Journal of Music Therapy, 51(4), 2014, 382–395 doi:10.1093/jmt/thu029 © the American Music Therapy Association 2014. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]
Music Therapy Career Aptitude and Generalized Self-Efficacy in Music Therapy Students Hayoung A. Lim, PhD, MT-BC Oral Roberts University
University of Incarnate Word Background: While the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) provides a measure of student aptitude, measures of perceived self-efficacy may provide additional information about a students’ suitability for a music therapy career. Objective: As a first step in determining whether future studies examining combined scores from the MTCAT and the Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale would be useful to help predict academic success in music therapy, we explored the internal reliability of these two measures in a sample of undergraduate students, and the relationship (concurrent validity) of the measures to one another. Methods: Eighty undergraduate music therapy students (14 male; 66 female) completed the MTCAT and GSE. To determine internal reliability we conducted tests of normality and calculated Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for each measure. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to ascertain the strength of the relationship between the MTCAT and GSE. Results: MTCAT scores were normally distributed and had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.706). GSE scores were not normally distributed, but had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.748). The correlation coefficient analysis revealed that MTCAT and GSE scores were moderately correlated ((r = 0.426, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: MTCAT scores can be used to partially determine perceived self-efficacy in undergraduate music therapy students; however, Hayoung A. Lim, Ph.D., MT-BC is Associate Professor of Music Therapy and Director of Music Therapy at Oral Roberts University. Email: [email protected] Phone: 918-495-7505. Cathy M. Befi, MM, MT-BC, is adjunct professor at the University of the Incarnate Word, where she teaches music therapy. The authors of this study would like to thank Professor Karen Miller, Dr. Janice Dvorkin, Dr. Robert Krout, Dr. Nancy Hadsell, and Dr. Teresa Lesiuk for facilitating administration of the survey to their students and all of the music therapy students who took part in this study.
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
Cathy M. Befi, MM, MT-BC
Vol. 51, No. 4
383
a more complete picture of student suitability for music therapy may be determined by administering the GSE alongside the MTCAT. Future studies are needed to determine whether combined MTCAT and GSE scores can be used to predict student success in an undergraduate music therapy program. Keywords: music therapy, career aptitude, self-efficacy Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
In 2010–2011, the median annual cost to attend a four-year university in the United States was $22,092 (U.S. Department of Education, 2012b) and, according to a survey by the Project on Student Debt, two-thirds of students who graduated in 2011 carried student loan debt, with a mean amount of $26,600 (Institute for College Access & Success, 2012). Among students who enroll in four-year universities, only 58% graduate within six years (U.S. Department of Education, 2012a) and 50 to 75% of students will change their major at least once during college (Kittendorf, 2012). Each time a student changes his or her major it adds a semester to the average time required to graduate (Colorado State University, 2012). Upon choosing a degree plan or major field of study, students are required to commit significant financial and temporal resources to achieve their education and career goals. Career aptitude testing offers guidance to students who are trying to choose career options and optimal courses of academic study. It is important for students to make informed choices based at least partly on their aptitude for their subjects of interest. Career aptitude tests can provide a starting point in career decision making by increasing students’ self-awareness about which options might be best suited for them. According to Harrington and Schafer (1996), knowledge of one’s aptitude develops over time and is used in self-planning. Accurate career aptitude testing can aid students in determining their strengths or their academic strength when it comes time to declare a major in college. The Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is highly specific to the field of music therapy, and was constructed to meet the need for affective measures in music therapy aptitude. The objectives of the MTCAT are as follows: (a) To increase student awareness of occupational preferences before studying music therapy; (b) To assist the student in expressing personal view and value in therapy; (c) To assist the student in expressing personal value in
384
Journal of Music Therapy
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
