Levels of music performance anxiety and test anxiety of Turkish prospective music teachers in piano exams

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the anxiety of prospective music teachers (N = 129) during piano exams and to examine the effects of peer and self-assessments on anxiety and exam achievement of individuals with high performance and test anxiety (n = 5). Female students were more anxious compared to males, students of the fourth class were the most anxious, and students who had graduated from fine arts high schools had lower anxiety levels. There was a positive and significant relation between test anxiety and music performance anxiety. No significant relation was determined between piano course achievement scores and test or performance anxiety. Despite awareness of coping recommendations, students with high levels of anxiety experienced anxiety that could influence performance during exams.

Keywords

Music education music performance anxiety piano education test anxiety

Introduction

Both professional and amateur musicians express that they become nervous when they get on the stage (Fehm & Schmidt, 2006; Roland, 1994). This condition, known as music performance anxiety (MPA), appears with some physical, mental, and behavioral symptoms. The physical symptoms of MPA include perspiration, nausea, respiration, dizziness, trembling, increasing heart rate, muscle tension, dry mouth, hot or cold flushes, cold hands, faintness, and sweaty hands (Meharg, 1988; Roland, 1994; Steptoe, 1989; Taborsky, 2007). The mental aspects of MPA can be a result of the concerns of the individual about possible disasters and performance quality, as well as the exaggeration of the significance of any performance (Steptoe, 1989). Conditions such as a drop in performance quality, failure to perform, problems in speed monitoring as a result of all these physical and mental activities can also be considered among the behavioral symptoms of MPA (Conklin, 2011). The form and appearance time of these symptoms may vary depending on the person and condition. There are many methods for coping such as cognitive, behavioral, musical methods or drug treatment. In the elimination of physical symptoms, cognitive methods may be more effective (Steptoe, 1989). The most frequently used behavioral method is “systematic desensitization”. In this process mental images associated with the frightening condition are paired with deep relaxation. First, the least stressful condition is imagined (for instance working alone in the room). Afterwards, anxiety arousing conditions are eliminated gradually until complete relaxation is achieved. Professionals guide the participants throughout this process (Meharg, 1988). Possibly, the most effective methods in reducing MPA are methods combining cognitive and behavioral therapies (Brugues, 2009; Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989; Robertson & Eisensmith, 2010).

The intensity and type of anxiety experienced by professional musicians and music students are different from each other (Steptoe & Fidler, 1987). According to Sternbach (2008), performing can lead to more emotional problems in students whose coping techniques are currently inadequate and those who do not completely have confidence in their ability. Test anxiety resulting from evaluation conditions may add to the performing anxiety in front of a crowd. Studies indicate that the performance anxiety of students is higher when they are facing a jury and being evaluated (Hamann & Sobaje, 1983; Taborsky, 2007). Test and evaluative situations have emerged as one potent class of anxiety-evoking stimuli, which bases many important decisions relating to an individual’s status in school, and work on tests and other assessment devices (Zeidner, 1998). Fear of exams and test situations is widespread and appears to be becoming more prevalent, possibly due to the increasing frequency of testing and importance placed on testing within education systems (McDonald, 2010). Test anxiety has been measured and evaluated on the dimensions of worry and emotionality (Liebert & Morris, 1967). Worry refers to the cognitive dimension; negative and derogatory self-statements concerned with failure. Emotionality is the affective-physiological dimension; the person’s perception of autonomic arousal (Putwain, 2008).

In tests conducted for evaluating the instrument courses of the Undergraduate Music Teaching Program in Turkey, the prospective music teacher presents the works s/he has conducted throughout the semester. The piano course is an eight semester compulsory course in music teaching departments. The final semester exams are carried out with a jury evaluation. In order for students to experience a test setting with less anxiety and stress, the peer and self-assessment method might be effective. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the anxiety of prospective music teachers in Turkey during piano exams. Furthermore, the study examined the effect of peer and self-assessments on anxiety and exam achievement of individuals with high performance and text anxiety.

Method

The research consisted of two parts. The first part was a survey designed to determine the MPA and test anxiety levels of prospective music teachers in piano exams, the relation of these levels with piano course achievement and whether or not these levels would demonstrate a significant difference according to gender, class, and the type of high school of graduation. The second part, a quasi-experimental design, examined the effects of peer and self-assessments on the anxiety status and test performance of individuals with high MPA and test anxiety.

