Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth: Development and Validation of a New Questionnaire

Abstract

Stage fright is a natural and very common phenomenon that affects everyone who must present themselves in public. However, it has a negative impact on the health and voice emission of children and adolescents, which is why it is important to study and measure it. Unfortunately, there are no appropriate tools for examining public presentation anxiety intended for children and adolescents, and that would also include the context of voice production. The main aim of this study was to describe stage fright and to present the stages of creating a tool based on the three-factor theory of stage fright constructs. The text describes the steps of developing the questionnaire, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity. The results of the conducted analyses confirmed the three-factor structure of the tool and suggest that the Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth is a reliable and consistent questionnaire for measuring stage fright in children and adolescents.

Keywords

stage fright performance anxiety factor analysis measurement validity reliability

Introduction

Trema, commonly referred to as stage fright, derives its etymology from the Italian word “tremare,” meaning “tremble,” and the Latin “tremere,” which means “shiver.” The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines it as “nervous feelings felt by performers before they appear in front of an audience” (Hornby, 2000). Salmon (1990) describes it as “the experience of persisting, distressful apprehension about and/or actual impairment of performance skills in a public context, to a degree unwarranted given the individual’s musical aptitude, training, and level of preparation.” Meanwhile, Barlow (2000) sees it as a feeling stemming from a perceived lack of control over forthcoming important events to the individual.

Recent studies view stage fright in a consistent manner, often highlighting its tripartite structure, encompassing cognitive, emotional, and somatic facets. The cognitive symptoms encompass longstanding thought patterns and behaviors that an individual has developed throughout their life. These might include fears like making errors or being judged by an audience. Individuals with stage fright are frequently plagued by anticipatory thoughts of failing during a performance, such as “I’ll surely make a mistake,” experiencing memory lapses, as well as facing distractions, confusion, doubts, and diminished confidence in their own capabilities. Often, these apprehensions are disproportionate when compared to their actual talent, readiness, and training (Curyło-Sikora, 2017; Raducanu, 2010; Salmon, 1990; Szulc & Olszak, 2012). The emotional symptoms manifest as feelings like detachment, escalating anxiety, fear, intense stress, embarrassment, anger, and despair (Curyło-Sikora, 2017; Kępińska-Welbel, 1991; Raducanu, 2010; Szulc & Olszak, 2012). In contrast, somatic symptoms predominantly involve reactions like cardiovascular responses, changes in the respiratory system, gastrointestinal issues, heightened muscle tension, increased perspiration, and a rise in body temperature (Curyło-Sikora, 2017; Raducanu, 2010; Salmon, 1990; Szulc & Olszak, 2012). Although stage fright is often associated with a musical or artistic performance, it can also occur in other social situations. This may have a negative impact on the well-being and health of the presenter. Examples include psychological effects such as eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) which may lead to depression (Bascomb, 2019). Although data were obtained from different countries, the data show mental health issues in a performance setting (Topoğlu & Karagulle, 2018; Wanke et al., 2012). As a result, there may be blocks that prevent the person from completing tasks (Curyło-Sikora & Wrona-Polańska, 2018). During public speeches, stage fright and mental health issues may also lead to psychogenic disorders of voice work (Lewandowska-Tarasiuk, 2001; Rubin & Greenberg, 2002). This is a very important aspect because the voice is the most important tool of verbal communication.

Public speaking is a form of communication where an individual speaks directly to a gathered audience. It is typically understood as a formal, face-to-face interaction between a single speaker and multiple listeners (Shyam & Joy, 2016). Consequently, speeches and public appearances can be viewed as one-sided communication methods addressing a group of recipients (Winkler, 2006). This implies that such interactions aren’t confined solely to artistic venues or traditional stages.

Children and adolescents are frequently required to engage in such communicative acts. As early as primary school, there’s an expectation for students to be competent in public speaking. Many primary students display heightened anxiety when tasked with speaking publicly (Sülter, 2022; Van Niekerk et al., 2017). Activities like reciting poems or answering a teacher’s questions are classic examples of public speaking at this level. However, certain factors can impede this communication process (Jaros, 2022). One prominent issue in schools is stage fright. Yet, there is a noticeable lack of systematic research on promoting public speaking skills or understanding stage fright among primary school students (Herbein, 2018). Stage fright, especially when paired with an absence of stress-coping mechanisms, can have adverse effects on a child’s mental well-being (Ryan, 2005). Stress can lead to blockages, making it challenging for children to showcase their capabilities, even when they’re well-prepared for a presentation or public response (Curyło-Sikora & Wrona-Polańska, 2018). Children and youth are at a risk of anxiety-related problems, and this is an appropriate moment in their development to focus on this issue (Kozina, 2012). Research results reveal that 25% of music school students assess their mental health as poor, while over 50% experience high levels of stage stress (Curyło-Sikora & Wrona-Polańska, 2018).

