Development and validation of the Psychosocial Risks Questionnaire for Musicians (PRQM)

Abstract

Despite the constantly growing exposure to psychosocial hazards as well as their health and occupational consequences, research on psychosocial risks among musicians is exceptionally scarce. Moreover, previous studies on psychosocial risks and occupational stress among professional musicians have used a wide variety of measurement methods. The questionnaire we have developed assesses both the occurrence and stressfulness of particular work demands. Thus, it includes the “potential harm” caused by particular work aspects, described in the World Health Organization definition of psychosocial risks. Our questionnaire allows for measuring the general index of the occurrence and stressfulness of psychosocial risks in musicians’ work places, but also the occurrence and stressfulness of eight distinct categories of psychosocial risks: Job Content, Work Environment, Work-Home Interference, Relationships, Lack of Stability, Development Possibilities, Home-Work Interference, and Tools. The Psychosocial Risks Questionnaire for Musicians (PRQM) has satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale is 0.89 and from 0.74 to 0.86 for particular subscales). The PRQM correlates significantly with self-assessed work demands and stress symptoms (positive relationships) as well as with self-assessed physical and mental condition, control at work and coping ability (negative relationships).

Keywords

musicians occupational stress psychosocial risks psychological stress psychological tests

Cox and Griffiths define psychosocial risks as all aspects of work and its context that have “the potential for causing psychological or physical harm” (Cox & Griffiths, 2003, p. 195). In the 1990s, performing arts medicine specialists agreed that to understand work demands and their impact on musicians’ health it is necessary to consider physical, psychological and social contexts of their functioning (Brandfonbrener, 1991). However, even though a considerable number of researchers have already addressed the physical demands of musicians’ work and their health consequences, studies concerning psychosocial demands and stress are still scarce (Guptill, 2008; Holst, Paarup, & Baelum, 2012). Although an understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the physical strain put on musicians is crucial to prevent possible disorders, it is the knowledge of musicians’ work context, including psychosocial work demands, that will determine successful treatment (Guptill, 2008).

Musicians’ work demands are particularly challenging. From their earliest childhood years, they face the expectation of perfection, patience and regular hard work in their drive for excellence. Usually, young musicians will have already played for years before they begin their professional careers (Paarup, Baelum, Holm, Manniche, & Wedderkopp, 2011). Physically, playing an instrument requires repetitive movements, bearing the instrument’s weight for many hours of concerts and rehearsals, asymmetrical body postures, high abduction angles, and high strain on the spine, shoulders, fingers and wrists (Janiszewski et al., 2005). Psychosocially, musicians’ work includes great emotional demands (e.g., performance anxiety, exposure to assessment and critique), cognitive demands (e.g., the need for concentration, memory, continuous learning) and social demands (e.g., high competition, little control; Holst et al., 2012; Parasuraman & Purohit, 2000).

The occurrence of psychosocial risks, such as the high emotional or cognitive demands of work, may worsen musicians’ wellbeing. However, what requires the greatest attention is the stress caused by such risks. Parasuraman and Purohit (2000) indicated the lack of artistic contribution, difficult tasks and social tension as factors that trigger distress and boredom stress, both having the potential to debilitate perceived work ability. Another study showed that musicians’ stress resulted from high work demands, work organization and job content, interpersonal relationships, job dissatisfaction, and employment insecurity (Holst et al., 2012). Some studies suggest that musicians experience more psychosocial risks or more severe occupational stress in comparison to other workers. Danish researchers compared professional orchestral musicians with the general Danish workforce and showed that the professional musicians generally assessed their psychosocial working environment more negatively than the other workers (Holst et al., 2012). The musicians reported higher emotional and cognitive demands of their work. On top of that, female musicians experienced higher emotional and somatic stress than women from the general population (Holst et al., 2012). Similarly, Kenny, Davis, and Oates (2004) showed that occupational stress among choir singers was more severe than that noted in the normalization sample in the validation study of the research tool that they used. Moreover, Bernhard (2010) revealed that music students experienced higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (two out of three components of burnout) than students of other majors.

Previous literature provides some evidence that stress related to psychosocial risks at work might be the reason for many occupational diseases including those most typical of musicians: musculoskeletal, hearing and skin problems. For instance, previous studies revealed that musculoskeletal disorders, which affect from 38% to as much as 89% of musicians (for review, see Jacukowicz, 2016a), correlate with psychosocial factors at work and stress resulting from high work demands, low social support, job insecurity or lack of artistic contribution (Davies & Mangion, 2002; Johansson & Theorell, 2003; Kaneko, Lianza, & Dawson, 2005; Kaufman-Cohen & Ratzon, 2011). Similarly, Zaza and Farewell (1997) showed that stress predicted the occurrence of the first incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms among Canadian musicians, such as pain or weakness debilitating typical performance ability. The relationship between stress and hearing problems has also been discussed previously (Danermark & Gellerstedt, 2004; Hasson, Theorell, Liljeholm-Johansson, & Canlon, 2009). Hasson and co-workers revealed that a poor working environment and stress correlated with hearing problems among orchestral musicians. The authors estimated that exposure to noise at work combined with the experience of stress led to approximately 40% of the cases of hearing problems (Hasson et al., 2009). Previous studies also provide some evidence for the impact of stress on the development of skin problems. In their study on professional orchestral musicians, Önder, Cosar, Öztas, and Candansayar (2000) confirmed the associations between the emotions triggered by stress and the exacerbation of skin conditions.