human development; (d) To assist the student in expressing personal musical experience; (e) To discuss music therapy as a possible career for the student; (f) To assist the student in expressing conviction or level of devotion in music therapy. The objectives of the MTCAT were developed and classified based on the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives – Affective domain (Payne, 2003). According to the taxonomy of educational objectives, affective domains in music therapy might include the following classifications: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing and characterization of a value or value complex (Lim, 2011). In designing the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT), three psychological components were considered as target areas: personality, interest, and aptitude (Lim, 2011). Given these three components, it is theorized that a student taking the MTCAT might gain personal insight into how they would function socially and emotionally as a clinical or professional music therapist, how well they would perform in a music therapy job, and to what degree they would find life satisfaction as a music therapist. The internal consistency of the MTCAT was high (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha = 0.79, n = 113) (Kline, 1999). The Pearson correlation value between each question and total score (i.e., item-to-total correlation) was obtained, and ranged from 0.287 to 0.583 (Lim, 2011). Personality, one of the three components targeted in the design of the MTCAT, consists of self-awareness and personal value, two areas that are essential to the concept of perceived self-efficacy. In including these criteria in the design of the MTCAT, Lim’s intention was to devise a test that not only measures aptitude itself, but also considers it in the context of the affective measures of career aptitude (Lim, 2011). Lim suggests that the MTCAT, while a statistically valid form of aptitude measurement, is best paired with an evaluation of affective domains to more effectively determine a student’s suitability for music therapy as a career choice. While career aptitude testing is important in helping a person choose a career path, it is only one part of a larger equation. As Lim (2011) suggests, a second, more affective evaluation should be paired with career aptitude testing to provide a clearer, more informed picture of the ideal options for a student’s future career path. One such commonly used affective evaluation is perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the measure of a person’s belief in his or her own ability to complete tasks and reach goals. Self-efficacy beliefs
Vol. 51, No. 4
385
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
influence how people think, motivate themselves, and behave, and the stronger a person’s perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goals they set for themselves and the more firmly they are committed to achieving them (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy has been used as a predictor of many different beliefs and behaviors, both general and specific, and a person’s self-efficacy can vary across different domains of functioning or even across various facets within the same domain (Bandura, 2011; Caprara, Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009). The concept of self-efficacy was first presented by Bandura (1977), who described expectations of personal efficacy as contingent on contextual factors, and varying accordingly based on a person’s coping capabilities in different situations. Bandura’s original theory of self-efficacy goes on to draw a distinction between efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy, defining the former as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce a desired outcome, and the latter as a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome. This is a critical distinction, in that it is important to realize that a person may be fully capable of understanding the necessary steps to produce an outcome but feel themselves incapable of completing these steps. Similarly, they may feel fully capable of producing a successful outcome but misunderstand the necessary steps required to do so. When attempting to predict a person’s success within a chosen career path using a tool such as the MTCAT, it is important to ensure that both efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy are accurately measured. Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, and Schwarzer (2005) found that perceived generalized self-efficacy is positively associated with optimism, self-regulation, and self-esteem, as well as with academic performance across five different countries. Negative associations were found between perceived generalized self-efficacy and depression and anxiety. There is not much research regarding perceived self-efficacy as it pertains to music therapists or music therapy students. In a study comparing the effect of two different music therapy interventions on the mood, anxiety, job engagement, and self-efficacy on student music therapists, Bae (2011) used the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) to measure perceived self-efficacy in graduate music therapy students before and after they received music therapy treatment. Bae (2011) found that for
386
Journal of Music Therapy
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
both drumming interventions and music and imagery interventions, perceived self-efficacy among participants improved after music therapy treatment, though the amount of improvement between the two conditions was not significantly different. A review of existing literature reveals the need for more effective career aptitude testing in general (Julien, 1999; Reese & Miller, 2006), as well as in the field of music therapy specifically (Lim, 2011). At the time of this writing, the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is the only available aptitude test designed specifically for the field of music therapy (Lim, 2011). This makes it a logical choice upon which to base further music therapy career decision-making research. Several studies point to perceived selfefficacy as an influential component in choosing a career (Prediger & Swaney, 1992; Reese & Miller, 2006; Taylor & Betz, 1983). While the MTCAT was designed with self-efficacy components in mind, research is necessary to determine how accurately these components are measured when compared to a separate self-efficacy test. Since there is no existing tool to measure perceived self-efficacy in the field of music therapy, adaptability of a more generalized existing tool was an important consideration. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Test (GSE) was designed to assess a general sense of perceived self-efficacy regarding coping mechanisms and adaptation skills. This tool was designed to measure outcome expectancy, which is defined as the belief that one’s actions are responsible for successful outcomes. (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The GSE was selected for this survey for its ability to be adapted to many different forms of self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), as well as its relative simplicity to administer and score. Perceived self-efficacy may represent an optimistic sense of personal competence that seems to be a pervasive phenomenon accounting for motivation and accomplishments in music therapy students. The Generalized Self-Efficacy scale, developed to measure this construct at the broadest level, has been adapted to many languages. The psychometric properties of this instrument are examined among 19,120 participants from 25 countries (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, n = 19,120). (Scholz, Gutierrez-Dona, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). In order to determine whether future studies examining combined scores from the MTCAT and GSE would be useful to help predict future success in the music therapy profession, we first
Vol. 51, No. 4
387
need to explore the internal reliability of these measures and determine their relationship to one another (i.e., concurrent validity). As such, the specific research questions guiding the study were as follows:
Methods Participants Eighty students who had completed at least one semester of undergraduate music therapy coursework participated in the study. Participants were over eighteen years of age, English speakers, and were currently enrolled in undergraduate music therapy courses at one of eight large universities in the Midwestern, South Central and Southeastern United States. Students who met these criteria were given access to the survey by their professors and asked to complete it voluntarily. There was no compensation for participation in the study. Assessments The Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is a 20-question test that is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (Lim, 2011). The scale values are as follows: Strongly Disagree (1 point), Disagree (2 points), Undecided (3 points), Agree (4 points), Strongly Agree (5 points). The test is scored by adding the value of each selected response to determine an overall score (minimum score of 20, maximum score of 100), with the point values for questions #5, 6, 7, 8, and 18 inverted due to the intention of the questions. (Please See the Appendix A for MTCAT). The Generalized Self Efficacy Scale (GSE) is a 10-question test that is scored on a 4-point Likert scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The scale values are as follows: Not at all true (1), Hardly true (2), Moderately true (3), Exactly true (4). The test is scored by adding the value of each selected response to determine an overall score (minimum score of 10, maximum score of 40).
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
1. What is the internal reliability of the MTCAT and GSE in a sample of undergraduate music therapy students? 2. What is the relationship (concurrent validity) of the MTCAT scores to GSE scores in undergraduate music therapy students?
Journal of Music Therapy
388
Both tests were administered via a single online survey. Music therapy department chairs at each participating university made the survey link available to study participants via email. Procedure
Statistical Analyses In order to determine the internal reliability of the MTCAT and GSE in a sample of undergraduate music therapy students, a test of normality (i.e., Kolmogorov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk) using SPSS 20 was conducted to determine whether the data resulting from each test were normally distributed. Additionally, the Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha was calculated for each test. This coefficient measures the extent to which items positively correlate with one another. According to Kline (1999), a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.9 is considered very high, a score between 0.7 and 0.9 is considered high, a score between 0.6 and 0.7 is considered moderate, a score between 0.5 and 0.6 is considered low, and a score below 0.5 is considered unacceptable. Item-to-total correlation coefficients for both the MTCAT and the GSE were also determined. To examine the concurrent validity or relationship between the MTCAT and the GSE total scores, Pearson correlation coefficients were generated using SPSS 20. Results Descriptive Statistics One hundred students responded to the study, and 80 responses were used in statistical analysis (20 responses were either from nonmusic therapy majors, repeat results from the same student, or not fully completed). Responses were received from 14 male students and 66 female students. Eleven respondents were freshmen, 12 were sophomores, 35 were juniors, and 22 were seniors. For the 80 responses that qualified, a frequency distribution was completed. Mean, median, mode, skewness, kurtosis, and standard deviation were calculated for both the MTCAT and the GSE (see Table 1).
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
The MTCAT and GSE were administered to participants via an online survey, which included an embedded IRB-approved consent form. Each test took approximately 10 min to complete. Participants were also asked to provide their year in school and gender.
