. At p < .001 there were statistically significant relationships
between K-MPAI scores and the other questionnaires. The correlation between K-MPAI and
STAI-Trait scores, r = .70, was higher than the correlation between STAI-State and BAI at r =
.53. Moderate effect sizes were obtained between K-MPAI and STAI-State scores and large
effects were registered for K-MPAI and STAI-Trait scores and K-MPAI and BAI scores (Ellis,
2010). Statistical power > .80 (Cohen, 1992) was found for all correlations.

Validity evidence based on internal structure for Peruvian and Australian samples
An Unweighted Least Squares (ULS) extraction method with an optimal implementation of
parallel analysis (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011) for determining the number of factors
was performed on both the Peruvian and Australian samples.
558 Psychology of Music 46(4)

HOEFA for Australian professional orchestral musicians’ sample.  A HOEFA was performed on the
K-MPAI 40 items using an oblique rotation of promin type and a SLS varimax correction.
Sample size was 368. The correlation matrix was factorized using a polychoric correlation.
Both KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were adequate to perform a factor analysis, KMO
= .93, χ²(780) = 7497, p < .001. Optimal implementation of parallel analysis suggested
retaining two first order factors which explained 43.98% of shared variance. The first order
factors’ correlation levels with G were: F1 = .72, and F2 = .91. Items with factorial loadings
on G that were equal to or higher than .30 were retained. Accordingly, five items were
eliminated:

- Item 9: My parents were mostly responsive to my needs (G = .236).


- Item 23: My parents almost always listened to me (G = .219).
- Item 33: My parents encouraged me to try new things (G = .129).
- Item 35: When performing without music, my memory is reliable (G = .286).
- Item 37: I am confident playing from memory (G = .292).

After two additional factor extractions, a stable structure was achieved; the high order factor
did not present values lower than .30. KMO level and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were still ade-
quate to perform a factor analysis, KMO = .95, χ²(595) = 6379.9, p < .001. The ULS-PA advised
that two first order factors be retained. Together these explained 47.89% of shared variance.
The first order factor correlation levels with G were: F1 = .80, and F2 = .93. Items with factorial
loadings on G equal to or higher than .30 were retained. Table 2 presents the final solution for
the Australian sample.
Scores derived from items belonging to either first or second order factors presented ade-
quate reliability levels according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1995). Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal
alpha, and SEM (calculation based on ordinal alpha levels) are depicted in Table 3.

HOEFA for Peruvian tertiary music students’ sample.  A HOEFA was performed on the K-MPAI 40
items using an oblique rotation of promin type and a SLS varimax correction. Sample size was
455. The correlation matrix was factorized using a polychoric correlation. Both KMO and Bar-
tlett’s test of sphericity were adequate in order to perform a factor analysis, KMO = .91, χ²(780)
= 6390.8, p < .001. Optimal implementation of parallel analysis suggested retaining three first
order factors which explained 39.47% of shared variance. First order factors’ correlation levels
with G were: F1 = .67, F2 = .91, and F3 = .57. Items with factorial loadings to G equal or higher
than .30 were retained. Thus ten items were eliminated:

- Item 2: I find it easy to trust others (G = .187).


- Item 8: I find it difficult to depend on others (G = .131).
-Item 9: My parents were mostly responsive to my needs (G = .173).
- Item 22: Prior to, or during a performance, I experience increased heart rate like pounding
in my chest (G = .270).
- Item 23: My parents almost always listened to me (G = .189).
- Item 25: After a performance, I worry whether I played well enough (G = .235).
Chang et al. 559

Table 2.  High order exploratory factor analysis with SLS for the K-MPAI items based on Australian
professional musicians.