To conduct further studies on psychosocial risks among musicians, it is necessary to use a reliable and valid measurement method. However, in previous studies on psychosocial risks and occupational stress among musicians a wide variety of measurement tools has been employed. Some authors applied universal questionnaires designed to assess stress among all kinds of employees (for example, Karasek’s demand-control model; Karasek, 1979). Such tools refer to broad categories of risks and do not pertain to specific demands occurring in this particular profession (Bongers, Ijmker, Van Den Heuvel, & Blatter, 2006). Other authors used single-item questions or self-developed questionnaires regarding different stress concepts and highlighted various aspects of musicians’ working reality. For example, Parasuraman and Purohit (2000) studied boredom stress and distress resulting from work environment, social tension, performance anxiety or lack of artistic integrity, whereas Holst et al. (2012) included work demands, work organization, job content, interpersonal relationships and job dissatisfaction. Many studies focused mainly on reasons for and consequences of performance anxiety (e.g., Steptoe & Fidler, 1987; Studer, Gomez, Hildebrandt, Arial, & Danuser, 2011; Studer, Danuser, Wild, Hildebrandt, & Gomez, 2014), frequently considered a separate construct, with no relation to general measurement of occupational stress. Such a variety of methods in research precludes qualitative analysis of psychosocial risks among musicians, which could serve as the basis for developing effective preventive programs.

Considering the previous measurement methods (see also Potocka, 2012) and the adopted definition of psychosocial risks, we identified three main goals for the questionnaire to be developed.

First, the questionnaire should include only those occupational risks that are typical of musicians’ jobs. It is crucial to focus on particular risks and expressions directly related to musicians’ working conditions (e.g., exposure to assessment, participating in rehearsals and concerts, cooperation with other artists, artistic contribution). At the same time, risks typical of most occupations, but not of musicians, should be omitted (for example, the issue of promotion, hierarchical structure of the organization, relationships with customers, shift work, procedures). Even though in some cases musicians could possibly interpret such items as being in the context of their work, this would require more effort and motivation to fill in the questionnaire.

Second, the questionnaire should include the occurrence and stressfulness of work demands. According to the adopted definition, psychosocial risks comprise both the occurrence of particular work demands and their potential to cause harm (Leka, Griffiths, & Cox, 2004). Thus, the very occurrence of some work demands might not necessarily increase the risk of health loss or any other occupational consequences due to the particular respondent’s resilience, personality, preferences or circumstances (Cooper & Payne, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Ogińska-Bulik & Juczyński, 2010). Considering the pivotal role of stress in the development and the course of many diseases, verifying the stressfulness of each demand seems the most accurate method to study the “potential to cause harm”. The reference to the level of stress caused by particular work demand has already been used in previous questionnaires (see Potocka, 2012, for review).

Third, the questionnaire items should refer to the very essence of the work, performed tasks (job content) and working conditions but also to the atmosphere, relationships, social support or organizational culture (job context; as suggested by Leka et al., 2008).

Item generation

First, we developed short descriptions and a few examples of psychosocial risks regarding musicians’ everyday work. We used the division into job content (tasks, workload, working hours, environment and equipment) and job context risks (control, organizational culture, career development, home–work interactions) developed in the Psychosocial Risks Management Excellence Framework (PRIMA-EF; Leka et al., 2004; Van Stolk, Staetsky, Hassan, & Woo Kim, 2012). Then, we interviewed two musicians – a university music student and a professional musician – and asked them to refer to the distinct risks and to determine whether they occurred in trained adult musicians’ work and whether they were sources of stress. The professional musician was a female percussionist, playing popular and classical music, mainly in bands. The student was a male double bass player, finishing his first year at a music academy. We also asked them to comment on these risks and to add any others that they found important for their work as musicians. As a result, based on the interviewed musicians’ opinions, we generated 43 items pertaining to either job content or job context.

We consulted about the items with six independent judges who specialized in methodology, statistics and psychometrics. We conducted two rounds of consultations, introducing some amendments after each round. The judges were asked to refer to each item and assess: (a) the language (comprehensibility, clarity, explicitness); (b) the fit to the category of risks and (c) the probability that the responses would vary between respondents. We informed the judges of the aims and the addressees of the developed questionnaire. Taking the judges’ opinions into consideration, we improved the language of the items and added 19 extra questions, thus expanding the poll to 62 items.