Vol. 51, No. 4
389
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for MTCAT and GSE GSE_total
80 88.90 89.50 88 5.271 -.599 .144 74 99
80 33.49 34.00 35 3.475 -.473 -.136 23 40
MTCAT Internal Consistency The range of scores on the MTCAT was 74 to 99. The mean score was 88.9 (N = 80, SD = 5.27). A test of normality concluded that the scores for the MTCAT did follow a normal distribution (see Figure 1). The internal consistency of the MTCAT was high (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.706), which is lower than the result found in the original study (Lim, 2011). GSE Internal Consistency The range of scores on the GSE was 23 to 40. The mean score was 33.49 (N = 80, SD = 3.475). The test of normality indicated that the scores for the GSE did follow a normal distribution (see Figure 2). The internal consistency of the GSE was high (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.748). Correlation Analysis To ascertain the strength of the relationships between the MTCAT and GSE, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated. The results of the correlation coefficient analysis revealed that MTCAT and GSE were moderately correlated with one another (r = 0.426, p
Music Therapy Career Aptitude and Generalized Self-Efficacy in Music Therapy Students Hayoung A. Lim, PhD, MT-BC Oral Roberts University
University of Incarnate Word Background: While the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) provides a measure of student aptitude, measures of perceived self-efficacy may provide additional information about a students’ suitability for a music therapy career. Objective: As a first step in determining whether future studies examining combined scores from the MTCAT and the Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale would be useful to help predict academic success in music therapy, we explored the internal reliability of these two measures in a sample of undergraduate students, and the relationship (concurrent validity) of the measures to one another. Methods: Eighty undergraduate music therapy students (14 male; 66 female) completed the MTCAT and GSE. To determine internal reliability we conducted tests of normality and calculated Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for each measure. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to ascertain the strength of the relationship between the MTCAT and GSE. Results: MTCAT scores were normally distributed and had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.706). GSE scores were not normally distributed, but had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.748). The correlation coefficient analysis revealed that MTCAT and GSE scores were moderately correlated ((r = 0.426, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: MTCAT scores can be used to partially determine perceived self-efficacy in undergraduate music therapy students; however, Hayoung A. Lim, Ph.D., MT-BC is Associate Professor of Music Therapy and Director of Music Therapy at Oral Roberts University. Email: [email protected] Phone: 918-495-7505. Cathy M. Befi, MM, MT-BC, is adjunct professor at the University of the Incarnate Word, where she teaches music therapy. The authors of this study would like to thank Professor Karen Miller, Dr. Janice Dvorkin, Dr. Robert Krout, Dr. Nancy Hadsell, and Dr. Teresa Lesiuk for facilitating administration of the survey to their students and all of the music therapy students who took part in this study.
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
Cathy M. Befi, MM, MT-BC
Vol. 51, No. 4
383
a more complete picture of student suitability for music therapy may be determined by administering the GSE alongside the MTCAT. Future studies are needed to determine whether combined MTCAT and GSE scores can be used to predict student success in an undergraduate music therapy program. Keywords: music therapy, career aptitude, self-efficacy Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
In 2010–2011, the median annual cost to attend a four-year university in the United States was $22,092 (U.S. Department of Education, 2012b) and, according to a survey by the Project on Student Debt, two-thirds of students who graduated in 2011 carried student loan debt, with a mean amount of $26,600 (Institute for College Access & Success, 2012). Among students who enroll in four-year universities, only 58% graduate within six years (U.S. Department of Education, 2012a) and 50 to 75% of students will change their major at least once during college (Kittendorf, 2012). Each time a student changes his or her major it adds a semester to the average time required to graduate (Colorado State University, 2012). Upon choosing a degree plan or major field of study, students are required to commit significant financial and temporal resources to achieve their education and career goals. Career aptitude testing offers guidance to students who are trying to choose career options and optimal courses of academic study. It is important for students to make informed choices based at least partly on their aptitude for their subjects of interest. Career aptitude tests can provide a starting point in career decision making by increasing students’ self-awareness about which options might be best suited for them. According to Harrington and Schafer (1996), knowledge of one’s aptitude develops over time and is used in self-planning. Accurate career aptitude testing can aid students in determining their strengths or their academic strength when it comes time to declare a major in college. The Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is highly specific to the field of music therapy, and was constructed to meet the need for affective measures in music therapy aptitude. The objectives of the MTCAT are as follows: (a) To increase student awareness of occupational preferences before studying music therapy; (b) To assist the student in expressing personal view and value in therapy; (c) To assist the student in expressing personal value in
384
Journal of Music Therapy
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