Many existing instruments designed to measure stage fright are primarily tailored for adults and seasoned musicians. As a result, they fall short when it comes to gauging the level of stage fright in children and adolescents. For instance, the Performance Anxiety Inventory (Nagel et al., 1981, 1989) draws from the experiences of professional musicians. On the other hand, the Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents targets those aged 12 to 19 and is acknowledged as a screening tool to evaluate performance anxiety among young musicians (Osborne et al., 2005). The “20-item Self-Statement Questionnaire” is another tool, focusing on measuring performance anxiety in musicians (Steptoe & Fidler, 1987).

Current tools predominantly view stage fright through the lens of a musician’s experience. This narrows the scope and overlooks instances of stage fright that manifest outside of musical performances, such as during public speeches. Research has consistently indicated that stage fright is deeply intertwined with emotional responses. The regulation of these emotions differs across age groups (Chen et al., 2022; Silvers et al., 2012). The emotional mechanisms in adults differ from those in children. As such, applying tools designed for adults may not yield accurate results when used with children. There’s a clear need for a more age-appropriate tool to measure stage fright in children. Relying on questionnaires that are not tailored for younger demographics can lead to misinterpretation. Therefore, creating a tool that considers the age and comprehension level of children and adolescents becomes imperative. Based on the literature (Curyło-Sikora, 2017; Kępińska-Welbel, 1991; Raducanu, 2010; Salmon, 1990; Szulc & Olszak, 2012), developing a questionnaire to assess children’s well-being prior to public presentations is pivotal. This tool would not only fill the current knowledge gap regarding the analysis of individual stage fright components in children and adolescents but also prove to be a valuable resource in educational settings.

In line with the theoretical framework of the tool, the strongest association is anticipated with measures of anxiety-related characteristics. Consistent with findings from other researchers, a significant correlation is also anticipated with the severity of neurotic traits, akin to what has been observed in past research using personality assessments. Previous studies with adults, especially those in the music profession, have noted comparable relationships. Stage fright seems to be negatively and/or not related to engaging in active coping strategies in difficult situations and seeking social support, as engagement in activities aimed at resolving experienced difficulties might correlate with more effective coping strategies for managing performance anxiety. However, a relationship is anticipated with a passive response to stress, as concentrating on emotional states might be strongly linked to increased levels of performance anxiety.

The Present Study

This research operates under several foundational premises. First, as outlined in the theoretical framework posited by Curyło-Sikora (2017), stage fright is understood to manifest in three distinct domains: emotions, cognitions, and physiological responses. Consequently, our questionnaire is organized around these three categories. Second, despite the existence of tools measuring anxiety, particularly among adult musicians (e.g., Osborne et al., 2005; Steptoe & Fidler, 1987), there appears to be a conspicuous absence of instruments tailored specifically for a younger demographic, namely, children and adolescents. With this gap in mind, our study’s primary objective was to assess the evidence of validity for scores derived from the SFS-CY – Stage Fright Scale. Our specific aims were to:

(i) evaluate validity based on internal structure of the questionnaire by scrutinizing its dimensionality and contrasting single and three-factor models,

(ii) assess the reliability of the questionnaire by examining potential response biases, and

(iii) determine validity based on relations to other variables by analyzing correlations between the questionnaire’s three scales and established measures of neuroticism, anxiety severity, and coping strategies.

Method

Procedure and Participants

In the first step of the scale development, we created a pilot version of questionnaire. The three-factor structure (regarding to theory) as well as all items were discussed with two experts: professor of education (The Maria Grzegorzewska University) and psychologist (University of Warsaw). The pilot version of the scale was presented to a group of 80 children and adolescents aged 8–17. The study participants are of childhood and adolescence age, according to Piaget’s theory (1980). Eight-year-olds are already able to separate their own point of view from the point of view of others. There are attempts to understand other points of view, to search for justification and evidence also for one’s own claims. Children gain the ability to begin to reflect, and actions are preceded by thinking about them. Based on the above assumptions, it was decided that a tool intended for children and adolescents aged 8–17 should be constructed. The lower age limit of 8 years results from the fact that younger children are not yet at the appropriate stage of development to understand and internalize the formulated topics of the questionnaire. In addition, children at this age are at the beginning of their education path, starting school. During their education in primary, secondary, and high school, they encounter many situations related to social exposure, both in extracurricular and school settings (i.e., Sülter, 2022). Considering the abovementioned developmental and social conditions, a decision was taken to make the questionnaire available to this age group of respondents. Results of this pilot study showed that younger respondents had no problems with understanding the items, while older respondents did not consider them too infantile.