Study 1: A pilot study

Aim

The first study aimed to reduce the number of items and to verify whether the questionnaire was easy to understand and fill in. Thus, the questionnaire battery included a blank space for the respondents to leave their comments.

Participants

The first study included musicians who responded to invitations posted via social media. The sample consisted of 71 instrumentalists and eight singers, 43 women and 36 men. The respondents were aged 25.9 years on average (SD = 6.5). The majority of the respondents were professional musicians (48%); the others were mainly students of secondary or higher music schools (41%), music school graduates and a few unemployed/inactive musicians (9% in total).

Methods and analyses

We calculated the distributions of answers to find the risks that were claimed (a) not to occur in the respondents’ work or (b) to occur in the respondents’ work but that were not seen as stressful. We decided to include only those risks that were identified by more than 75% of the respondents and the risks considered to be occurring and stressful (regardless of the level of the perceived stress) by at least 20% of the respondents. All statistical analyses were conducted with the use of SPSS software. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine (decision no. 21/2014, November, 2014).

Results

Eleven items described the risks that either did not occur or did not cause stress among the studied musicians and thus were excluded from the questionnaire. Considering the respondents’ suggestions, we also introduced minor language corrections. We also excluded the questions concerning opinions on the labor market for musicians (for instance, Lack of stability and employment security are typical of a musician’s job). We decided to make a separate inventory of such questions to refer to general beliefs instead of the assessment of work characteristics. We reasoned that they offered insight into the respondents’ opinions, not necessarily the work demands or risks. Thus, we excluded another five items and as a result we obtained a 46-item version of the questionnaire.

Study 2

Aim

The second study aimed to verify the factor structure and to calculate the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.

Participants

We sent invitations to participate in the study to orchestras, theatres and music universities in Poland. We also placed announcements via social media. Thus, some respondents completed the questionnaires online. The others were given a paper-and-pencil set of questionnaires before their rehearsals and were asked to fill in the forms at home and bring them back for the appointed date.

In total, we had 154 respondents, 69 men and 85 women. All the musicians possessed higher music education and worked as professional musicians at the time of the study. The musicians were 37.6 years old on average (SD = 11.3). All of the respondents were instrumentalists – 34% wind instruments, 5% keyboard instruments, 56% string instruments and less than 1% percussion. Four people did not reveal the instruments they played. Most of the participants played classical music (62%) or classical and popular music (34%). Only three musicians played mainly popular music. Another three respondents did not answer that question.

Methods and analyses

To establish the factor structure of the questionnaire, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. To determine the reliability of the questionnaire we calculated Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire and its scales. We also examined the content validity of the questionnaire by calculating the Spearman’s rank correlations between the questionnaire items (whole questionnaire and scales) and the assessment of job demands (assessed on a 10-point scale: How high are the demands of your work as a musician?), job control (10-point scale: To what extent can you influence/control your work as a musician [tasks, working time, decisions]?), coping (10-point scale: To what extent are you capable of dealing with your duties related to being a musician?). We also correlated the results with self-assessed physical and mental condition, assuming that the higher the PRQM scores (indicating more psychosocial risks or more severe stress), the worse the physical and mental condition would be. The presented study was a part of a larger research project, therefore we aimed to make the questionnaire battery as short as possible. Thus, we decided to use single-item measurement methods for the variables chosen to confirm the questionnaire’s validity because these show similar research values to multiple scales (Gardner, Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998). We also correlated the PRQM scores with the self-reported symptoms of stress (the sum of emotional-cognitive, somatic and behavioral symptoms marked by the respondent in a simple survey – the respondents indicated the frequency of 67 stress symptoms within the month preceding the study, choosing from 0 – not at all/not even once to 4 – every day/all the time). Psychosocial risks have already been confirmed to relate to stress symptoms (Holst et al., 2012; Larsman, Kadefors, & Sandsjö, 2013; Leka & Jain, 2010). In particular, previous studies have demonstrated that the perception of higher job demands and lower job control are related to higher stress (e.g., Holst et al., 2012; Karasek, 1979; Steptoe & Willemsen, 2004). On the other hand, effective coping strategies might prevent stress and its consequences (Ogińska-Bulik & Juczyński, 2010). Thus, in considering the validity of the questionnaire, we hypothesized that occurrence and stressfulness would positively correlate with job demands and the number of stress symptoms, while negative relationships would be observed in the case of occurrence and stressfulness and self-assessed physical condition, mental condition, control, and coping. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine.