Item F1 F2 G
7. Even if I work hard in preparation for a performance, I am likely to make .268 .539
mistakes
10. Prior to, or during a performance, I get feelings akin to panic .463 .606
11. I never know before a concert whether I will perform well .292 .603
12. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience dry mouth .363 .432
14. During a performance I find myself thinking about whether I’ll even get .295 .616
through it
15. Thinking about the evaluation I may get interferes with my performance .313 .666
16. Prior to, or during a performance, I feel sick or faint or have a churning .501 .609
in my stomach
17. Even in the most stressful performance situations, I am confident that I .324 .515
will perform well
18. I am often concerned about a negative reaction from the audience .306 .533
20. From early in my music studies, I remember being anxious about .314 .467
performing
21. I worry that one bad performance may ruin my career .290 .583
22. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience increased heart rate like .562 .478
pounding in my chest
25. After a performance, I worry about whether I played well enough .458 .551
26. My worry and nervousness about my performance interferes with my .510 .656
focus and concentration
28. I often prepare for a concert with a sense of dread and impending disaster .307 .699
30. Prior to, or during a performance, I have increased muscle tension .470 .484
32. After a performance, I replay it in my mind over and over .427 .463
34. I worry so much before a performance, I cannot sleep .400 .572
36. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience shaking or trembling or .521 .539
tremor
38. I am concerned about being scrutinized by others .399 .550
39. I am concerned about my own judgment of how I will perform .313 .477
40. I remain committed to performing even though it causes me great .464 .452
anxiety
1. I generally feel in control of my life .205 .622
2. I find it easy to trust others .244 .446
3. Sometimes I feel depressed without knowing why .271 .688
4. I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things .250 .552
5. Excessive worrying is a characteristic of my family .142 .493
6. I often feel that life has not much to offer me .336 .659
8. I find it difficult to depend on others .246 .533
13. I often feel that I am not worth much as a person .298 .715
19. Sometimes I feel anxious for no particular reason .187 .666
24. I give up worthwhile performance opportunities .131 .403
27. As I child I often felt sad .247 .553
29. One or both of my parents were overly anxious .156 .450
31. I often feel that I have nothing to look forward to .344 .737

Note: N = 368, total item number: 30. Extraction method: Unweighted Least Square (ULS). Method used for estimating
advised number of dimensions to retain: Optimal implementation of parallel analysis.
560 Psychology of Music 46(4)

Table 3.  Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal alpha and SEM for high order factor scores and first order scores of
Australian professional musicians.

Cronbach’s α Ordinal α SEM


G (35 items) .95 .96 7.50
F1 (22 items) .94 .95 6.03
F2 (13 items) .86 .93 3.58

- Item 33: My parents encouraged me to try new things (G = .142).


- Item 35: When performing without music, my memory is reliable (G = .245).
- Item 37: I am confident playing from memory (G = .282).
- Item 40: I remain committed to performing even though it causes me great anxiety (G = .001).

After one more factor extraction, a stable structure was achieved, that is, the high order fac-
tor did not present values lower than .30. KMO level and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were still
adequate to perform a factor analysis, KMO = .93, χ²(435) = 4948.9, p < .001. The optimal
implementation of parallel analysis advised retention of two first order factors which explained
41.17% of shared variance. Correlations of first order factors with G were: F1 = .76, and F2 =
.92. Items with factorial loadings to G equal or higher than .30 were retained (Table 4).
Just as with the Australian sample, Peruvian scores derived from items belonging either to
first or second order factors presented adequate reliability levels according to Nunnally and
Bernstein (1995). Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal alpha and SEM (calculation based on ordinal
alpha levels) are presented in Table 5.
In both factorial structures there were shared items that were eliminated:

- Item 9: My parents were mostly responsive to my needs.


- Item 23: My parents almost always listened to me.
- Item 33: My parents encouraged me to try new things.
- Item 35: When performing without music, my memory is reliable.
- Item 37: I am confident playing from memory.