Part one of the study

Participants

The study group consisted of 129 students (75 female, 54 male) with a mean age of 20,26 (SD = 2,09; range = 17–27) studying in the Music Teaching Department in the 2012–2013 academic year. A proportion of 28.7% of students were first class (n = 37), 27.1% were second class (n = 35), 22.5% were third class (n = 29), and 21.7% were fourth class (n = 28). A proportion of 72.9% were graduates of fine arts high schools (n = 94) and 27.1% were graduates of other high schools (n = 35).

Data collection instruments

The Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A) consisting of 15 items and developed by Osborne and Kenny (2005) was utilized for measuring MPA. Kafadar (2009) adapted the scale for use in Turkey for her master’s thesis. In the current study, this Turkish form of the scale was used. The scale is a Likert-type scale with scoring between 0 and 6 (0 = never, 6 = always). The lowest score to be obtained from the scale is 0 and the highest score is 90. Osborne and Kenny (2005) determined that the MPAI-A displays a three-factor structure of Somatic and Cognitive Features, Performance Context and Performance Evaluation, which together accounted for 53% of the variance. Kafadar (2009) indicated that during studies of the Turkish version of the scale, factor analysis could not be done because of the small number of participants. In the current study, only the total score was evaluated. Osborne and Kenny (2005) reported the reliability coefficient as Cronbach’s alpha 0.91. Kafadar (2009) reported 0.783 and it was 0.882 in this study. The Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI), consisting of 20 items and developed by Spielberger (1980), was utilized in the measurement of the level of test anxiety. This inventory was adapted to Turkish by Öner and Albayrak (1987). The scale is arranged as a Likert-type scale with scoring between 1 and 4 (1 = nearly never, 4 = nearly all the time). The lowest score to be obtained from the scale is 20 and the highest is 80. The scale consists of the two sub-dimensions of “worry” (8 items) and “emotionality” (12 items). The scores to be obtained in the worry dimension vary between 8 and 32 and in the emotionality dimension vary between 12 and 48. The inventory provides three separate scores, one for worry, one for emotionality and a total. The reliability coefficient of the inventory was calculated as 0.88 in this study.

Collection and analysis of data

The data collection instruments were administered three days before the 2012–2013 academic year spring semester piano course final exams. For the analysis of data, the SPSS 16.0 program was utilized. Data were analyzed using t-test for independent groups, one-way analysis of variance and correlation analysis.

Part two of the study

Participants

Based on survey results, 10 students who had the highest test anxiety and MPA scores were selected by employing criterion sampling. Students taking piano lessons from the investigator were not included (the investigator is a piano instructor in the music department, where the study was conducted). Information was provided to 10 students and they were asked to participate. A total of five students (two of second class, three of third class) consisting of four females and one male student voluntarily participated in the second part of the study.

Experimental application process

The students participating in the second part of the study (n = 5) met with the researcher one day before the piano exam. Students were provided with information on test anxiety and MPA. Recommendations were made about what could be done to cope with such anxiety. After this meeting, the students performed the pieces that they would perform in the exam in front of their peers and the researcher. Afterwards, students evaluated their peers and themselves.

Interviews

The day after the exam, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the students. This interview technique is flexible but initial questions are predetermined. The draft form prepared by the investigator was submitted to two faculty members, and changes were made according to their expert opinions. Then, a pilot test was applied to two students outside of the sample group meeting the criteria. The audio recordings of all interviews were transcribed. An expert examined the transcriptions and verified whether or not they covered the topic dealt with and whether or not responses covered the responses to the questions. The content validity of the items was determined as a result of these efforts. After it was concluded that the questions asked provided the desired information, the data collection process was then initiated. During the interviews, questions were directed for the purpose of obtaining information concerning two main topics under investigation. First of all, students were asked to carry out a general evaluation on the status of their emotions regarding the exam. Afterwards, they were asked if and how the coping recommendations contributed to their performance. Conducting interviews in a sincere setting is emphasized. All interviews were performed by the researcher, and only the researcher and the prospective teacher being interviewed were present in the room during the interview. Each interview lasted for 5–10 minutes and the responses were recorded by a sound recording device. Finally, students were asked to refill the TAI. These data were used to determine the students’ test anxiety scores after the exam.