Results

Factor analysis

In the first step of the analysis, we examined the basic statistics of the questionnaire items. In all the cases, the variance was higher than 0. The sample comprised 149 musicians (we excluded questionnaires with missing data), the number of variables included in the analysis was 46, thus the cases-to-variables ratio was 3.2. The correlation matrix was close to 0, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test equaled 0.80, Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant at the level of p = 0.01. Thus, the basic requirements for EFA were fulfilled (Beavers et al., 2013).

In the second step, we explored the possible factor solutions. We attempted to determine the optimal number of factors by using the Kaiser–Guttman criterion of eigenvalues higher than 1, and at least 50% of variance explained. We also examined the scree plot (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). We found that 12 factors reached eigenvalues of more than 1, but Cattell’s scree test indicated that 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9-factor solutions would also be sound. To obtain a clear structure of the questionnaire we accepted all the items with loadings higher than 0.45 (Bedyńska & Brzezicka, 2007) but discarded all the items that loaded on more than one factor and items in which the difference in the loadings was lower than 0.15.

The 12-factor solution explained 67.8% of variance. It seemed promising, yet, there were two factors with only one item’s loading above 0.45 and in one of those cases, one item cross-loaded two factors. What is more, the content of some factors was inconsistent and uninterpretable. A 2-factor solution accounted for 31.1% of variance, whereas a 5-factor solution explained 46.3%. Therefore, we decided to reject these and focus on 7, 8 and 9-factor solutions. All three accounted for more than 50% of variance (54.1%, 57.4% and 60.4% respectively). The three options, i.e., the 7, 8 and 9-factor solutions, were quite similar; we chose the 8-factor solution, since it was the most reasonable and the clearest in terms of the content. After analyzing the loadings and subscales’ content, we ended up with 31 items categorized into eight groups: Job Content, Work Environment, Work–Home Interference, Relationships, Lack of Stability, Development Possibilities, Home–Work Interference, and Tools. Each group comprised three to seven items. The absolute values of factor loadings ranged from 0.48 to 0.80 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha of the items and scales of the Psychosocial Risks Questionnaire for Musicians (PRQM).

Item content	Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha	Factor
Playing the instrument requires me to concentrate for many hours.	0.80	0.86	Job Content
Playing the instrument (learning, rehearsals, work) is emotionally demanding for me.	0.78
In my job I am exposed to evaluation/criticism.	0.70
Playing the instrument (learning, rehearsals, work) is physically demanding for me.	0.67
Playing the instrument requires me to learn continuously.	0.60
I attend rehearsals/concerts despite being ill or having health problems.	0.60
Playing the instrument requires me to have good memory.	0.59
Sometimes during rehearsals and/or concerts the temperature is too high or too low.	0.75	0.78	Work Environment
Sometimes I have too little space, when I practice or play at the concert.	0.72
Sometimes during rehearsals/concerts the light is inadequate to my needs (e.g., too strong or too poor).	0.66
I am exposed to loud noise.	0.65
Playing-related duties interfere with my private life.	0.71	0.78	Work–Home Interference
My work as a musician means I have to abandon pre-existing social and family arrangements.	0.69
My family and friends complain about my work.	0.58
My work requires good communication skills.	0.76	0.77	Relationships
Playing the instrument requires me to be able to cooperate with others.	0.69
I need to cooperate with individualists and “artistic souls”.	0.64
Irregular working hours are typical of my work as a musician.	0.71	0.75	Lack of Stability
I am often surprised with changes in rehearsal/performance schedule (the schedule is changed unexpectedly)	0.69
I don’t know what or where I will be rehearsing or performing in the nearest future.	0.58
I work “in fits and starts” – sometimes I have only few tasks but sometimes have too many of them.	0.53
Time demands related to playing the instrument are irregular – sometimes I play many hours a day, and sometimes I don’t play at all.	0.48
I have few chances for development.	0.78	0.75	Development Possibilities
I lack feedback on my progress.	0.69
In my job I have no chance to show my full potential.	0.69
Because of my household and family duties I play less than I should.	0.81	0.75	Home–Work Interference
Because of my household and family duties I play less than I would like to.	0.81
My family doesn’t understand the limitations that are related to playing-related duties.	0.60
Sometimes I have no place to practice.	0.79	0.74	Tools
Sometimes I can’t practice because there are no instruments or other necessary tools available (e.g., stands, stools, etc.)	0.69
I have to get a room to practice or rehearse on my own.	0.68

Reliability

In the third step, we tested the reliability of the subscales. Cronbach’s alphas were satisfactory. The lowest value equated to 0.74 (Tools), whereas the highest was 0.86 (Job Content). Cronbach’s alpha of the whole questionnaire was 0.89 (Table 1).

