Anreize des Übens und Musizierens Entwicklung und Validierung eines Anreizfragebogens für Instrumentalschülerinnen und –schüler und Schulmusikstudierende Incentives for practicing and making music Designing and Validation of a Musical Incentive Questionnaire for Children, Teenagers and Students Teachers of Music

Abstract

The question, which kinds of incentives are relevant to practicing and making music for musicians has increasingly been considered in different contexts. The questionnaire “incentive analysis making music” (Anreizanalyse des Musizierens, see Roth, B. [2012]. Die Bedeutung von Motivation und Willen für das Üben von Instrumenten - Eine Studie zum musikalischen Lernen von älteren Schülern und Schulmusikstudierenden. Forum Musikpädagogik, Bd. 113. Augsburg, Deutschland: Wißner.) consisting of 38 items has already been published. It was developed taking into account incentive analyses of Hentsch (Hentsch, A. [1992]. Motivationale Aspekte des Malens. Eine Anreizanalyse [Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit]. Psychologisches Institut der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.) and Siebert & Vester (Siebert, T. & Vester, T. [1990]. Zur Anreizstruktur des Musizierens [Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit].
Psychologisches Institut der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.). The aim of this study is to review the questionnaire finding out whether it can be used as a diagnostic tool also regarding its suitability for 10-12-year-olds (N = 168) and shorten it. Within the framework of a replication study the questionnaire was given to 15-16-year-old instrumentalists (N = 138) and student teachers of music (N = 145). The data of the ‘older’ subjects could analyzed as a whole. The supposed model at that time was checked and could be falsified due to confirmatory factor analysis. The data of the ‘older’ subjects as well as of the 10-12-year-old instrumentalists (N = 168) were examined by means of item analyses, exploratory factor and reliability analysis. The existence of different incentive categories could be confirmed in both groups, hence driven by theory six main and four subscales were formed and are all valid except one each for both age groups: “Flow & Emotion-Flow” (scale I) with two subscales “Flow” (scale I, subscale I) and “Emotion-Flow” (scale I, subscale II), “Achievement” (scale II), “Power & Influence-Stage” (scale III) with two sub scales “Power” (scale III, subscale I) and “Influence-Stage” (scale III, subscale II), “Affiliation” (scale IV), “Volition” (scale V) and “Not Disappointing Teachers & Parents” (scale VI). For the ‘younger’ subjects of this study the sub-category Influence-Stage is not relevant. This could be because of age or the fact that the examined subjects rarely perform on stage. A future questionnaire should therefore only consist of 29 items (α = ,89, N = 168). For the ‘older’ subjects the category Not Disappointing Teachers & Parents does not apply because of their own responsibility for rehearsing when being older and at the same time being committed to a greater extent to instrumental lessons. 30 items are relevant for this group (α = ,81, N = 283). Expertise effects do not exist. Surprisingly Achievement is the most important incentive category for both age groups by far.