Analysis of data

The audio recordings obtained from interviews were analyzed using the content analysis method. The interview data were separately read and analyzed by two faculty members other than the investigator. Issues of “agreement” and “disagreement” for the analyses of both the investigator and other experts were discussed, and necessary changes were made. The reliability formula suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) (Reliability = Agreement / Agreement + Disagreement) was utilized in the calculation of the reliability of the data. It was determined to be 89%. A reliability calculation of over 70% is considered to be reliable for the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings

This section presents findings obtained from the analysis of the data from the first part of the study. MPA scores (M = 45.883, SD = 1.829), test anxiety total scores (M = 44.589, SD = 9.864), emotionality (M = 27.775, SD = 6.896) and worry (M = 16.814, SD = 3.775) dimension scores of prospective music teachers are at a medium level.

There is a significant difference between the MPA scores of female students and male students (t(127) = 2.11, p = 0.037) (see Table 1). The average for female students (M = 48.73) was higher than the average for male students (M = 41.92). When total test anxiety scores (female M = 45.94, male M = 42.70) and worry dimension (female M = 16.81, male M = 16.81) scores were examined, no significant difference between the scores of female and male students was found. In the emotionality dimension, there was a significant difference between the scores of male and female students (t(127) = 2.7, p = 0.008). When the averages were examined, the average for female students (M = 29.13) was higher than the average for male students (M = 25.88).

Table 1.

Distribution of MPA and test anxiety levels according to the gender variable.

Gender	MPA						Test anxiety total					Emotionality					Worry
	N	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p
Female	75	48.73	17,96	127	2.11	0.037	45.94	9,52	127	1.86	0.065	29.13	6,85	127	2.70	0.008	16.81	3,38	127	0.002	0.998
Male	54	41.92	18,16				42.70	10,09				25.88	6,56				16.81	4,24
Total	129	45.88					44.58					27.77					16.81

Note: MPA = music performance anxiety.

As can be observed in Table 2, there was no significant difference between the MPA and TAI scores of students graduating from fine arts high schools and other high schools. The averages for students from fine arts high schools (MPA M = 44.78, total M = 43.68, emotionality M = 27.13, worry M = 16.54) were lower than for students from other high schools (MPA M = 48.82, total M = 47.02, emotionality M = 29.48, worry M = 17.54).

Table 2.

Distribution of MPA and test anxiety levels according to the high school of graduation variable.

School Type	MPA						Test anxiety Total					Emotionality					Worry
	N	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p	M	SD	df	t	p
Fine arts	94	44.78	17,89	127	1.11	0.26	43.68	9,67	127	−1.72	0.087	27.13	6,74	127	−1.73	0.086	16.54	3,67	127	−1.34	0.180
Other	35	48.82	19,28				47.02	10,08				29.48	7,09				17.54	3,92
Total	129	45.88					44.58					27.77					16.81

Note: MPA = music performance anxiety.

Table 3 shows that there was no significant difference between the MPA and TAI scores of prospective teachers according to class level. The fourth class was the class with the highest MPA and TAI level (MPA M = 50, total M = 47.07, emotionality M = 29.39, worry M = 17.67) and the class with the lowest level was the first class (MPA M = 42.94, total M = 42.72, emotionality M = 26.64, worry M = 16.08). The score averages of the second class (MPA M = 45.71, total M = 44.05, emotionality M = 27.54, worry M = 16.51) and the third class (MPA M = 45.86, total M = 45.20, emotionality M = 27.93, worry M = 17.27) were relatively close to each other.

Table 3.

Distribution of MPA and test anxiety levels according to the class variable.