The present study was divided into two stages, corresponding to analyses of internal structure of the scale (i) and Relations to Other Variables (ii). The sampling procedure was based on a random selection of six schools based on the SIO (Polish School Database System) stratified by Masovian District. Special, private, and community schools were not included. In the first stage, 326 respondents participated (182 girls; M_age = 12.58; SD = .20) and 144 boys; M_age = 11.46; SD = .20), while additional questionnaires could be distributed to more than half of the respondents. Therefore, 182 participants remained in the second stage of the study with additional questionnaires. Among them were 109 girls (M_age = 12.54; SD = 2.72) and 73 boys (M_age = 11.86; SD = 2.64). The study was conducted based on the ethical principles proposed by the APA (American Psychological Association, 2017). In the interest of maintaining ethical standards, the study received a positive opinion from the Ethics Committee of The Maria Grzegorzewska University (No. 64/2021). In schools, it was possible to conduct the survey in the paper form. The study was fully anonymous, which was communicated to both the guardians consenting to the child’s participation and the students themselves. In addition to the consent of parents or legal guardians, each study participant provided informed consent to participate in the research. Each participant could withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason.

Measures

SFS-CY – Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth (Jaros, 2022). The questionnaire consists of 33 items concerning different experiences before public speaking. It is dedicated to children and teenagers. A three-level response scale was proposed, where 1 means that the state described in the item is experienced rarely or never, and 3 represents often or always. The reliability of the tool was alpha .93, and separately for the three scales .82–.87. While original version of the questionnaire is in Polish, the article contains statements as well as the instruction translated into English, in accordance with back translation standards. In the first step, the statements were translated from Polish into English. Then, second translator unfamiliar with the statements in Polish translated them back into Polish. After comparing the two versions, appropriate corrections were made in the English version in such a way as to best reflect the linguistic context of the Polish statements. In the next step, the selected native speaker (psychologist) reviewed the last version of items (see Appendix 1).

STAIC – State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (Spielberger et al., 1973) in its Polish adaptation (Spielberger & Reheiser, 2005). Anxiety is a construct that takes part in the process of stage fright; therefore, the STAIC questionnaire was used in the validity analysis. Based on the same theory as the STAI, the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) distinguishes anxiety as a transient emotional state (state—C1 scale) from a general predisposition to anxiety behavior rooted in personality (trait—C2 scale). The state scale (C1) consists of 20 statements that asks children how they feel at a given moment. The trait scale (C2) also consists of 20 items, but subjects respond to these items by indicating how they generally feel. This study used only the trait subscale with a three-point scale of answers, where one means rarely, and three means frequently experiencing the feeling described in the item. The alpha value of internal consistency is .88–.89. The tool is easy to read and can also be administered verbally to younger children (Spielberger et al., 1973).

HYC – How You Cope scale (Juczyński & Ogińska-Bulik, 2009). The HYC scale is used to test coping with stress in childhood and adolescence. The HYC was constructed on the basis of the paradigm introduced by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). Coping with stress is “the ever-changing cognitive and behavioural effort to control specific external and internal demands assessed by the individual as taxing or exceeding their resources” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The scale includes both dispositional and situational ways of coping with stress. The HYC consists of 18 items (9 items in each scale) measuring three strategies: (1) Active Coping, (2) Concentration on Emotions, and (3) Seeking Social Support, separately for the dispositional and situational scales. A five-point scale of answers was proposed, where on the dispositional scale one means that the state described in the item is almost never experienced and five means almost always; and on a situational scale one means that the conduct described definitely has not taken place and five means has taken place definitely. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale is .86; the dispositional subscale reached a consistency of .68–.73; the situational subscale had a slightly lower consistency of .66–.71 (Rode et al., 2019). Measure was created in Polish. Adaptation has been done by the original authors.

BFQ-C – Big Five Questionnaire-Children (Barbaranelli et al., 1998) in its Polish adaptation (Cieciuch et al., 2016). Recent research indicated that people with a higher level of neuroticism and greater susceptibility to stress were also diagnosed with voice disorders (Scech, 2021), which may also suggest links with the phenomenon of stage fright. Therefore, to measure the level of neuroticism, we chose the Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C). The characteristics described in the Big Five model are widely accepted by researchers as the basic dimensions of personality description (Matthews et al., 2009; McCrae et al., 2005; Raad & Perugini, 2002; Strus & Cieciuch, 2014). The respondents provided answers on a five-point scale determining the frequency of a given behavior, where one means almost never and five means almost always. A set of items formulated in the first person creates a version of the BFQ-C intended for children. The reliability of the tool ranges from .81 to .92. The study used only the scale examining the level of neuroticism, that is, emotional instability: feeling fear, sadness, dissatisfaction, and anger (Cieciuch et al., 2016).

Validity Approach and Analysis Plan

The preferred definition of test validity (Brennan, 2006, p. 2) is “the degree of which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by used of tests.” It refers to the extent to which the total gathered evidence upholds the planned understanding of test scores as per their intended application (AERA, 2014). According to the “argument-based approach” proposed by Kane (1992), the purpose of validation is to provide a structured and consistent analysis of evidence to support the interpretation of test results. In accordance with the four components of reasoning proposed by Kane (1992), that is, scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and interpretation, we have formulated the following analysis plan. We interpret the results obtained on its basis, indicating practical implications and applications.