Invariance analysis
In order to further assess validity based on internal structure and determine whether it was
possible to compare the Peruvian and Australian populations, a measure of invariance was
computed. Given that in confirmatory models it is not possible to fit an SLS, the Peruvian model
was fitted into a bi-factor model variation. The invariance of the bifactorial model was tested
with the Peruvian sample. The fit of the model was good (Hu & Bentler, 1999), χ²(375) =
731.92, p < .001, CFI = .989, TLI = .987, RMSEA = .034, SRMR = .045.
Next, different types of invariance models were fitted to the data. Only the first model was
accepted (see Table 6).
The likelihood ratio test comparing nested models shows that when there are more equal
parameters between groups, the model fit is worsened. When comparing model 1 with 2, it
Chang et al. 561

Table 4.  High order exploratory factor analysis with SLS for the K-MPAI items based on Peruvian
professional music students.

Item F1 F2 G
10. Prior to, or during a performance, I get feelings akin to panic .464 .528
11. I never know before a concert whether I will perform well .262 .637
12. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience dry mouth .319 .453
14. During a performance I find myself thinking about whether I’ll .189 .607
even get through it
15. Thinking about the evaluation I may get interferes with my .368 .462
performance
16. Prior to, or during a performance, I feel sick or faint or have a .276 .533
churning in my stomach
17. Even in the most stressful performance situations, I am confident .165 .422
that I will perform well
18. I am often concerned about a negative reaction from the audience .363 .345
19. Sometimes I feel anxious for no particular reason .261 .450
20. From early in my music studies, I remember being anxious about .536 .368
performing
21. I worry that one bad performance may ruin my career .353 .380
24. I give up worthwhile performance opportunities .191 .479
26. My worry and nervousness about my performance interferes with .482 .520
my focus and concentration
28. I often prepare for a concert with a sense of dread and impending .268 .674
disaster
29. One or both of my parents were overly anxious .215 .394
30. Prior to, or during a performance, I have increased muscle tension .406 .505
32. After a performance, I replay it in my mind over and over .315 .353
34. I worry so much before a performance, I cannot sleep .453 .476
36. Prior to, or during a performance, I experience shaking or .503 .485
trembling or tremor
38. I am concerned about being scrutinized by others .505 .486
39. I am concerned about my own judgment of how I will perform .364 .331
1. I generally feel in control of my life .214 .489
3. Sometimes I feel depressed without knowing why .225 .560
4. I often find it difficult to work up the energy to do things .192 .480
5. Excessive worrying is a characteristic of my family .172 .436
6. I often feel that life has not much to offer me .384 .611
7. Even if I work hard in preparation for a performance, I am likely .156 .493
to make mistakes
13. I often feel that I am not worth much as a person .395 .715
27. As I child I often felt sad .236 .486
31. I often feel that I have nothing to look forward to .283 .639

Note: N = 455; total item number: 30. Extraction method: Unweighted Least Square (ULS).Method used for estimating
advised number of dimensions to retain: Optimal implementation of parallel analysis.

worsens. Comparison of models 2 and 3 did not show a change in fit. Models 3 and 4 showed
that they were indistinguishable. Finally, comparison of models 4 and 5 showed that the fit
worsened (see Table 7).
562 Psychology of Music 46(4)

Table 5.  Cronbach’s alpha, ordinal alpha and SEM for high order factor scores and first order scores of
Peruvian professional music students.

Cronbach’s α Ordinal α SEM


G (30 items) .92 .94 7.43
F1 (21 items) .91 .92 6.23
F2 (10 items) .81 .91 2.89

Table 6.  Fit index of different types of invariance models.

Model χ² df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR


1 Equal form 1476.41 750 < .001 .991 .989 .049 .053
2 Equal loadings 3207.34 810 < .001 .969 .967 .085 .077
3 Equal loadings and thresholds 3032.85 957 < .001 .973 .976 .073 .066
4 Equal loadings, thresholds and residuals 3032.85 957 < .001 .973 .976 .073 .066
5 Equal loadings, thresholds, residuals and means 4622.89 960 < .001 .953 .957 .096 .059

Table 7.  Test of significant change in chi square fit between invariance models.