	Class	N	M	SD	Source of variance	Sum of squares	df	Mean of squares	F	p
MPA	First class	37	42.9459	19,13	Inter-group	794.773	3	264.924	0.788	0.503
	Second class	35	45.7143	15,67	In-group	42044.483	125	336.356
	Third class	29	45.8621	18,52	Total	42839.256	128
	Fourth class	28	50.0000	20,08
	Total	129	45.8837	18,29
TAI Total	First class	37	42.7297	9,23	Inter-group	321.426	3	107.142	1.040	0.350
	Second class	35	44.0571	8,02	In-group	12133.799	125	97.070
	Third class	29	45.2069	8,73	Total	12455.225	128
	Fourth class	28	47.0714	13,24
	Total	129	44.5891	9,86
Emotionality	First class	37	26.6486	6,63	Inter-group	122.822	3	16.712	1.190	0.316
	Second class	35	27.5429	5,97	In-group	5965.659	125	14.043
	Third class	29	27.9310	5,95	Total	6088.481	128
	Fourth class	28	29.3929	8,97
	Total	129	27.7752	6,89
Worry	First class	37	16.0811	3,45	Inter-group	50.135	3	40.941	0.858	0.465
	Second class	35	16.5143	3,02	In-group	1755.400	125	47.725
	Third class	29	17.2759	3,23	Total	1805.535	128
	Fourth class	28	17.6786	5,17
	Total	129	16.8140	3,75

Note: MPA = music performance anxiety; TAI = Test Anxiety Inventory.

Table 4 indicates there was a medium level positive and significant relation between the MPA and total test anxiety scores of prospective music teachers (r = 0.556, p < 0.01). In such a case, it can be said that test anxiety increased as MPA increased. Contrary to this, a significant relation was not determined between the piano course achievement score and test anxiety or MPA.

Table 4.

Relation between the test anxiety, MPA, and piano course achievement scores of prospective music teachers.

		MPA	Achievement	Test anxiety (Total)
MPA	Pearson correlation	1	−0.078	0.556^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.378	0.000
	N	129	129	129
Achievement	Pearson correlation	−0.078	1	−0.063
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.378		0.480
	N	129	129	129
Test anxiety (Total)	Pearson correlation	0.556^**	−0.063	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.480
	N	129	129	129

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: MPA = music performance anxiety.

Post-exam views of prospective music teachers

Two questions were directed to the students participating in the second part of the study. When they were asked how they felt during the exam, the large majority of responses were that they were “nervous” and “worried”. Students stated that this condition had a negative impact on them. They expressed these views as: “I was nervous”, “I was worried”, “I was not comfortable” and “I was very tense”. The reasons for the nervousness were expressed as “I was always scared that I would make a mistake”, “The presence of the members of the jury made me nervous”. Furthermore, students waited in line for a long period in order to take the exam and their nervousness increased during this wait. It was expressed that this nervousness caused them to make mistakes in pieces which they were best prepared for. Only one student stated that s/he was not very nervous during the exam and demonstrated a better performance than in front of his/her friends.

When asked how the peer and self-evaluation procedure affected test performance, all students stated that they benefitted from the activity; however, they were still nervous and worried during the exam. The positive effects of the evaluations were expressed as follows: “I saw my mistakes when I performed here, I saw what and what not to do”, “Before I could not even perform next to my friends, now I perform for my housemates every day”. However, as before, the students expressed that their performance was worse than they expected in this exam due to test anxiety: “It was useful but, the exam psychology caused me to be nervous”, “I tried to think about what you told us during the exam, but I was very tense. I practiced a lot, but it did not work out again”, “I made two mistakes during the exam. I feel shame towards my teachers”. After the interview, the students were asked to fill in the TAI again. According to the results obtained, the posttest test anxiety total scores (M = 47,2; SD = 5,63) of all five students were lower than pretest scores (M = 55,2; SD = 3,96). According to these results, the test anxiety of students decreased after the test condition concluded.

Discussion

Overall, the performance and test anxiety of students towards the piano exams were at a medium level. As a result of correlation analysis, there was a positive and significant relation between the MPA and total test anxiety scores. Contrary to this, no significant relation was determined between piano course achievement scores and test anxiety or MPA. These results contradict other study findings demonstrating that test anxiety had an adverse impact on the academic performance of students (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Daly, Chamberlain, & Spalding, 2011; Eum & Rice, 2011). In this case, middle level anxiety did not negatively affect the piano exam performance and achievements of the students. Other researchers have expressed that medium level anxiety has a positive impact on performance (Conklin, 2011; Ely, 1991; Kenny, 2006; Papageorgi, Hallam, & Welch, 2007; Roland, 1994). This phenomenon has been explained with the Yerkes–Dodson law also known as the inverted U theory. The Yerkes–Dodson law states that the best performance quality is essentially achieved through medium level anxiety and very low and high anxiety does not increase performance quality (Papageorgi et al., 2007). Results obtained in the current study confirm this view.

This study showed a significant difference between the MPA and emotionality dimension of TAI scores of female and male students with the female students scoring significantly higher than males. In the total and worry dimension scores it can be observed that the scores of female students are also higher. These findings demonstrate consistency with the results of other studies in the literature (Abel & Larkin, 1990; Hembree, 1988; Kenny & Osborne, 2006; Osborne & Kenny, 2005; Rae & McCambridge, 2004; Ryan, 2004; Zeidner & Safir, 1989). Scales utilized for the purpose of determining MPA and test anxiety levels are evaluated according to the responses of the participants. Some researchers attribute the higher determined anxiety level of females to them being able to express their feelings in a more comfortable manner (Abel & Larkin, 1990). Ryan (2004) observed that even though the anxiety level scores of girls were higher, boys demonstrated more anxious behaviors before and during performance and boys attempted to overcome the adverse effects of anxiety.

There was no significant difference with regard to the class level and school type of graduation. Despite this, it is striking that the fourth class (that is, consisting of students older than others) was the class with the highest anxiety level and the first class had the lowest level. On the other hand, the performance and test anxiety of students graduating from fine arts high schools were lower than those of students graduating from other schools. Students from fine arts high schools received music education for four years before attending university. Thus, they were more experienced compared to the other group in terms of performing in front of a jury. This overlaps with study results suggesting that experienced musicians have lower anxiety levels compared to musicians with less experience (Boucher & Ryan, 2011; Ryan & Andrews, 2009; Wolfe, 1989). Findings concerning the class level and type of graduated high school showed that the level of anxiety increased with increasing age, but decreased with increasing year of experience. Existing literature includes mixed results on this aspect. Ryan and Andrews (2009) reported that anxiety has a significant relationship with experience, not with age. Steptoe and Fidler (1987) suggested that age is a more important factor than experience. When the results of the present study are evaluated, it may be considered that age is more related with anxiety. It seems anxiety level increases as class level increases regardless of previous experience (type of graduated high school). This can be considered to be the result of the graduation and post-graduation anxiety of fourth class students. The graduation of students means the beginning of employment or unemployment. In Turkey, students in the phase of graduation prepare for the Public Personnel Selection Examination. In such anxious circumstances it can be considered that the anxiety of senior students increased due to reasons such as being unable to adequately practice for the piano exam or the fear of the practice being inadequate (Roland, 1994). Similarly, Taborsky (2007) states that third class students are more anxious than second class students.

Music teaching departments do not train professional performing artists and as such music teaching students do not have much stage experience opportunity. Students preparing for the exam with their teachers may experience difficult moments in front of exam juries. In the second part of this study, peer and self-assessment was performed with the high level MPA and test anxiety students. Interviews conducted after the exam revealed these students were comfortable regarding playing an instrument in front of others after the evaluations. However, despite this, they experienced adverse impacts of anxiety during the exam and they felt their performance was negatively affected by this anxiety. Furthermore, students mentioned external factors such as waiting in line to take the exam and the presence of jury members increased their anxiety even further. However, it is striking that the test anxiety scores of students decreased after exam. In this case, it can be said that students relaxed before the exam, but despite the positive effects of the method, it did not contribute to exam achievement with the impact of external factors during the exam. Also, anxieties of the students having high test anxiety before the exam, decreased just after the exam. In this case, it can be said that MPA of students was partially kept under control through this procedure but it did not have an effect on test anxiety.

In conclusion, the first part of this study revealed that these prospective music teachers (especially females) had middle level MPA and test anxiety that increased with class level, but did not negatively impact their piano exam achievement. There was a positive relationship between MPA and test anxiety. The second part demonstrated that MPA of the students with high levels of anxiety can take control of their anxiety, but that it is more difficult to cope with test anxiety. Therefore, it seems that the negative effects of test anxiety are more pronounced than those of MPA. Thus, it is important that all prospective teachers are well trained regarding this issue and that especially their test anxiety levels are kept under control. The limitation of this part of the study was short-term application. Future research for coping with test anxiety should be planned as long-term treatments.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abel

J. L.

Larkin

K. T.

(1990). Anticipation of performance among musicians: Physiological arousal, confidence, and state-anxiety. Psychology of Music, 18, 171–182.

Boucher

Ryan

C. A.

(2011). Performance stress and the very young musician. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(4), 329–345.

Brugues

A. O.

(2009). Music performance anxiety: A review of the literature (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Albert Ludwigs Universitad Freiburg, Germany.

Cassady

J. C.

Johnson

R. E.

(2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270–295.

Conklin

N. M.

(2011). Musical performance anxiety in virtual performances: A comparison of recorded and live performance contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, USA.

Daly

A. L.

Chamberlain

Spalding

(2011). Test anxiety, heart rate and performance in A-level French speaking mock exams: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 53(3), 321–330.

Ely

M. C.

(1991). Stop performance anxiety. Music Educators Journal, 78, 35–39.

Eum

Rice

K. G.

(2011). Test anxiety, perfectionism, goal orientation, and academic performance. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 167–178.

Fehm

Schmidt

(2006). Performance anxiety in gifted adolescent musicians. Anxiety Disorders, 20, 98–109.

10.

Hamann

D. L.

Sobaje

(1983). Anxiety and the college musician: A study of performance conditions and subject variables. Psychology of Music, 11, 37–50.

11.

Hembree

(1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 7–77.

12.

Kafadar

(2009). Piyanistler örneğinde müzisyenlere özgü performans anksiyetesi [Pianists as an example for performance anxiety peculiar to musicians] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Fine Arts, İzmir, Turkey.

13.

Kenny

D. T.

(2006). A systematic review of treatments for music performance anxiety. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 18(3), 183–208.

14.

Kenny

D. T.

Osborne

M. S.

(2006). Music performance anxiety: New insights from young musicians. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 103–112.

15.

Liebert

R. M.

Morris

L. W.

(1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975–978.

16.

McDonald

(2010). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 89–101.

17.

Meharg

S. S.

(1988). Help for the anxious performer. Music Educators Journal, 75, 34–37.

18.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Nagel

J. J.

Himle

D. P.

Papsdorf

(1989). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17(1), 12–21.

20.

Öner

Albayrak

(1987). The transliteral equivalence and the reliability of the Turkish TAI. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri Columbia, USA.

21.

Osborne

M. S.

Kenny

D. T.

(2005). Development and validation of a music performance anxiety inventory for gifted adolescent musicians. Anxiety Disorders, 19, 725–751.

22.

Papageorgi

Hallam

Welch

G. F.

(2007). A conceptual framework for understanding musical performance anxiety. Research Studies in Music Education, 28, 83–107.

23.

Putwain

D. W.

(2008). Test anxiety and GCSE performance: The effect of gender and socio-economic background. Educational Psychology in Practice: Theory, Research and Practice in Educational Psychology, 24(4), 319–334.

24.

Rae

McCambridge

(2004). Correlates of performance anxiety in practical music exams. Psychology of Music, 32, 432–439.

25.

Robertson

D. U.

Eisensmith

K. E.

(2010). Teaching students about performance anxiety: The scratch pad pop-up model. Music Educators Journal, 97, 31–35.

26.

Roland

(1994). How professional performers manage performance anxiety. Research Studies in Music Education, 2, 25–35.

27.

Ryan

(2004). Gender differences in children’s experience of musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 32, 89–103.

28.

Ryan

Andrews

(2009). An investigation into the choral singer’s experience of music performance anxiety. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(2), 108–126.

29.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1980). Test anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

30.

Steptoe

(1989). Stress, coping and stage fright in professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 17, 3–11.

31.

Steptoe

Fidler

(1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: A study of cognitive and behavioral strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 241–249.

32.

Sternbach

D. J.

(2008). Stress in the lives of music students. Music Educators Journal, 94, 42–48.

33.

Taborsky

(2007). Musical performance anxiety: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 26, 15–25.

34.

Wolfe

M. L.

(1989). Correlates of adaptive and maladaptive musical performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 4(1), 49–56.

35.

Zeidner

(1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

36.

Zeidner

Safir

(1989). Sex, ethnic, and social differences in test anxiety among Israeli adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 75–185.