Content validity

To verify the content validity, we analyzed correlations between the occurrence of the psychosocial risks as well as their stressfulness and the indicators of general job demands, job control, and coping, symptoms of stress in the month preceding the study, and self-assessed mental and physical condition. In line with our assumptions, the results showed significant correlations between the occurrence and stressfulness of psychosocial risks measured with the developed questionnaire and the self-assessed job demands, and the number of experienced stress symptoms (positive relationships). We also found significant negative relationships between the PRQM scales and coping, control, self-assessed physical and mental condition, as expected (Table 2).

Table 2.

Content validity of the PRQM scales – Spearman’s rank correlations.

		Job demands	Job control	Coping	Symptoms of stress				Self-assessed physical condition	Self-assessed mental condition
		Job demands	Job control	Coping	Total	Emotional-cognitive	Physical	Behavioral	Self-assessed physical condition	Self-assessed mental condition
Occurrence	1	0.24			0.24	0.20	0.29	0.19	−0.24	−0.19
	2		−0.31						−0.21
	3		−0.16	−0.26
	4
	5				0.21	0.18	0.20	0.21
	6		−0.22		0.35	0.35	0.28	0.33		−0.29
	7			−0.36	0.22	0.23	0.23	0.18		−0.20
	8							0.17		−0.18
	Total		−0.18	−0.25	0.34	0.33	0.32	0.31	−0.17	−0.27
Stressfulness	1	0.37	−0.26	−0.28	0.45	0.46	0.41	0.40	−0.33	−0.46
	2	0.19	−0.23		0.22	0.20	0.22	0.18		−0.19
	3		−0.22		0.24	0.26	0.19	0.21	−0.19	−0.25
	4			−0.17	0.35	0.37	0.25	0.35		−0.27
	5	0.25	−0.19		0.35	0.35	0.29	0.32	−0.17	−0.34
	6				0.40	0.43	0.27	0.40	−0.18	−0.33
	7				0.35	0.41	0.24	0.35		−0.22
	8		−0.21							−0.24
	Total	0.27	−0.28	−0.19	0.50	0.51	0.42	0.45	−0.32	−0.48

Notes. 1 = Job Content, 2 = Work Environment, 3 = Work-Home Interference, 4 = Relationships, 5 = Lack of Stability, 6 = Development Possibilities, 7 = Home-Work Interference, 8 = Tools. The higher the score, the greater the psychosocial risk/the more severe the stress. All correlations are significant at p < 0.05.

Discussion

This study resulted in a reliable and valid 31-item questionnaire to study the psychosocial risks involved in musicians’ work. The analyses revealed that the questionnaire describes eight categories of psychosocial risks: Job Content, Work Environment, Work-Home Interference, Relationships, Lack of Stability, Development Possibilities, Home-Work Interference, and Tools. Moreover, the PRQM also enables the assessment of the occurrence and the stressfulness of the psychosocial risks in musicians’ work.

The categories of psychosocial risks revealed in this study are similar to those distinguished in the literature on the European framework for stress-related psychosocial risks that constituted the theoretical frame for the development of our questionnaire (e.g., Leka et al., 2008; Leka et al., 2004): job content, workload and work pace, working hours, control, career development, role in the organization, interpersonal relationships, organizational culture, home-work interface. Similar categories of stressors were also found by Brodsky (2006) in her review of the previous literature on stress factors in musicians’ work, i.e., work environment, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, music performance anxiety, lack of artistic integrity and difficult tasks. The differences that emerged in this study might result from the specificity of musicians’ work, which confirms the need for the development of a tool dedicated specifically to musicians. Furthermore, the items we developed aimed to refer to trained adult musicians’ reality. Thus, we paid the greatest attention to items that were indicated as occurring and stressful by the respondents and excluded those considered irrelevant. Last but not least, we also developed the sections on work environment and tools (especially due to the importance of noise exposure or playing-related musculoskeletal disorders).

In the PRQM, Job Content refers to core features of musicians’ work, such as the cognitive demands of work (e.g., the need for continuous learning, prolonged concentration or good memory), emotional and physical strain, and exposure to criticism. Previous studies have also revealed such a category of psychosocial risks occurring in musicians’ jobs – for instance, Holst et al. (2012) showed that work demands (e.g., cognitive or emotional demands) predicted cognitive stress among the studied orchestral musicians. Moreover, musicians assessed their cognitive and emotional demands at work as being significantly higher than Danish workers from the general workforce reference group (Holst et al., 2012).

Work Environment includes questions about extreme temperatures, available space, (in)adequate light, and exposure to noise at work. The occurrence of these factors in musicians’ work may have an impact on their wellbeing or even health (e.g., in the case of exposure to loud noise). We assume that most musicians might indicate that these risks occur in their job, thus, in this case, the assessment of stressfulness of these psychosocial risks might be of even greater diagnostic value. Musicians who report that they are stressed due to these factors might experience negative consequences of the exposure itself (e.g., hearing impairment) and, additionally, suffer from stress-related symptoms that might occur consequently. Laitinen and Poulsen (2008) showed that over 40% of Finnish orchestral musicians were to some extent worried about their hearing. What is more, many of them complained about the inappropriate acoustics in rehearsal halls, which increased their discomfort related to the exposure to noise (Laitinen & Poulsen, 2008). Most importantly, the researchers underlined that the subjective perception of the acoustics or more general working conditions might significantly influence musicians’ job satisfaction and experience of stress (Laitinen & Poulsen, 2008).