Fit df χ² χ² difference df difference p


P1 750 1476.4  
P2 810 3207.3 77.481 11.148 < .001
P2 810 3207.3  
P3 957 3032.8 –18.839 19.386 < .001
P4 957 3032.8  
P5 960 4622.9 149.39 1.4414 < .001

Discussion
The HOEFA procedure revealed a nearly identical high order factorial structure in both sam-
ples. This provides strong evidence that the back-translation process of the K-MPAI into Spanish
was accurate.
For the Peruvian sample the factorial structure obtained in this research was almost identi-
cal to the one reported in Chang-Arana (2015a, 2015b), except for item 14, which in the for-
mer was grouped under F1 and in the latter belonged to both F1 and F2. Both structures also
suggested eliminating the same ten items even though the extraction method for Chang-Arana
(2015a, 2015b) was MRFA and for this research was ULS. Additionally, either using MAP test
or the optimal implementation of parallel analysis, data indicated that two first order factors be
retained, just as the HOEFA with the Australian sample suggested. Taken together, we can con-
clude that from a HOEFA point of view the K-MPAI factorial structure for the Australian and
Peruvian samples is robust.
Elimination of items 35, “When performing without music, my memory is reliable,” and 37,
“I am confident playing from memory,” from both samples suggests that the memory-related
items were not relevant to this factorial model. One plausible explanation for this lies in the
emotion-oriented content of the K-MPAI. Even though memorization of music is an important
skill required of professional musicians, it seems that this skill is more related to self-efficacy or
technical mastery than the emotional dimension of personality and/or MPA. Similarly, items 9,
Chang et al. 563

“My parents were mostly responsive to my needs,” 23, “My parents almost always listened to
me,” and 33 “My parents encouraged me to try new things” were excluded from both samples.
It is possible that by the time musicians reach the age of 18, their internal working models of
early relationships are well established and, having attained the capacity for self-awareness and
self-reflection, are more likely to be focused on self-evaluation rather than evaluation of their
internalized parental objects, which have, by this stage of development, become integrated into
their self-concept (Goodman, 2005).
Factorial structures in both samples pointed towards a high order structure which can be
interpreted as unidimensional. Based on the tripartite model of anxiety and depression
(Anderson & Hope, 2008; Brown et al., 1998; Clark & Watson, 1991), this high order factor was
named “negative affectivity in relation to music performance anxiety” and the two first order
factors have been named “music performance anxiety” and “depression” for both samples. Given
the clear content of each first order factor and their items’ high level of reliability it is possible to
use the inventory in a bi-dimensional way, which has proven useful in the clinical setting.
In a validated German translation of the K-MPAI, and with 130 German musicians compris-
ing professionals, students and amateurs, Peschke and von Georg (2015) reported a similar
factorial structure to that found in this study. A three factor solution was obtained as follows:
Factor 1: MPA-related symptoms experienced before, during, and after performance; Factor 2:
General depression and psychological vulnerability; Factor 3: Early relationship context, includ-
ing generational transmission of anxiety and parental empathy. Although the factorial method
was not specified, the factor structure of the K-MPAI appears robust to different factorial extrac-
tion methods. The extracted factors in this study mapped onto performance competencies in
the expected direction, with negative correlations on all three factors with a scale measuring
conviction of performance competence, and positively with a factor measuring a deficit orien-
tation to performance.
Results reported in this research resonate with two previous studies conducted with the
26-item-version of the K-MPAI (Kenny et  al., 2004). For instance, Barbar et  al. (2014a)
reported an adequate back-translation process and high reliability values in a sample of 230
amateur and professional Brazilian musicians (Cronbach’s α = .82). More recently, Zarza
et al. (2016) also conducted a back-translation for a Spanish sample. They performed a com-
bination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a
sample of tertiary Spanish music students using equivalent sampling and data collection
procedures to Chang-Arana (2015a, 2015b). They reported three main factors named
“Helplessness” (Cronbach’s alpha = .79), “Specific Cognitions” (Cronbach’s alpha = .87),
and “Early Relationship Context” (Cronbach’s alpha = .57), thereby providing further sup-
port for Kenny’s adaptation of Barlow’s anxiety model (2000) for a Spanish musician sam-
ple. Nevertheless, Zarza et  al. (2016) chose principal components analysis (PCA) as a
“factor” extraction method and the criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1 (K1) to retain
seven factors in the EFA. This combination has been shown to lead to “potentially serious
negative consequences” (Preacher & MacCullum, 2003, p. 13). On the one hand, PCA’s pur-
pose is to reduce data until components that can account for as much variance as possible
are identified. The purpose of EFA is not to explain as much variance as possible, but to assist
the researcher’s interpretation of “sources of common variation underlying observed data”
(Preacher & MacCullum, 2003, p. 21). Therefore, it is incorrect to use PCA when what is
intended is factor extraction. On the other hand, the K1 criterion has been proven to under-
estimate the number of factors to be retained among other flaws, which can be avoided by
more robust methods such as parallel analysis (Preacher & MacCullum, 2003). Despite
these statistical reservations, the structure reported in Zarza et al. (2016) supported Barlow’s
564 Psychology of Music 46(4)