human development; (d) To assist the student in expressing personal musical experience; (e) To discuss music therapy as a possible career for the student; (f) To assist the student in expressing conviction or level of devotion in music therapy. The objectives of the MTCAT were developed and classified based on the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives – Affective domain (Payne, 2003). According to the taxonomy of educational objectives, affective domains in music therapy might include the following classifications: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing and characterization of a value or value complex (Lim, 2011). In designing the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT), three psychological components were considered as target areas: personality, interest, and aptitude (Lim, 2011). Given these three components, it is theorized that a student taking the MTCAT might gain personal insight into how they would function socially and emotionally as a clinical or professional music therapist, how well they would perform in a music therapy job, and to what degree they would find life satisfaction as a music therapist. The internal consistency of the MTCAT was high (Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha = 0.79, n = 113) (Kline, 1999). The Pearson correlation value between each question and total score (i.e., item-to-total correlation) was obtained, and ranged from 0.287 to 0.583 (Lim, 2011). Personality, one of the three components targeted in the design of the MTCAT, consists of self-awareness and personal value, two areas that are essential to the concept of perceived self-efficacy. In including these criteria in the design of the MTCAT, Lim’s intention was to devise a test that not only measures aptitude itself, but also considers it in the context of the affective measures of career aptitude (Lim, 2011). Lim suggests that the MTCAT, while a statistically valid form of aptitude measurement, is best paired with an evaluation of affective domains to more effectively determine a student’s suitability for music therapy as a career choice. While career aptitude testing is important in helping a person choose a career path, it is only one part of a larger equation. As Lim (2011) suggests, a second, more affective evaluation should be paired with career aptitude testing to provide a clearer, more informed picture of the ideal options for a student’s future career path. One such commonly used affective evaluation is perceived self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the measure of a person’s belief in his or her own ability to complete tasks and reach goals. Self-efficacy beliefs
Vol. 51, No. 4
385
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
influence how people think, motivate themselves, and behave, and the stronger a person’s perceived self-efficacy, the higher the goals they set for themselves and the more firmly they are committed to achieving them (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy has been used as a predictor of many different beliefs and behaviors, both general and specific, and a person’s self-efficacy can vary across different domains of functioning or even across various facets within the same domain (Bandura, 2011; Caprara, Vecchione, Capanna, & Mebane, 2009). The concept of self-efficacy was first presented by Bandura (1977), who described expectations of personal efficacy as contingent on contextual factors, and varying accordingly based on a person’s coping capabilities in different situations. Bandura’s original theory of self-efficacy goes on to draw a distinction between efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy, defining the former as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce a desired outcome, and the latter as a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a certain outcome. This is a critical distinction, in that it is important to realize that a person may be fully capable of understanding the necessary steps to produce an outcome but feel themselves incapable of completing these steps. Similarly, they may feel fully capable of producing a successful outcome but misunderstand the necessary steps required to do so. When attempting to predict a person’s success within a chosen career path using a tool such as the MTCAT, it is important to ensure that both efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy are accurately measured. Luszczynska, Gutiérrez-Doña, and Schwarzer (2005) found that perceived generalized self-efficacy is positively associated with optimism, self-regulation, and self-esteem, as well as with academic performance across five different countries. Negative associations were found between perceived generalized self-efficacy and depression and anxiety. There is not much research regarding perceived self-efficacy as it pertains to music therapists or music therapy students. In a study comparing the effect of two different music therapy interventions on the mood, anxiety, job engagement, and self-efficacy on student music therapists, Bae (2011) used the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) to measure perceived self-efficacy in graduate music therapy students before and after they received music therapy treatment. Bae (2011) found that for
386
Journal of Music Therapy
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
both drumming interventions and music and imagery interventions, perceived self-efficacy among participants improved after music therapy treatment, though the amount of improvement between the two conditions was not significantly different. A review of existing literature reveals the need for more effective career aptitude testing in general (Julien, 1999; Reese & Miller, 2006), as well as in the field of music therapy specifically (Lim, 2011). At the time of this writing, the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is the only available aptitude test designed specifically for the field of music therapy (Lim, 2011). This makes it a logical choice upon which to base further music therapy career decision-making research. Several studies point to perceived selfefficacy as an influential component in choosing a career (Prediger & Swaney, 1992; Reese & Miller, 2006; Taylor & Betz, 1983). While the MTCAT was designed with self-efficacy components in mind, research is necessary to determine how accurately these components are measured when compared to a separate self-efficacy test. Since there is no existing tool to measure perceived self-efficacy in the field of music therapy, adaptability of a more generalized existing tool was an important consideration. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Test (GSE) was designed to assess a general sense of perceived self-efficacy regarding coping mechanisms and adaptation skills. This tool was designed to measure outcome expectancy, which is defined as the belief that one’s actions are responsible for successful outcomes. (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The GSE was selected for this survey for its ability to be adapted to many different forms of self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), as well as its relative simplicity to administer and score. Perceived self-efficacy may represent an optimistic sense of personal competence that seems to be a pervasive phenomenon accounting for motivation and accomplishments in music therapy students. The Generalized Self-Efficacy scale, developed to measure this construct at the broadest level, has been adapted to many languages. The psychometric properties of this instrument are examined among 19,120 participants from 25 countries (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86, n = 19,120). (Scholz, Gutierrez-Dona, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). In order to determine whether future studies examining combined scores from the MTCAT and GSE would be useful to help predict future success in the music therapy profession, we first
Vol. 51, No. 4
387
need to explore the internal reliability of these measures and determine their relationship to one another (i.e., concurrent validity). As such, the specific research questions guiding the study were as follows:
Methods Participants Eighty students who had completed at least one semester of undergraduate music therapy coursework participated in the study. Participants were over eighteen years of age, English speakers, and were currently enrolled in undergraduate music therapy courses at one of eight large universities in the Midwestern, South Central and Southeastern United States. Students who met these criteria were given access to the survey by their professors and asked to complete it voluntarily. There was no compensation for participation in the study. Assessments The Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) is a 20-question test that is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (Lim, 2011). The scale values are as follows: Strongly Disagree (1 point), Disagree (2 points), Undecided (3 points), Agree (4 points), Strongly Agree (5 points). The test is scored by adding the value of each selected response to determine an overall score (minimum score of 20, maximum score of 100), with the point values for questions #5, 6, 7, 8, and 18 inverted due to the intention of the questions. (Please See the Appendix A for MTCAT). The Generalized Self Efficacy Scale (GSE) is a 10-question test that is scored on a 4-point Likert scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The scale values are as follows: Not at all true (1), Hardly true (2), Moderately true (3), Exactly true (4). The test is scored by adding the value of each selected response to determine an overall score (minimum score of 10, maximum score of 40).
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
1. What is the internal reliability of the MTCAT and GSE in a sample of undergraduate music therapy students? 2. What is the relationship (concurrent validity) of the MTCAT scores to GSE scores in undergraduate music therapy students?
Journal of Music Therapy
388
Both tests were administered via a single online survey. Music therapy department chairs at each participating university made the survey link available to study participants via email. Procedure
Statistical Analyses In order to determine the internal reliability of the MTCAT and GSE in a sample of undergraduate music therapy students, a test of normality (i.e., Kolmogorov-Smirnov & Shapiro-Wilk) using SPSS 20 was conducted to determine whether the data resulting from each test were normally distributed. Additionally, the Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha was calculated for each test. This coefficient measures the extent to which items positively correlate with one another. According to Kline (1999), a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.9 is considered very high, a score between 0.7 and 0.9 is considered high, a score between 0.6 and 0.7 is considered moderate, a score between 0.5 and 0.6 is considered low, and a score below 0.5 is considered unacceptable. Item-to-total correlation coefficients for both the MTCAT and the GSE were also determined. To examine the concurrent validity or relationship between the MTCAT and the GSE total scores, Pearson correlation coefficients were generated using SPSS 20. Results Descriptive Statistics One hundred students responded to the study, and 80 responses were used in statistical analysis (20 responses were either from nonmusic therapy majors, repeat results from the same student, or not fully completed). Responses were received from 14 male students and 66 female students. Eleven respondents were freshmen, 12 were sophomores, 35 were juniors, and 22 were seniors. For the 80 responses that qualified, a frequency distribution was completed. Mean, median, mode, skewness, kurtosis, and standard deviation were calculated for both the MTCAT and the GSE (see Table 1).
Downloaded from http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Victoria on April 25, 2015
The MTCAT and GSE were administered to participants via an online survey, which included an embedded IRB-approved consent form. Each test took approximately 10 min to complete. Participants were also asked to provide their year in school and gender.
Vol. 51, No. 4
389
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for MTCAT and GSE GSE_total
80 88.90 89.50 88 5.271 -.599 .144 74 99
80 33.49 34.00 35 3.475 -.473 -.136 23 40
MTCAT Internal Consistency The range of scores on the MTCAT was 74 to 99. The mean score was 88.9 (N = 80, SD = 5.27). A test of normality concluded that the scores for the MTCAT did follow a normal distribution (see Figure 1). The internal consistency of the MTCAT was high (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.706), which is lower than the result found in the original study (Lim, 2011). GSE Internal Consistency The range of scores on the GSE was 23 to 40. The mean score was 33.49 (N = 80, SD = 3.475). The test of normality indicated that the scores for the GSE did follow a normal distribution (see Figure 2). The internal consistency of the GSE was high (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.748). Correlation Analysis To ascertain the strength of the relationships between the MTCAT and GSE, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated. The results of the correlation coefficient analysis revealed that MTCAT and GSE were moderately correlated with one another (r = 0.426, p