Work-Home Interference is a subscale describing the impact of work on private life, for instance, the need to change social or family plans because of work duties or family complaints about musicians’ work. Home-Work Interference is exactly the opposite – this subscale refers to lack of understanding for the musicians’ work-related duties or lack of possibility of playing as much as a musician would like to or needs because of family duties. Work-home and home-work interference are frequently regarded as the most troublesome factors in musicians’ work. Steptoe (1989) showed that almost a half of the professional musicians studied experienced stress caused by separation from family. Similarly, a study on Norwegian freelance musicians showed that they considered understanding and supporting family to be a key factor determining their opportunities for professional success (Vaag, Giæver, & Bjerkeset, 2013).

The Relationships subscale consists of questions about the demand for good communication and cooperation skills, as well as occurrence of rivalry and availability of social support. Previous studies have shown that, similarly to other professionals who need to cooperate with others in their work, musicians are also prone to interpersonal conflicts. For instance, Parasuraman and Purohit (2000) indicated social tension as one of the three leading causes of stress among musicians (apart from lack of artistic contribution and task difficulty). Steptoe (1989) also showed that one in four musicians were stressed due to rivalry that they experienced at work. Sternbach (2002) explained that the nature of musicians’ work – associated with sensitivity and emotions related to playing music – makes them more vulnerable. Furthermore, he argued that young musicians devoting hours to everyday practice have fewer opportunities to develop good social skills (Sternbach, 2002), which might affect their future teamwork ability.

Lack of Stability pertains to unpredictable working hours, irregular workload, and unexpected changes in the work schedule. The unpredictable nature of work has already been documented by researchers as a key stressor in musicians’ lives. For instance, based on in-depth interviews with musicians, Vaag et al. (2013) distinguished three major work demands that musicians need to face: difficulties in reconciling work and private life, pressure from others, and an unpredictable future (i.e., unstable financial situation, and lack of structure and opportunity to plan the future).

The Development Possibilities subscale refers to opportunities for professional growth, receiving feedback, and to the chance to show full potential. Similarly, a sense of lack of artistic impact turned out to be one of the major stressors for the studied orchestral musicians in research from Parasuraman and Purohit (2000). Similarly, in their comparison between Danish musicians and the general workforce, Holst et al. (2012) showed that male musicians felt they had fewer possibilities for development than workers from the reference group. Angel (2010) also showed that many musicians suffered from difficulties related to insufficient appreciation of their achievements, or the need to deal with criticism. Such results confirm that fulfilling ambitions, growing professionally and realizing artistic potential are particularly important in this occupational group.

Finally, the Tools subscale includes questions about the availability of resources or room for practice that are necessary to play the instrument. This category may be particularly useful to describe the psychosocial work hazards among students who frequently experience problems with such availability and the stress related to such discomfort (Jacukowicz, 2016b). In the case of the Tools category, both occurrence and stressfulness might provide useful information for the design of musicians’ working environments. The very occurrence of such difficulties might indicate poor work organization or low quality of facilities available to musicians. Moreover, this might directly translate into the possibility of practicing and thus affect musicians’ work ability.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, the PRQM is the first validated questionnaire regarding psychosocial risks specific to musicians’ work. The final version of the questionnaire consists of 31 items (Appendix in online supplemental material). Our study showed that it has a clear factor structure and satisfactory psychometric characteristics. Eight subscales were distinguished: Job Content, Work Environment, Work-Home Interference, Relationships, Lack of Stability, Development Possibilities, Home-Work Interference, and Tools. The PRQM enables the assessment of the general occurrence as well as stressfulness of psychosocial risks and the occurrence and stressfulness of psychosocial risks related to the distinguished categories. To calculate the occurrence, all of the items with scores higher than 0 (does not occur) should be summed up. The stressfulness index is calculated by computing the mean from the respondents’ answers, considering only those risks/items assessed as occurring.

Our questionnaire is intended to measure psychosocial risks in musicians’ work. According to the European Framework that served as a theoretical basis for the PRQM, the term psychosocial risks refers to the occurrence of particular work features as well as their potential to cause harm – in this case, their stressfulness. Therefore, on the one hand, the questionnaire might serve as a tool to diagnose the psychosocial working conditions in a particular workplace (for instance, for health and safety purposes). On the other hand, this might also provide information on work-related stress: the most stressful work features or the level of stress experienced by a particular group or an individual. Such data might be used to develop preventive programs aimed at facilitating musicians’ wellbeing and work ability.