tripartite model (2000) and aligns with the conclusions in the present study. Since different
data reduction techniques demonstrated similar theoretical implications, our results pro-
vide further support for the consistency of Barlow’s tripartite model of anxiety and depres-
sion (Barlow, 2000) and its adaptation to MPA by Kenny (2011).
Rocha et al. (2011) back-translated the revised 40-item K-MPAI (Kenny, 2009) in a Brazilian
sample of 218 amateur and professional musicians. High correlations between the K-MPAI and
STAI were reported (r = .64) as well as high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) and
test–retest reliability measures. These results are consistent with Chang-Arana (2015a, 2015b)
and Kenny (2011). Further confirmatory factor analyses and psychometric research using the
revised K-MPAI (Kenny, 2009) is warranted. Additional cross-cultural comparisons of the
revised K-MPAI could confirm the encouraging results reported in this and previous research
that the inventory is applicable to musicians from different cultural contexts and stage of musi-
cal development.
The invariance analysis added empirical support to the structure and conceptual interpreta-
tion of the high order structure of the Peruvian and Australian samples; that is, the structure
and theoretical interpretation is valid for both populations. Nevertheless, since only the first
model fit was accepted, it is not possible to directly compare both populations. This result could
be explained by the fact that two different kinds of populations were surveyed: music students
and professional musicians. Therefore, further research could test our procedure in equivalent
groups of musicians. Hence, there is not yet sufficient evidence for assuming that the interpre-
tations and decisions derived from the scores of the K-MPAI are cross-culturally valid.
In sum, the results of this research suggest a strong high-order factorial structure and con-
sistent theoretical interpretation across both Australian and Peruvian populations. The dem-
onstration of a unidimensional higher order factor in this study provides further strong
evidence for Kenny’s theory of the etiology of music performance anxiety and further support
for the tripartite typology of MPA that she proposed (Kenny, 2011), comprising focal MPA, MPA
with social anxiety, and MPA with panic and depression. Future research should include (a)
further psychometric analysis of the K-MPAI, focusing on testing the high order factorial analy-
sis in other contexts; (b) further cross-validations of the K-MPAI to support its application cross-
culturally; and (c) experimental attempts to further validate Kenny’s clinical typology, as
determination of MPA type has significant implications for treatment.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: The data collected for the Australian sample was funded by a grant to the sec-
ond author (Kenny) with colleagues Dr Bronwen Ackermann and A/Professor Tim Driscoll from the
Australia Research Council (ARC) (Project ID: LP0989486) and The Australia Council for the Arts (ACA).
The researchers also received in-kind support from the eight major symphony and pit orchestras of
Australia.

References
Abbott, M. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). Post-event rumination and negative self-appraisal in social pho-
bia before and after treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 136–144. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.136
Ackermann, B. J., Driscoll, T., & Kenny, D. T. (2012). Musculoskeletal pain and injury in professional
orchestral musicians in Australia. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 27(4), 181–187. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233941573_Musculoskeletal_Pain_and_Injury_
in_Professional_Orchestral_Musicians_in_Australia
Chang et al. 565

Ackermann, B. J., Kenny, D. T., O’Brien, I., & Driscoll, T. R. (2014). Sound Practice: Improving occupa-
tional health and safety for professional orchestral musicians in Australia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,
1–11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00973
Allen, L. B., McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2008). Emotional disorders: A unified protocol. In D. H.
Barlow (Ed.), Clinical handbook of psychological disorders: A step-by-step treatment manual (4th ed.;
pp. 216–249). New York: The Guildford Press.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council
on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Anderson, E. R., & Hope, D. A. (2008). A review of the tripartite model for understanding the link
between anxiety and depression in youth. Clinical Psychological Review, 28, 275–287. doi:10.1016/j.
epr.2007.05.004
Barbar, A. E., Crippa, J. A., & Osório, F. L. (2014a). Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory
(KMPAI): Transcultural adaptation for Brazil and study of internal consistency. Journal of Depression
and Anxiety, 3, 167. doi:10.4172/2167–1044.1000167
Barbar, A. E., Crippa, J. A., & Osório, F. L. (2014b). Performance anxiety in Brazilian musicians: Prevalence
and association with psychopathology indicators. Journal of Affective Disorders, 152–154, 381–386.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.09.041
Barbar, A. E., Crippa, J. A., & Osório, F. L. (2014c). Parameters for screening music performance anxiety.
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 36(3), 245–247. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516–
4446–2013–1335
Barbar, A. E., Souza, J. A., & Osório, F. L. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis of Kenny Music
Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) in a Brazilian musician sample. Archives of Clinical
Psychiatry (São Paulo), 42(5), 113–116. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101–
60830000000060
Barlow, D. H. (1988). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. New York:
Guilford Press.
Barlow, D. (2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion
theory. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1247–1263. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.55.11.1247
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders. The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Brodsky, W. (1996). Music performance anxiety reconceptualized: A critique of current research practice
and findings. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 11(3), 88–98.
Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Structural relationships among dimensions of the
DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders and dimensions of negative affect, positive affect, and auto-
nomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(2), 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.107.2.179
Burga, A. (2006). La unidimensionalidad de un instrumento de medición: Perspectiva factorial [The
unidimensionality of a measurement instrument: A factorial perspective]. Revista de Psicología de
la PUCP, 24(1), 54–80. Retrieved from http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/psicologia/article/
view/642/629
Chang-Arana, A. M. (August, 2015a). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Kenny-Music
Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI). Paper presented at the X Latin- American Regional
Conference and III Pan American Regional Conference of Music Education, Lima, Peru. Retrieved
from http://congreso.pucp.edu.pe/isme/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/07/Actas-ISME-
Per%C3%BA-2015.pdf
Chang-Arana, A. M. (2015b). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Kenny-Music Performance
Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) (Unpublished license thesis). University of Lima: Peru. doi:10.13140/
RG.2.2.14697.49763
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence
and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 316–336. doi:10.1037/0021–
843X.100.3.316
566 Psychology of Music 46(4)