In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis was planned to test the theoretically assumed three-factor structure of the questionnaire. Models were created to test both the one-factor solution and the three-factor solution. Under the CFA, the following criteria were used: the absolute fit indicators: chi-square (χ2) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). It is assumed that values below .08 were acceptable for RMSEA, while values below .05 indicated a good fit. Values between .05 and .08 indicated poor fit (see: Hooper et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2004). The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) were also used as relative measures of fit of the tested models. The cutoff criterion for the CFI and TLI coefficients, indicating an acceptable fit, is .90 (Marsh et al., 2004; Wang & Wang, 2019). However, Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest a more stringent cutoff point of .95.

In the last step, in order to check convergent and discriminant validity, an analysis of the correlation of the results of the SFS-CY questionnaire obtained by the respondents with the results obtained in the other questionnaires was planned. For the results of the STAIC questionnaire, the strongest associations were expected, as both tools measure similar but not the same characteristics. The expected correlations with the severity of neuroticism measured on the basis of the BFQ-C questionnaire were moderate, consistent with results from other researchers who had reported similar associations with adults using tools for musicians. The expected correlations for individual scales of the HYC questionnaire were as follows: Active Coping and Seeking Social Support scales: negative and/or non-significant correlation, because undertaking activities related to eliminating experienced difficulties may be associated with better coping with experiencing stage fright. In the case of concentration on Emotions scale, we expected moderate correlations, because focusing on emotions, as a passive response to difficulties experienced, may be significantly associated with experiencing stage fright.

Results

Analysis of the Internal Structure of the Questionnaire

Based on the promising results of the exploratory factor analysis published earlier (Jaros, 2022), a confirmatory factor analysis was performed using Mplus 7.3 software (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2013) to check whether the design of the tool corresponds to the theoretically assumed three-factor structure. Structural equation modeling was performed with the WLSMV estimator dedicated to ordinal data. During the CFA analysis, two models with one and three factors loading 33 items of the SFS-CY scale were distinguished (N = 326).

The one-factor model, in which all statements are described by one global factor, was characterized by the following fit to the data: χ2 = 1391.24; df = 495; p < .001, RMSEA = .075; RMSEA 95% CI [.070–.079]; CFI = .864; TLI = .865. This match is not acceptable due to the CFI and TLI values below .90. The fit of the three-factor model was significantly better than the one-factor model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the existence of three mutually correlated factors describing the structure of the SFS-CY scale. The tested model turned out to be a very good fit to the data, χ2 = 842.59; df = 492; p < .001, RMSEA = .047; RMSEA 95% CI [.041–.052]; CFI = .947; TLI = .943. The details of this solution are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Individual Statements and the Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth (SFS-CY), Jaros, K.

English version	Polish version	M	SD	CFA—factor loadings
English version	Polish version	M	SD	F1	F2	F3
Q20 My palms are sweaty	P20 Pocą mi się dłonie	1.95	.80	.45
Q23 I feel hot	P23 Jest mi gorąco	1.78	.73	.51
Q28 I see flashing spots	P28 Mam mroczki przed oczami	1.25	.54	.56
Q9 My arms and/or legs are shaky	P9 Drżą mi ręce lub nogi, albo jedno i drugie na raz	1.84	.77	.71
Q6 There is a lump in my throat	P6 Czuję ucisk (gulę) w gardle	1.59	.73	.64
Q26 My mouth is dry	P26 Mam sucho w ustach	1.76	.74	.50
Q14 I have tight muscles	P14 Mam napięte mięśnie	1.77	.75	.62
Q31 I have rapid breathing	P31 Mam przyspieszony oddech	1.83	.76	.62
Q32 I am bemused	P32 Czuję się otumaniona/y	1.33	.56	.74
Q3 I feel pain or sick in my stomach	P3 Czuję ból albo ściskanie brzucha	1.89	.75	.59
Q1 I can feel my heart beating faster	P1 Czuję, że serce bije mi szybciej	2.38	.62	.70
Q17 My hands are cold	P17 Mam zimne dłonie	1.60	.78	.43
Q12 My voice is trembling	P12 Drży mi głos	1.66	.69	.62
Q33 I am worried the audience will misjudge me	P33 Martwię się, że widownia źle mnie oceni	1.96	.77		.71
Q11 I am worried my performance will be a failure	P11 Martwię się, że mój występ będzie porażką	1.90	.75		.83
Q13 I am worried the audience will laugh at me	P13 Martwię się, że widzowie będą się ze mnie śmiać	1.78	.77		.74
Q5 I am worried my performance will not be liked	P5 Martwię się, że mój występ się nie spodoba	2.13	.70		.71
Q22 I am worried that something will happen to my voice	P22 Martwię się, że mój głos zabrzmi nieczysto	2.03	.75		.73
Q8 I am worried I might be out of rhythm	P8 Martwię się, że mogę zgubić rytm	1.92	.74		.63
Q2 I am worried my voice will sound bad	P2 Martwię się, że mój głos źle zabrzmi	2.09	.74		.66
Q16 I am worried if I do not go well, I will not perform anymore	P16 Martwię się, że jak pójdzie mi źle to już więcej nie wystąpię	1.60	.76		.62
Q25 I am worried that I will have a problem making a sound	P25 Martwię się, że mogę mieć problem z wydobyciem głosu	1.65	.74		.70
Q19 I am worried I will forget or confuse the line	P19 Martwię się, że zapomnę lub pomylę tekst	2.35	.66		.67
Q30 I am worried I won’t finish the performance and run away	P30 Martwię się, że nie dotrwam do końca występu i ucieknę	1.28	.57		.68
Q27 I am worried I will run out of breath	P27 Martwię się, że zabraknie mi oddechu	1.69	.72		.54
Q4 I am concerned	P4 Niepokoję się	2.31	.65			.73
Q29 I am stressed	P29 Stresuję się	2.61	.56			.68
Q18 I am overwhelmed by fear	P18 Ogarnia mnie strach	1.96	.71			.83
Q15 I feel anxious	P15 Czuję niepokój	2.10	.71			.79
Q24 I am afraid	P24 Boję się	1.95	.78			.87
Q21 I am scared	P21 Jestem przestraszona/y	1.77	.73			.84
Q7 I am nervous	P7 Jestem zdenerwowana/y	2.37	.71			.68
Q10 I am ashamed	P10 Wstydzę się	2.06	.76			.60
omega coefficient (hierarchical omega in brackets)				.88 (.63)	.91 (.80)	.91 (.76)

Note. F1: somatic symptoms; F2: cognitive state; F3: emotions; all loadings (pattern) are significant at the level of p < .001.

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations of the latent scales of the questionnaire. The somatic symptoms scale correlates with the cognitive state scale at the level of .61, p < .001, and with the emotions scale at the level of .69, p < .001. In addition, the cognitive state scale correlates with the emotions scale at the level of .72, p < .001.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation of Latent Scales.

no.	Scale	M	SD	Intercorrelation
no.	Scale	M	SD	1	2	3
1	Somatic symptoms	22.32	5.17	1	.61	.69
2	Cognitive state	21.71	5.73		1	.72
3	Emotions	16.78	4.08			1

Note. All correlations are significant at p < .001.

Floor and Ceiling Effect Analysis

Table 3 illustrates floor and ceiling effects obtained for the items of the SFS-CY in the study. Regarding individual items, we found some items that showed a ceiling or floor effect. In the study, slightly more than the usually considered acceptable 15%–20% of participants (Jankowska et al., 2022; McHorney & Tarlov, 1995) achieved the highest or the lowest possible score in a few items of the SFS-CY. This may be acceptable especially since the SFS-CY questionnaire has a three-step scale of answers.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Floor and Ceiling Effects.

Item	Skewness	Kurtosis	Floor %	Ceiling %
1	−.239	−.795	14.8	33.5
2	−.092	−1.238	25.8	31.3
3	.264	−1.292	38.5	23.6
4	−.17	−.592	12.6	30.8
5	−.033	−1.058	24.7	26.9
6	1.041	−.249	61.5	12.1
7	−.419	−.91	14.8	41.2
8	.321	−1.101	38.5	19.2
9	.215	−1.138	34.6	21.4
10	.056	−1.28	30.8	27.5
11	.236	−1.328	37.9	24.7
12	.486	−.648	45.1	8.2
13	.638	−1.07	51.6	19.2
14	.413	−1.048	41.8	17.6
15	−.12	−.788	18.1	28.0
16	.867	−.731	58.2	16.5
17	.557	−1.364	52.7	25.3
18	.07	−.984	27.5	22.5
19	−.408	−.854	13.7	40.7
20	.212	−1.196	35.2	22.5
21	.367	−1.228	41.8	21.4
22	.058	−1.344	31.9	28.6
23	.463	−.887	42.9	14.3
24	.051	−1.097	28.0	24.7
25	.885	−.654	58.2	15.4
26	.414	−1.157	42.9	19.8
27	.714	−.965	53.8	18.1
28	1.879	2.411	77.5	6.6
29	−1.032	.051	6.0	61.5
30	2.074	3.156	80.2	6.6
31	.436	−.995	42.3	16.5
32	1.166	.357	64.8	5.5
33	.019	−1.285	29.7	28.6

Floor % = percentage floor effect; ceiling % = percentage ceiling effect.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity Analysis

In order to check the validity based on relations to other variables, a series of correlation analyses was carried out between the results of the questionnaire and the results of other scales (Table 4). Not all distributions of variables were consistent with the normal distribution according to the Shapiro–Wilk test, while descriptive statistics showed that skewness and kurtosis for individual variables did not exceed one (except for the kurtosis value for the “Concentration on Emotions” subscale of the dispositional part of the HYC tool, which was −1.02), and Spearman’s non-parametric correlations confirmed the parametric results; therefore, it was decided to report the Pearson correlation results.

Table 4.

Convergent and Discriminant Evidence of Relations of the SFS-CY Questionnaire to Other Variables.

Group	Measure	N	SFS-CY cognitive state	SFS-CY emotions	SFS-CY somatic symptoms
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC)	Trait Anxiety	182	.53*	.47*	.57*
Big Five Questionnaire-Children (BFQ-C)	Neuroticism	182	.41*	.34*	.45*
How You Cope (HYC)	Dispositional
	Active Coping	182	.01	−.12	−.02
	Concentration on Emotions	182	.35*	.28*	.39*
	Seeking Social Support	182	−.01	−.08	.00
	Situational
	Active Coping	182	.02	−.07	−.10
	Concentration on Emotions	182	.36*	.25*	.32*
	Seeking Social Support	182	.03	−.02	−.01

Note. Correlations are significant at p < .001 *.

Significant correlations between the individual scales were noted with the STAIC. Similar significant relationships, although of a slightly lower intensity, were identified in the case of the neuroticism scale with the BFQ-C. Correlation analysis of the SFS-CY results with the results obtained by the respondents in the HYC showed significant relationships only in the Concentration on Emotions scale. In the case of the Active Coping and Seeking Social Support scales, no significant relationships were identified. The results of the conducted analysis revealed high discriminant evidence of the relations of SFS-CY questionnaire to other variables.

Discussion

The analysis of the validity, based on internal consistency of the questionnaire as well as the analysis of convergent and discriminant evidence, yielded promising results. The reliability of the tool remains at a high, satisfactory level. Additionally, the floor and ceiling effect analysis shows no indications of removing any item. The value of the reliability coefficient calculated for the entire scale after removing each of the statements in turn did not change. In fact, there were a few statements with a ceiling or floor effect, but they remained at an acceptable level, given the three-stage scale of answers.

By analyzing the internal structure of the questionnaire based on confirmatory factor analysis, the assumed three-factor structure of the questionnaire was confirmed. The model for three factors turned out to be a very good fit to the data. The lack of fit of the model to the one-way solution also suggests that the results for each of the scales should be given separately, in addition to the global score of the entire scale.

The convergent evidence of the relations to other variables was confirmed by identifying significant relationships with the results of tools similar to the tool analyzed. Identified correlations with the STAIC, which measures anxiety as a trait, suggest that the Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth measures the area associated with anxiety and fear. In turn, the significant relationships between the Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth results and the neuroticism scale from the BFQ-C are consistent with previous research results, which identified similar relationships with the feeling of anxiety by the subjects (Uliaszek et al., 2010). Stage fright is associated with strong, negative emotions, which can affect the overall performance of the person experiencing them. Thus, further proof were the relationships with the Concentration on Emotions scale of the HYC questionnaire identified in the study. In turn, discriminant evidence was analyzed by checking the correlation of the SFS-CY results with the results obtained by the respondents on the Active Coping and Seeking Social Support scales of the HYC. The absence of significant relationships indicates that both tools measure different constructs.

The phenomenon of stage fright still raises many questions. Previous reports frequently have significant methodological shortcomings (especially in terms of monitored variables, selection of respondents, lack of control groups, etc.) or concern only musicians or adults. In view of the abovementioned research reports, it seems that stage fright should be the subject of analyses much more often because it is clearly perceived as a difficult problem, both mental health and social. While public speaking is an important part of the educational process (answering to the class, speaking at school events, competitions, etc.), less attention is given to children’s experiences with regard to their fear of public speaking. Stage fright is also a threat to the physical and psychological well-being of those affected (Salmon & Meyer, 1992). It should be noted that stage fright does not just pass, and a focused and professional approach can effectively reduce the problem (Mak, 2010). Thanks to the monitoring of stage fright and an attempt to reduce the level of stress before the event, the expression of acquired skills would be freer, and stage fright would remain only an element of healthy, non-paralyzing motivation (Curyło-Sikora & Wrona-Polańska, 2018). Research on interventions and work on stage fright reduction is still necessary to enrich pedagogical and psychological practice in this area. As research is often subject to methodological uncertainties, especially in the selection of participants and the recording of influencers, researchers recommend further exploration of this field (Fernholz et al., 2019).

The authors are aware of several limitations which the presented study is not free from. In the current study, it was not possible to re-check the questionnaire results, so test–retest analyses were not performed. The pilot study was conducted only on a smaller sample of respondents (N = 19; age: 8–12 years). There was a significant and strong relationship (r = .64; p = .003) between the results from measurements I and II (test–retest) in the pilot study. The obtained results were satisfactory; however, in future studies, a similar analysis should be carried out on a larger sample. In addition, the first version of the questionnaire described in this article was prepared for children and adolescents. Moreover, the authors are aware that stage fright also affects adults. Many public speaking professionals, including teachers, trainers, managers, and politicians, also experience public speaking anxiety. Stage fright before speaking is very common for both professionals and students (Jangir & Govinda, 2018). Therefore, the next steps should be the standardization of the tool for older users. Future work on the questionnaire should also include the establishment of norms for individual age groups.

Practical Implications

While public speaking is an important part of the education process (answering to the class, speaking at school events, competitions, etc.), minimal attention is given to children’s experiences with regard to their fear of public speaking. Meanwhile, failure to manage anxiety and stressors in the school environment can have a negative impact not only on children’s current academic performance but also on their future health (Fernández-Sogorb et al., 2021). The results of scientific research also show that the effects of stage fright negatively affect their well-being (Ryan, 2005). In view of the abovementioned scientific reports, stage fright should be the subject of research more often because it is clearly perceived as a difficult problem, both health and social. Monitoring its level in children and adolescents, assessing the severity of individual factors, and working on reducing it is therefore not only justified but also necessary. Unfortunately, none of the tools mentioned in the text are appropriate for examining performer-speaker stage fright, nor are they appropriate for examining children. Developing a questionnaire to assess stage fright in children prior to performances will address a notable gap in research concerning the stress levels children experience when faced with public exposure.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth: Development and Validation of a New Questionnaire

Supplemental Material for Stage Fright Scale – Children & Youth: Development and Validation of a New Questionnaire by Kamil Jaros and Aleksandra Gajda in Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kamil Jaros

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Rabasca

(1998). Manuale del BFQ-C. Big Five Questionnaire Children. OS Organizazioni Speciali.

Barlow

D. H.

(2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. American Psychologist 55(11), 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.11.1247

Bascomb

J. S.

(2019). Performing arts and performance anxiety (p. 1184).Theses, Dissertations and Capstones.

Brennan

R. L.

(2006). Perspectives on the evolution and future of educational measurement. In Brennan

R. L.

(Ed), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 1–16): American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers.

Chen

Wang

Ling

(2022). Measurement invariance of the emotion regulation questionnaire for children and adolescents in Chinese and American adolescents samples. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221125312.

Cieciuch

Toczyłowska-Niemiec

Barbaranelli

(2016). Kwestionariuszowy pomiar pięciu cech osobowości dzieci i dorastających. Polska adaptacja Big Five Questionnaire-Children (BFQ-C) [Questionnaire measurement of five personality traits in children and adolescents. Polish adaptation of Big Five Questionnaire-Children (BFQ-C)]. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 21(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843879PR.16.011.5089

Curyło-Sikora

(2017). Radzenie sobie z tremą a zdrowie młodzieży uzdolnionej muzycznie. Rozprawa doktorska. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.

10.

Curyło-Sikora

Wrona-Polańska

(2018). Zdrowie młodzieży uzdolnionej muzycznie w kontekście radzenia sobie z tremą. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 23(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843879PR.18.005.8600.

11.

Fernández-Sogorb

Sanmartín

Vicent

Gonzálvez

(2021). Identifying profiles of anxiety in late childhood and exploring their relationship with school-based distress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030948

12.

Fernholz

Mumm

J. L.

Plag

Noeres

Rotter

Willich

S. N.

Ströhle

Berghöfer

Schmidt

(2019). Performance anxiety in professional musicians: A systematic review on prevalence, risk factors and clinical treatment effects. Psychological Medicine, 49(14), 2287–2306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719001910

13.

Herbein

Golle

Tibus

Schiefer

Trautwein

Zettler

(2018). Fostering elementary school children’s public speaking skills: A randomized controlled trial. Learning and Instruction, 55, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.008.

14.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R

15.

Hornby

A. S.

(2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English: Oxford University Press.

16.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

17.

Jangir

S. K.

Govinda

R. B.

(2018). Efficacy of behaviour modification techniques to reduce stage fright: A study. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.15614/ijpp.v9i01.11756

18.

Jankowska

D. M.

Omelańczuk

Pisula

Karwowski

(2022). Evaluation of the Polish version of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale in parents of typically developing children and children with autism spectrum disorders. Child: Care, Health and Development, 48(3), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12945

19.

Jaros

(2022). Zaburzenia głosu a trema przed występem. Skala Samopoczucia Dzieci i Młodzieży Przed Występem – walidacja narzędzia badawczego. Logopaedica Lodziensia, 40(6), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.18778/2544-7238.06.06.

20.

Juczyński

Ogińska-Bulik

(2009). Narzędzia pomiaru stresu i radzenia sobie ze stresem : Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.

21.

Kane

M. T.

(1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527

22.

Kępińska-Welbel

(1991). Trema u muzyków. In Psychologia muzyki – problemy, zadania, perspektywy: materiały Międzynarodowego Seminarium Psychologów Muzyki (pp. 469–474). AMFC.

23.

Kozina

(2012). The LAOM multidimensional anxiety scale for measuring anxiety in children and adolescents: Addressing the psychometric properties of the scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911423362

24.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

25.

Lewandowska-Tarasiuk

(2001). Sztuka wystąpień publicznych.: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.

26.

Mak

(2010). Peak performance & reducing stage fright: Implementation research HeartMath training programme with students of the Prince Claus Conservatoire. Research Group Lifelong Learning in Music & the Arts.

27.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Wen

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

28.

Matthews

Deary

I. J.

Whiteman

M. C.

(2009). Personality traits (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

29.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr Martin

T. A.

(2005). The NEO–PI–3: A more readable revised neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05

30.

McHorney

C. A.

Tarlov

A. R.

(1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 4(4), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882

31.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998– 2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.): Authors.

32.

Nagel

J. J.

Himle

D. P.

Papsdorf

J. D.

(1981). Coping with performance anxiety. NATS Bulletin, 37(4), 26–33.

33.

Nagel

J. J.

Himle

D. P.

Papsdorf

J. D.

(1989). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 17(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735689171

34.

Osborne

M. S.

Kenny

D. T.

Holsomback

(2005). Assessment of music performance anxiety in late childhood: A validation study of the music performance anxiety inventory for adolescents (MPAI-A). International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.312

35.

Piaget

(1980). Six psychological studies. Harvester Press.

36.

Raad

B. D. E.

Perugini

M. E.

(2002). Big five factor assessment: Introduction. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

37.

Raducanu

C. A.

(2010). Performance anxiety in piano playing. In Munteanu

Raducanu

Dutica

Croitoru

Balas

V. E.

(Eds), AMTA’10 Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International conference Acoustics & music: Theory & applications (pp. 186–189): World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) Stevens Point.

38.

Rode

Marganski

A. J.

Januszek

(2019). The impact of physical abuse & exposure to parental IPV on young adolescents in Poland: A clinical assessment and comparison of psychological outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 34(5), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00036-4

39.

Rubin

J. S.

Greenberg

(2002). Psychogenic voice disorders in performers: A psychodynamic model. Journal of Voice, 16(4), 544–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0892-1997(02)00129-7

40.

Ryan

(2005). Experience of musical performance anxiety in elementary school children. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.331

41.

Salmon

P. G.

(1990). A psychological perspective on musical performance anxiety: A review of the literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 2–11. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/45440271.

42.

Salmon

P. G.

Meyer

R. G.

(1992). Notes from the green room. Coping with stress and anxiety in musical performance. Levington Books.

43.

Scech

(2021). Emotional stress as a risk factor of voice disorders in professional singers. Pomeranian Journal of Life Sciences, 67(2), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.21164/pomjlifesci.753

44.

Shyam

S. S.

Joy

E. I.

(2016). Public speaking skills. Kochi: ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute.

45.

Silvers

J. A.

McRae

Gabrieli

J. D.

Gross

J. J.

Remy

K. A.

Ochsner

K. N.

(2012). Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence. Emotion, 12(6), 1235–1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028297

46.

Spielberger

C. D.

Edwards

C. D.

Montouri

Lushene

(1973). State-trait anxiety inventory for children. APA PsycTests.

47.

Spielberger

C. D.

Reheiser

E. C.

(2005). Occupational stress and health (vol. 441). Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology.

48.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1987.tb02243.x

49.

Strus

Cieciuch

(2014). Poza wielką piątkę – przegląd nowych modeli struktury osobowości. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 19(1), 17–49. https://doi.org/10.14656/PFP20140102.

50.

Sülter

R. E.

Ketelaar

P. E.

Lange

W. G.

(2022). SpeakApp-Kids! Virtual reality training to reduce fear of public speaking in children–A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 178, 104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104384.

51.

Szulc

Olszak

(2012). Wybrane psychologiczne wyznaczniki tremy koncertujących muzyków profesjonalistów i amatorów. Estetyka i Krytyka, 25(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.5604/16431243.1036307

52.

Tokarz

Kaleńska-Rodzaj

(2005). Skala Samopoczucia muzyka przed występem Andrew Steptoe’a, Helen Fidler: Wstępne opracowanie wersji polskiej. Psychologia rozwojowa, 10(1), 125–134. https://core.ac.uk/reader/229238220.

53.

Topoğlu

Karagulle

(2018). General health status, music performance anxiety, and coping methods of musicians working in Turkish state symphony orchestras: A cross-sectional study. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 33(2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.21091/mppa.2018.2019

54.

Uliaszek

Zinbarg

R. E.

Mineka

Craske

M. G.

Sutton

J. M.

Griffith

J. W.

Rose

Waters

Hammen

(2010). The role of neuroticism and extraversion in the stress–anxiety and stress–depression relationships. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(4), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800903377264

55.

Van Niekerk

R. E.

Klein

A. M.

Allart-van Dam

Hudson

J. L.

Rinck

Hutschemaekers

G. J.

Becker

E. S.

(2017). The role of cognitive factors in childhood social anxiety: Social threat thoughts and social skills perception. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-016-9821-x.

56.

Wang

(2019). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. John Wiley & Sons.

57.

Wanke

E. M.

Kunath

E. K.

Koch

Davenport

Weisser

Groneberg

D. A.

Vitzthum

(2012). Survey of health problems in musical theater students: A pilot study. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 27(4), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.21091/mppa.2012.4038.

58.

Winkler

(2006). Wystąpienie jako forma komunikowania (pp. 49–63). Zeszyty Naukowe/Akademia Ekonomiczna w Krakowie.

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

0.13 MB