The PRQM might serve as a measurement tool not only to diagnose the occurrence of psychosocial risks and their stressfulness, but also to study the determinants of health problems. We believe that this questionnaire of high psychometric values dedicated specifically to the studied occupational group (in this case musicians) will inspire more research on psychosocial risks and their consequences to fill the literature gap.

Limitations

So far, the PRQM has been developed and verified only in the Polish language version. However, we have already translated the questionnaire considering the possible cultural and language differences and nuances to make any adaptations easier. The PRQM has also been verified only for instrumentalists and the sample consisted mainly of professional classical orchestral musicians. Further studies including musicians from different backgrounds as well as vocalists or conductors are highly recommended. The factor structure of the questionnaire does not entirely reflect the original structure of the PRIMA-EF categories of psychosocial risks. However, we believe that the factor structure obtained in the study depicts the psychosocial risks in musicians’ working reality. Finally, the small sample size prevented us from establishing norms for the questionnaire. However, we intend to conduct further studies with the use of the PRQM to define low, average and high scores for better diagnostic possibilities.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Prepared within a statutory project of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, “Development of a tool to study psychosocial risks in musicians”, project no. IMP 21.8.

References

Angel

(2010). A study of individual differences and stress among North American musicians. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, Paper 189, 1–146.

Beavers

A. S.

Lounsbury

J. W.

Richards

J. K.

Huck

S. W.

Skolits

G. J.

Esquivel

S. L.

(2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13.

Bedyńska

Brzezicka

(2007). Statystyczny drogowskaz: Praktyczny poradnik analizy danych w naukach społecznych na przykładach z psychologii [Statistical guide: Practical guide to data analysis in social science based on examples from psychology]. Warsaw, Poland: Academica wydawnictwo SWPS.

Bernhard

(2010). A survey of burnout among college music majors: A replication. Music Performance Research, 3(1), 31–41.

Bongers

P. M.

Ijmker

Van Den Heuvel

Blatter

B. M.

(2006). Epidemiology of work related neck and upper limb problems: Psychosocial and personal risk factors (Part I) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural perspective (Part II). Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. doi:10.1007/s10926–006–9044–1

Brandfonbrener

(1991). Performing arts medicine: An evolving specialty. Music Educators Journal, 77(5), 37–41.

Brodsky

(2006). In the wings of British orchestras: A multi-episode interview study among symphony players. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(4), 673–690. doi:10.1348/096317905X68213

Cooper

C. L.

Payne

(1991). Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Cox

Griffiths

(2003). A risk management approach to the prevention of work stress. In Shabracq

M. J.

Winnubst

J. A. M.

Cooper

L. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 191–206). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

10.

Danermark

Gellerstedt

L. C.

(2004). Psychosocial work environment, hearing impairment and health. International Journal of Audiology, 43(7), 383–389. doi:10.1080/14992020400050049

11.

Davies

Mangion

(2002). Predictors of pain and other musculoskeletal symptoms among professional instrumental musicians: Elucidating specific effects. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 17(4), 155–169.

12.

Floyd

F. J.

Widaman

K. F.

(1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. doi:10.1037/1040–3590.7.3.286

13.

Gardner

D. G.

Cummings

L. L.

Dunham

R. B.

Pierce

J. L.

(1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006003

14.

Guptill

(2008). Musicians’ health: Applying the ICF framework in research. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(12–13), 970–977. doi:10.1080/09638280701800517

15.

Hasson

Theorell

Liljeholm-Johansson

Canlon

(2009). Psychosocial and physiological correlates of self-reported hearing problems in male and female musicians in symphony orchestras. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74(2), 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.07.009

16.

Holst

G. J.

Paarup

H. M.

Baelum

(2012). A cross-sectional study of psychosocial work environment and stress in the Danish symphony orchestras. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 85(6), 639–649. doi:10.1007/s00420–011–0710-z

17.

Jacukowicz

(2016a). Psychosocial work aspects, stress and musculoskeletal pain among musicians: A systematic review in search of correlates and predictors of playing-related pain. Work, 54(3), 657–668. doi:10.3233/WOR-162323

18.

Jacukowicz

(2016b) Stres u studentów muzyki: Wyniki badań z udziałem polskich studentów kierunków instrumentalnych [Stress in music students: The results of a study including Polish students of instrumental majors]. Konteksty Kształcenia Muzycznego, 3(1), 89–106.

19.

Janiszewski

Gałuszka

Ochwanowska

Gaciarz

Hak

Ochwanowski

… Oryniak

(2005). Biomechanical analysis of dynamics and statics of the moving arm in musical instrumentalists. Medycyna Pracy, 56(1), 25–33.

20.