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033–


2909.112.1.155
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of
research results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology,
60, 549–576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Goodman, G. (2005). Empirical evidence supporting the conceptual relatedness of object representations
and internal working models. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 53(2), 597–617. doi:
10.1177/00030651050530021101
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Kenny, D. T. (December, 2009). The factor structure of the revised Kenny Music Performance Anxiety
Inventory. Research presented at the International Symposium on Performance Science, Auckland,
New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.legacyweb.rcm.ac.uk/cache/fl0019647.pdf
Kenny, D. T. (2011). The psychology of music performance anxiety. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kenny, D. T., & Ackermann, B. J. (2015). Performance-related musculoskeletal pain, depression and
music performance anxiety in professional orchestral musicians: A population study. Psychology of
Music, 43(1), 43–60. doi:10.1177/0305735613493953
Kenny, D. T., Arthey, S., & Abbass, A. (2014). Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) for
severe music performance anxiety: The assessment, process and outcome of psychotherapy with a
professional orchestral musician. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 29(1), 3–7. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260950324_Intensive_short-term_dynamic_psycho-
therapy_for_severe_music_performance_anxiety_Assessment_process_and_outcome_of_psycho-
therapy_with_a_professional_orchestral_musician
Kenny, D. T., Davis, P., & Oates, J. (2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst
opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. Anxiety
Disorders, 18, 757–777. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.004
Kenny, D. T., Driscoll, T., & Ackermann, B. (2014). Psychological well-being in professional orches-
tral musicians in Australia: A descriptive population study. Psychology of Music, 42(2), 210–232.
doi:10.1177/0305735612463950
Kenny, D. T., Arthey, S., & Abbass, A. (2016). Identifying attachment ruptures underlying severe music
performance anxiety in a professional musician undertaking an assessment and trial therapy of
Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP). SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1591.
Kenny, D. T., Driscoll, T., & Ackermann, B. (2016). Is playing in the pit really the pits? Pain, strength,
music performance anxiety, and workplace satisfaction in professional musicians in stage, pit, and
combined stage/pit orchestras. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 31(1), 1–7. doi:10.21091/
mppa.2016.1001
Kenny, D. T., & Holmes, J. (2015). Exploring the attachment narrative of a professional musician with
severe performance anxiety: A case report. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 5(4), 1–6.
doi:10.4172/2161-0487.1000190
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American
Psychologist, 46(8), 819. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. doi:10.1002/per.2410010304
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor
analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91. doi:10.3758/BF03192753
Meitei, S. T., & Kumari, S. (2014). Efficacy of cyclic meditation on reducing music performance anxi-
ety in rock musicians. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 2(3), 126–132.
Retrieved from http://www.researchpublish.com.
Chang et al. 567

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1995). Teoría psicométrica [Psychometric theory] (2nd ed.). México D.F.:
McGraw Hill.
Peschke, S., & von Georg, R. (August, 2015). The competence of performance: Mental aspects of succeed-
ing and failing in musicians. Paper presented at the Ninth Triennial Conference of the European Society
for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, Royal Northern College of Music, Manchester, UK.
Powell, D. H. (2004). Treating individuals with debilitating performance anxiety: An introduction. Journal
of Clinical Psychology/In Session, 60(8), 801–808. doi:10.1002/jclp.20038
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine.
Understanding statistics: Statistical issues in psychology, education, and the social sciences, 2(1), 13–43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02
Rocha, S., Dias-Neto, E., & Gattaz, W. F. (2011). Music performance anxiety: Translation, adaptation
and validation of the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) to the Portuguese lan-
guage. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 38(6), 217–221. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S0101-60832011000600001
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,
48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods,
7(2), 147–177. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika,
22(1), 53–61. doi:10.1007/BF02289209
semTools Contributors. (2016). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version
0.4-14. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
Spielberger, Ch., & Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1970). Inventario de Ansiedad: Rasgo-Estado (IDARE) [State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI)]. Florida: University of South Florida.
Stoeber, J., & Eismann, U. (2007), Perfectionism in young musicians: Relations with motivation, effort,
achievement, and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2182–2192. Retrieved from
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/4471
Thornberry, G. L. M. (2011). El rol de las creencias irracionales en la relación entre los eventos activadores, y
las consecuencias emocionales y conductuales en estudiantes de dos universidades privadas de Lima (Tesis
de doctorado inédita) [The role of irrational beliefs in the relationship between activating events, and
the emotional and behavioural consequences in students from two private universities of Lima
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation)]. Lima: San Martín de Porres University.
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items
with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. doi:10.1037/a0023353
Wolff, H. G., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and high order factor structure with the Schmid-Leiman
solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and SAS. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 48–58. doi:10.3758/
BF03206397
Zarza, F. J., Hernández, S. O., López, O. C., & Gil, B. M. (2016). Kenny Music Performance Anxiety
Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Spanish version. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 340–352.
doi:10.1177/0305735614567932

View publication stats