Johansson

Y. L.

Theorell

(2003). Satisfaction with work task quality correlates with employee health a study of 12 professional orchestras. Medcical Problems of Performing Artists, 18(4), 141–149.

21.

Kaneko

Lianza

Dawson

W. J.

(2005). Pain as an incapacitating factor in symphony orchestra musicians in São Paulo, Brazil. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 20(4), 168–175.

22.

Karasek

R. R. A.

(1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. doi:10.2307/2392498

23.

Kaufman-Cohen

Ratzon

N. Z.

(2011). Correlation between risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders among classical musicians. Occupational Medicine, 61(2), 90–95. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqq196

24.

Kenny

D. T.

Davis

Oates

(2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 18(6), 757–777. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.004

25.

Laitinen

Poulsen

(2008). Questionnaire investigation of musicians’ use of hearing protectors, self reported hearing disorders, and their experience of their working environment. International Journal of Audiology, 47, 160–168.

26.

Larsman

Kadefors

Sandsjö

(2013). Psychosocial work conditions, perceived stress, perceived muscular tension, and neck/shoulder symptoms among medical secretaries. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 86(1), 57–63. doi:10.1007/s00420–012–0744-x

27.

Lazarus

R. R. S.

Folkman

(1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(May), 14 1–169. doi:10.1002/per.2410010304

28.

Leka

Griffiths

Cox

(2004). Work organization and stress: Systematic problem approaches for employers, managers and trade union representatives. Nottingham, UK: Institute of Work, Health & Organisations.

29.

Leka

Hassard

Jain

Makrinov

Cox

Kortum

… Zwetsloot

(2008). Towards the development of a European framework for psychosocial risk management at the workplace. Nottingham, UK: Institute of Work, Health & Organisations.

30.

Leka

Jain

(2010). Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: An overview. Nottingham, UK: Institute of Work, Health & Organisations.

31.

Ogińska-Bulik

Juczyński

(2010). Osobowość - stres a zdrowie [Personality – stress and health]. Warsaw, Poland: Difin.

32.

Önder

Cosar

Öztas

Candansayar

(2000). Stress and skin diseases in musicians: Evaluation of the Beck Depression Scale, General Psychologic Profile (The Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]), Beck Anxiety Scale and stressful life events in musicians. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 54(5), 258–262.

33.

Paarup

H. M.

Baelum

Holm

J. W.

Manniche

Wedderkopp

(2011). Prevalence and consequences of musculoskeletal symptoms in symphony orchestra musicians vary by gender: A cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12(1), 223–237. doi:10.1186/1471–2474–12–223

34.

Parasuraman

Purohit

Y. S.

(2000). Distress and boredom among orchestra musicians: The two faces of stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 74–83. doi:10.1037/1076–8998.5.1.74

35.

Potocka

(2012). Narzędzia kwestionariuszowe stosowane w diagnozie psychospołecznych zagrożeń zawodowych: Przegląd metod [Questionnaires for assessment of work-related psychosocial hazards: A review of diagnostic tools]. Medycyna Pracy, 63(2), 237–520.

36.

Steptoe

(1989). Stress, coping and stage fright in professional musicians. Psychology of Music, 17(1), 3–11. doi:10.1177/0305735689171001

37.

Steptoe

Fidler

(1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: A study of cognitive and behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78(2), 241–249. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8295.1987.tb02243.x

38.

Steptoe

Willemsen

(2004). The influence of low job control on ambulatory blood pressure and perceived stress over the working day in men and women from the Whitehall II cohort. Journal of Hypertension, 22(5), 915–920. doi:10.1097/00004872–200405000–00012

39.

Sternbach

(2002). Addressing stress-related illness in professional musicians. Biofeedback, 30(3/4), 10–14.

40.

Studer

Gomez

Hildebrandt

Arial

Danuser

(2011). Stage fright: Its experience as a problem and coping with it. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(7), 761–771. doi:10.1007/s00420–010–0608–1

41.

Studer

R. K.

Danuser

Wild

Hildebrandt

Gomez

(2014). Psychophysiological activation during preparation, performance, and recovery in high- and low-anxious music students. Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 39(1), 45–57. doi:10.1007/s10484–014–9240–2

42.

Vaag

Giæver

Bjerkeset

(2013). Specific demands and resources in the career of the Norwegian freelance musician. Arts & Health, 6(3), 205–222. doi:10.1080/17533015.2013.863789

43.

Van Stolk

Staetsky

Hassan

Woo Kim

. (2012). Management of psychosocial risks at work: An analysis of the findings of the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) European Risk Observatory Report. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

44.

Zaza

Farewell

V. T.

(1997). Musicians’ playing-related musculoskeletal disorders: An examination of risk factors. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32(3), 292–300. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097–0274(199709)32:3<292::AID-AJIM16>3.0.CO;2-Q

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB