21363!

'2
i

{We 9:

a

r
.

.7

. 1

flan-3d.

pl.

5

 

..
I: .9
lavas...
1 I‘
in on )kh‘ififi
. u .r .. a

.
V 2"
A. t... .
:13 4‘ 2

.s ‘ .. 1 .8. ‘

r V. y l
.iuruytihktuv

,1»)

) .

p . . A.

. , . .. ‘

, «,....t.w4uv..£

uh“. um.)

 

Mk»

(3

9L3

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

GUJP IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC THERAPY:
ITS RELATIO‘I 'IO mm EMPATHY AND
CREATIVE PERCEPTIG‘I IN SENIOR MUSIC THERAPY STUDENTS

presented by

Karin Akamatsu

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . M . Music Therapy

degree in

 

 

Major professor

 

Date 6/2 2/03-

0—7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

(Fl
OCT 9:13 2008

 

’3."
L73

‘H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cjclRC/DateDuepes-pJS

 

GROUP IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC THERAPY:
lTS RELATION To EMOTIONAL EMPATHY AND
CREATIVE PERCEPTION IN SENIOR MUSIC THERAPY STUDENTS

By

KARIN AKAMATSU

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF MUSIC

School of Music

2002

ABSTRACT
GROUP IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC THERAPY:
ITS RELATION TO EMOTIONAL EMPATHY AND
CREATIVE PERCEPTION IN SENIOR MUSIC THERAPY STUDENTS
By

Karin Akamat‘su

The purpose Of the study was to learn more about-the effect of the
experience of group music therapy improvisation sessions on music therapy
senior students’- learning process of empathic listening Skills and to see whether
these experiences affected the students’ empathy toward others and their
creative perception.

Seven female senior music therapy students participated in a group music
therapy improvisation every other week for eight sessions. The Balanced
Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) and the Khatena-Torrance Creative
Perception Inventory (KTCPI) were utilized to measure the students’ empathy
and creative perception levels prior to and after completion of the group.
sessions. Individual interviews were transcribed and synthesized as reflective
data.

Results indicated there were no significant differences (p < .05) between
pretests and posttests of the BEES and the KTCPI. There was a Significant
difference (p < .05) between the pretest and the posttest of the Something About
Myself (SAM: sub-test of the KTCPI) and its two factor orientations when two

students with low attendance were excluded from the analysis.

Copyright by
Karin Akamatsu
2002

This thesis is dedicated to my father,
Shigemi Akamatsu
and to my mother

Masako Akamatsu.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my gratitude and Sincere appreciation to many
people who have been involved in this thesis project. A sincere thank-you to Dr.
Frederick Tims, my thesis advisor, for his continuous support and guidance
throughout the study. I also thank to my committee members: Professor Roger
Smeltekop for his valuable suggestions and constant encouragement, and Dr.
Cynthia Taggart for her detailed advice and inspiration. All of my committee
members are my mentors, and their expert and insightful guidance was essential
in helping me to think one more step further.

I would like to express my great deal of appreciation to the group of senior
music therapy students who volunteered to participate in this project and have

allowed me to further develop my clinical Skills and insights. Thank you also

goes to Cindy Lu Edgerton, my mentor, and Ashild Radsaetre-Thompson, my

special friend, for their personal encouragement and support.
Finally, a very special thank you goes to my parents, Masako and Shigemi
Akamatsu, who allowed me to pursue my study in the United States. WIthout

their patience, support, and love, this thesis would never have been completed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION”
Defining Empathy
Empathic Listening: Application to MUSIC Therapy

'cooa-s

CHPATER II

RELATED RESEARCH" . ..11
lmprovisational Models within a MUSiC Therapy COntext: Their FunCtiOns
as Means of Communication" ..11
Becoming a “Good” Listener: Experiential .Group MUSIC Therapy
Improvisation“ .............18

CHPTER III

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS 23
Study Participants 23
Research Site" 24
Design” .. 24
Measurement Scales 25
Procedure“ 29
Analysis 30

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS" 31
Empathy Measurement The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scales
(BEES)... ............31
Creativity Measurement I SomethIng AbOUt Myself (SAM) ..32
Creativity Measurement II: What Kind Of Person Are You? (WKOPAY) 34
Interviews" . .. . ...35

CHAPTERV

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE
Purpose and ProblemS 41
Results. 41
Discussion 42
Recommendation for Future Research 46
Conclusion" 49

vi

APPENDICES... . 60
A. The Balanced EmOtiOnaI Empathy Scale (BEES) 60
B. The Kathena-Torrance Creative Perception lnventOry (KT CPI) ........ 61
C. Participantlnformation” .......63
D. Consent Form and Demographic QuestIonnaIre .. 66
E. Sessions” ... 68
F. Personal Interview PrOtOCOI.. . . 72
G. The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) Raw SCOreS ......... 74
H. The Something AboutMyseIf(SAM) Raw Scores” 76

TheSomethingAboutMyself.” 76
Factorl: Environmental Sensitivity 77
Factor II: Initiative 78
Factor III: Self-Strength 79
Factor IV: Intellectuality” 8O
FactorV: Individuality” 81
Factoer: Artistry. 82
I. The What Kind of Person Are You (WKOPAY) Raw SCOreSm .. 84
TheWhatKind ofPersonAreYou” .. . 84
Factorl: Acceptance OfAuthority“ 85
Factor II: Self-Confidence................................................... 86
Factor III: Inquisitiveness 87
Factor IV: Awareness Of Others 88.
FactorV: Disciplined Imagination 89
J. Human Subjects Committee 91

vii

GROUP IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC THERAPY: ITS RELATION TO
EMOTIONAL EMPATHY AND CREATIVE PERCEPTION
IN SENIOR MUSIC THERAPY MAJORS
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

It has been fifty-eight years Since the first college-degree program in
music therapy was established in the United States (Peters, 2000; Davis, Gfeller,
8 Thaut; 1992). There are currently sixty-eight colleges and universities offering
music therapy degrees (American Music Therapy Association, 2001), and the
movement toward high standards for music therapy education and practical
training has continued in order to improve the quality of the profession of music
therapy. After many years of reviewing and reevaluating music therapy
education and training, the outcome/competency-based approach rose from the .
need to produce quality therapists, replacing the curricular/course based
approach. According to Taylor (1987), “the term competency has been used to
refer to a specific behavior and to a state of being competent... Specific
behaviors that indicate competence are referred to as competencies and are
used as educational objectives in some settings” (p. 115). Numerous scholars
formulated what they thought were essential competencies for the practice of
music therapy (Alley, 1978; Boone, 1989; Bruscia, 1986, 1989; Bruscia, Hesser,
& Boxill, 1981; Maranto, 1989; Scartelli, 1989; Taylor, 1987; Wright, 1992), and
the current status of music therapy education and training has been constantly
reviewed and analyzed in order to meet these requisites (Jensen 8. McKinney,

1990; Standley, 1989).

In January 1998, the founding of the American Music Therapy Association
(AMT A) was essentially a unification of two professional organizations, the
National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT), founded in 1950, and the
American Association for Music Therapy (AAMT), founded in 1971. This
unification was seen as a tuming-point for purSuing more balanced music therapy
education and training programs in terms of clinical practice and academic
learning (Groene 8. Pembrook; 2000, Wyatt & Furioso; 2000).

In an attempt to understand current issues in music therapy education and
training programs, Groene and Pembrook (2000) reviewed related literature
focused on curriculum revision and competency formulation, and they surveyed
92 individuals from 68 programs offering music therapy degrees. They examined
three issues in order to foster further scrutiny on future curricular policies. One of
these issues was new knowledge and skills needed to be an effective music
therapist. According to their research, there was a desire to further develop
specific music skills, in particular, functional keyboard/guitar skills and
improvisation skills. Their study also revealed that a competency-based
approach was strongly supported by large numbers of music therapy educators
(66%). These collegiate music therapists believe that the approach would
provide greater growth and accountability for the profession (Groene &
Pembrook, 2000).

The acquisition of music therapy Skills, knowledge, and qualities has been
frequently discussed in the literature; however, it seems that study over a long

period of time is necessary to determine what constitutes essential competencies

for effective therapists. Part of the reason is that music therapy is
multidimensional in its nature. In his book, Defining Music Therapy, Bruscia
(1998) pointed out that methods of treatment, philosophical backgrounds, and
clinical orientations become diversified when passed from one music therapist to
another, since there is a diversity of needs among music therapy practitioners.
Client populations include anyone who will benefit from music therapy
interventions: from infants to the aged, from persons who have physical, mental,
or emotional illness or disability to healthy individuals experiencing stress, pain,
or the need of spiritual integration (Bruscia, 1998). Accordingly, settings which
use music therapy are varied. Within this multidimensional nature of the music
therapy field, it is crucial to find essential, yet common competencies for all types
of music therapy settings.

In their proposal of universal competencies for entry-level music
therapists, Bruscia et al. (1981) detailed essential foundations in terms of
musical, clinical, and music therapy knowledge/abilities. Under the clinical
foundation category, they placed the ability to establish positive therapeutic
relationships with clients as one of the most crucial factors. They stated .five
subcategories of this competency: 1) ability to view the client’s world from the
client’s perspective, 2) ability to recognize the impact of one’s own feelings,
attitudes, and actions on the client and the therapy process, 3) ability to establish
and maintain interpersonal relationships with clients that are conductive to

effective therapy, 4) ability to use self effectively in both individual and group

therapy, and 5) ability to utilize the dynamics and processes of a group to
achieve a therapy goal.

After reviewing the competency objectives proposed by Bruscia at al.
(1981), it was noticed that these particular goals were based on theoretical
orientations from psychotherapy fields. Since psychotherapy research indicated
that various therapies produced comparable therapeutic gains, regardless of
differences in assumptions about the etiology of human dysfunction and different
techniques applied (Smith & Glass, 1977; Stiles, Shapro, 8 Elliot, 1986), a factor
common to all forms of therapy that is essential for positive change has also
become a focus among psychotherapy fields. Foremost in any therapy or
counseling situation is the ability to make contact with another person (lvey,
1999). Constructing positive therapeutic rapport with the clients is fundamental
to furthering the therapy process and facilitating change (Rogers, 1965, 1975).
Many helping professionals have consistently searched for the way that they can
effectively achieve this ultimate goal.

Music therapy is a prokssion in which therapists utilize the systematic
application of music to bring about changes in the emotional and physical well-
being of the clients. Just like psychotherapy and other related fields, constructing
therapeutic rapport with the clients is the most fundamental aspect. Regardless
of differences in methods of treatment, philosophical backgrounds, and clinical
orientations, examining the components necessary to facilitate this process is
crucial. Focusing on empathy as one of these components seems to be a

legitimate pursuit, since it has long been recognized as an essential condition to

facilitate relationship-building between the therapist and the clients (Burns &
Nolen—Hoeksma, 1992; Linehan, 1997; Luborsky, Grits-Christoph, Mintz, &
Auerbach, 1988; Mahoney, 1995; Rogers, 1965, 1975).
Empathy as an Essential Condition in Therapy

The influence of the therapist-client relationship on the outcome of therapy
has been drawing the attention of psychotherapists and researchers for many
years. Though it is often difficult to separate one factor from another in terms of
constructing a positive relationship with a client, numerous theorists see empathy .
as a basic relationship skill (Bohart & Greenberg, 1997; Rogers, 1975). Carl
Rogers (1951, 1957) emphasized that the effective relationship was based on the
therapist’s ability to be empathetic and congruent and to convey. uncondifional
positive regard toward the client. The basic theory of his client-centered or
person-centered approach was based on the notion that if the therapist is
successful in conveying these qualities, then the client will respond with
constructive changes in personal organization (Rogers, 1957).

Numerous research studies have been conducted in order to determine
whether empathy is indeed a necessary and sufficient condition along with the
other therapeutic conditions of Rogers’s theory. In their review of therapist
variables and therapy outcome research, Lambert, Julio, and Stein (1978) and
Luborsky, Grits—Christoph, Mintz, and Auerbach (1988) reported a total of 23
studies using either externally rated or client-judged ratings of empathy over the
11—year-period from 1962 to 1973. Of this total, 14 studies reported a positive

significant relationship between therapist empathy and outcome, whereas nine

did not find a significant relationship between level of empathy and outcome.
More recently, Orlinsky, Grawe, and Parks (1994) noted that, in the period of
1972 to 1989, 54% of studies support the relationship between the therapists’
communication of empathy with their clients and therapy outcome. Their review
of studies from 1976 to 1994 also provides additional support for the relationship
between therapists’ empathy and outcome. According to them, 8 out of 10
studies report positive findings, whereas 2 studies report no relationship (OIIinSky
et al., 1994).

Although there have been generally positive conclusions, controversy
about empathy as the very basis of all human interactions continues to create
heated discussion. One of the reasons for disagreement has been attributed to
difficulties defining the construct of empathy (Duan 8 Hill, 1996; Patterson, 1983,
Watson, 2002). The diversity of definitions and theories of empathy may have .
caused the inconsistency in research results and has created confusion to occur.
In order to avoid this situation, it is critical for researchers to define empathy as
specifically as possible before the actual implementation of their studies, as
numerous theorists have attempted to define it from various points of view.
Defining Empathy

In an attempt to establish a framework for understanding the concept of
empathy, Duan and Hill (1996) summarized the differences in interpretations of
empathy based on two theoretical dimensions, the construct of empathy and the

nature of empathy. The construct of empathy is further divided into three

different constructs, and the nature of empathy is divided into two constructs,
which may or may not overlap with each other.
* The Three Constructs of Empathy
1) Empathy as a personality trait or general abilig
- The ability to know another person’s inner experience (Buie, 1981).
- The ability to feel (perceive) the feelings (emotions) of other people
(Sawyer, 1975).
2) Empathy as a situation-specific anitive-affective state
- The state of responding "vicariously' to a stimulus or a stimulus
person (Baston 8 Coke, 1981).
- The state of sensing the client's private world as if it were one’s own
(Rogers, 1957).
3) Empathy as a multiphased experiential process
This category views empathy as involving a sequence of experiences and

multiple elements, rather than being Single state.

The process of empathic resolution, expressed empathy, and

received empathy (Barrett-Lennard’s, 1981).

The process of sensing the client’s inner world and communicating

that sensing (Rogers, 1975).

The process of understanding - explaining sequence (Kohut, 1984).

The process of emotional contagion, identification, and role taking

(Gladstein, 1983).

* The Two Natures of Empathy

1) Cognitive empathy/Intellectual empathy

- Intellectually taking the role or perspective of another person

(Gladstein, 1983; Duan 8 Hill, 1996).
2) Affective empathy/Empathic emotions
- Responding with the same emotion to another person’s
emotion (Gladstein, 1983; Duan 8 Hill, 1996).

Gladstein et al. claims that it is necessary to avoid using the general term
empathy and recommends use of the specific terms to specify which construct is
being referred to. In addition to this, the author proposes using intellectual
empathy to refer to the cognitive process and empathic emotions to refer to the
affective aspect of empathic experience.
Empathic Listening: Application to Music Therapy

As mentioned by Bruscia et al. (1981 ), the ability to view the client’s world
from the client’s perspective is one of many fundamental competency goals for
music therapy practice. A major concern is how therapists view the client’s world
and actually convey that they perceive it. What makes music therapy unique is
music itself, and it is not too much to say that if a music therapist is sensitive
enough to each client’s music and is successful in conveying her empathic
quality through music, then the client may respond with positive changes. In
recent years many music therapists have tried to describe the essence of the
application of music within a therapeutic context (Ansdell, 1995; Hesser, 2001;

Lee, 1996; Pavlioevic, 1997, 1999, 2000). There seems to be a need for

returning to the understanding of the fundamental aspects of music therapy, and
creative clinical improvisation could be the most effective means to sense the
client’s inner world and to communicate that sensing through music (Pavlioevic,
1997, 2000).

The notion of sensing and communicating empathy through music is
abstract, yet momentous. When a music therapy researcher tries to understand
such an important aspect that cannot be easily quantified, descriptive and
interpretive analysis of the phenomena becomes essential. The important
question here occurs when a researcher attempts to analyze these qualitative
aspects using quantitative methodology. What might these two
complementary/contradictory approaches reveal to the researcher when applied
to the same variable? It would seem that using both qualitative and quantitative
frameworks may further the understanding of the abstract concept of empathy
within the music therapy context.

Hence, the purpose of this study was to learn more about the effect of the
experience of group music therapy improvisation sessions on senior music
therapy students’ empathic skill in attending to sounds and music based on the
quantitative framework supported by qualitative data. More specifically, the
researcher focused on the students’ empathic musical experience and how this
experience affects the students’ empathy level in general. Also, another
assumption of the researcher was this experience might also affect the students’

creative perception, because students might need to totally change their

approach/attitude to people and/or music in order to develop this specific
empathic skill.

In order to precisely define empathy, the researcher specified it as a
situation-specific cognitive-affective state in which empathic experience would
vary with the situation regardless of one’s developmental level of empathy.
According to Duan and Hill (1996), this perspective allows for studying the effects
of situational factors and individual differences in empathy, as well as promoting
empathic training or Ieaming. In this study, improvisational music therapy
experience was chosen to be the factor that might affect the music therapy
studentS’ empathy level to others in general. The research problems of this study
were as follows:

1) To determine the effect of group improvisation experiences on students
emotional empathy for others.

2) To determine the effect of group improvisation experiences on students
creative perception as an adjunct factor.

3) To understand what meaning or Significance the participants would give to

the music therapy improvisation experience.

10

CHAPTER II
RELATED RESEARCH

lmprovisational Models within a Music Therapy Context: Their Functions as

Means of Communication

The recent inclination to consider clinical improvisation skill as one of the
music therapy core competencies indicates that there must be something
“special” within it. Current clinical improvisational models in the United States
were developed and for many years employed on the European Continent and in
Great Britain, where psychotherapy theories, mainly from England, greatly
influenced earlier generations of music therapists, such as those of Juliette Alvin,
Mary Priestley, Paul Nordoff (who was an American), and Clive Robbins
(Bruscia, 1987; Gardstrom, 2001; Lee, 1996; Pavlioevic, 2000). Bruscia (1987) ‘
introduced comprehensive models of improvisational music therapy practice,
including a summary of over twenty-five models, and he identifies improvisational
models of above-stated music therapists as three distinct improvisation
approaches: 1) Creative Music Therapy (Nordoff and Robbins), 2) Free ‘
Improvisation Therapy (Alvin), and 3) Analytical Music Therapy (Priestley). Each
of these improvisation approaches advocates a unique perspective based on
differing psychological theories; however, they all agree that music serves a
common function in terms of facilitating both nonverbal and verbal
communications between the therapist and client.

Within the Creative Music Therapy model developed by Nordoff and

Robbins (1977), the therapist establishes contact, builds rapport, expresses

11

empathy, and conveys acceptance to the client through music. They explain that
in responding musically, the client communicates with the therapist, revealing
inner impulses, feelings, thinking patterns, and intentions. For them, musical
improvisation is the predominant means of interaction between the therapist and
the client, and serves as the main force for the therapy process (Bruscia, 1987).

In his book Music for Life, Gary Ansdell attempts to describe applications
of the Nordoff-Robbins approach to various adult populations. His notion was to
interpret the quality of the music making process and its musical byproduct
based on the development of personal contact established between the therapist
and the client. He asks the following questions: Does she experience only
herself in the music? Is she aware of her own playing and how that playing
relates to, and is answered by, the therapist’s playing? Ansdell describes the
notion of mutual personal contact as meeting, the intentional musical Sharing
between the therapist and the client. For him, musical meeting is not the ultimate
goal; rather, it is the starting point and constant touchstone for the development
and maturing of the therapeutic relationship in music therapy. He remarks,
“music is sound organized by a human mind with the intention of ‘meaning’
something to another human mind, and it is profoundly communicative in its
potential for validity, creativity, and complexity” (Ansdell, 1995, p. 33).

Alvin (1978) reflects an orientation toward psychoanalytic theory, perhaps
more in how she explained what she did than in what she actually did in a
session. She used music and musical instruments to facilitate the therapy

process by protecting the client-therapist relationship from any negative

12

psychological functioning such as the projection of the client’s conflict feelings
onto the therapist. According to her, the client can use sounds and instruments
to work through any negative feelings they may have toward significant others in
their life. Throughout the process, music and instruments support the
development of communication within the client self, between the self and
objects, between the self and the therapist, and between the self and others.
She believed that interpersonal relationships provide the basis for all other
relationships in the client’s world, and that improvisational music and musical
instruments are a primary means of facilitating client-therapist communication,
which expedites establishing these fundamental relationships.

Priestley (1994) developed Analytical Music Therapy with her colleagues,
Peter Wright and Marjorie Wardle, in the early 1970s. Her theory is based on
various psychodynamic theories, including those of Freud, Jung, Adler, Klein,
and Lowen. For her, the client’s first communication with the therapist is
extremely important, and the therapist uses countertransference extensively in
order to gain rapport with the client and to convey the necessary reassurance
and empathy during the first stage of therapy. Through the therapist’s empathy
and reflection through music, the client learns to put aside preconceived notions
and musical standards and to turn inner impulses and feelings into sounds.

Scheiby (1991) describes an Analytical Music Therapy in a case study
with Mia, a 27-year-old music therapy student in training. The form of the
therapy involved the symbolic use of improvised and composed music by her and

the therapist for the purpose of transformation, integration, enhanced self-

13

awareness and self-exploration. Mia’s experience of the therapy process was
illuminated through excerpts from her diary, comments during sessions, and the
therapist’s note. Scheiby indicates that free improvisations were used to provide
continual support, encouragement, and share feelings, when words failed or
became meaningless. According to Scheiby, musical structure that a client
presented in an improvisation was “a mirror of the client’s psychological
organization and dominant function” (p. 289), and She had placed particular
emphasis upon those musical structures that seemed to have Significance in
relation to Mia’s psyche at that time (Scheiby, 1991 ).

Austin (1991) illustrated the process of Jungian oriented improvisational
music therapy with Sara, a narcissistically injured 25-year-old woman. The
specific musical techniques she employed were “mirroring,” “holding” and
“dialoging.” She explained that “mirroring” was to recreate important melodic
phrases or motifs, chord progressions and/or rhythmic patterns that the therapist
heard in music. “Holding” was to create a containing environment by sustaining
chords that supported the client’s melodies and/or keeping a rhythm going once
she had initiated it. “Dialoging' was more mutually interactive, spontaneous
verbal exchange between the therapist and the client. In this study, Sara began
to uncover, explore and accept devalued parts of herself through experiencing
the therapist’s sensitivity in listening to her (Austin, 1991).

Henderson (1991) found increases in self-expression and communication
that developed from improvised singing for PatIicia, a thirteen-year-old African

girl who had been sexually abused by her father and who had witnessed the

14

murder of her sister by her mother. In her study, therapy involved song
improvisations and psychotherapy techniques based on Grinell’s model of
“Developmental Therapeutic Process.” The therapist supported Patricia’s song
stories with improvisation, so as to reflect her mood and to provide necessary
structure and support. Henderson indicates that projective musical stones using
puppets and instruments enabled Patricia to displace significant feelings and to
work through them on a symbolic basis. The therapist’s improvisation has made
a significant contribution to provide constant support, empathic understanding,
security, and warmth (Henderson, 1991).

Salas and Gonzalez (1991) explicate a case study over a ten-month
period of music therapy with Gabriela, a four-year-old girl with osteopetrosis
(excessive calcification of bones), bilateral opic atrophy (irreversible damage to
the opic nerves), and resultant developmental delays. Their work was based on ,
clinical improvisation and client-centeredness that was developed by Carl Rogers
based on the beliefs that growth and healing will take place in the context of a
loving, authentic, and nonjudgmental therapeutic relationship (Rogers, 1995).
They described processes Showing how Gabriela changed from a very
vulnerable disabled child into one who could utilize music as her communicative
vehicle. In their study clinical improvisation was used for “the creation of a safe,
aesthetically rich world whose operating principles were acceptance, spontaneity,
and creative freedom” (p. 25). Their study indicated that a client-centered clinical

improvisation approach allowed Gabriela to find that her every initiative or

15

response was met with an immediate acceptance and an answering creativity,
and it actually brought about a change within her (Salas 8 Gonzalez, 1991).

Recently, Pavlicevic (2000) stated that “music therapy improvisation
provides a forum for therapist and client (of whichever age, ability, and referral
status) to meet and know one another through jointly generated, spontaneous
sound forms; the purpose of music therapy improvisation is not to ‘make good
sounds,’ as in music improvisation, but rather, to create an intimate interpersonal
relationship between therapist and client, through the musical event" (p. 272).

In the context of psychotherapy and counseling fields, the relationship
between the process of listening and the development of an empathic bond is
broadly acknowledged (Rogers, 1957, 1975).

To sense the client’s private world as if it were your own, but
without ever losing the “as if’ quality -this is empathy and this seems
essential to therapy. To sense the client’s anger, fear, or confusion as if it
were your own, yet without your own anger, fear, or confusion getting
bound up in it, is the condition we are endeavoring to describe. When the
client’s world is this clear to the therapist, and he moves about in it freely,
then he can both communicate his understanding of what is clearly known
to the client and can also voice meanings in the client’s experience of
which the client is scarcely aware (1957, p. 99).

This sensing and understanding of the client’s world resolutely relies on the
. therapist’s capacity to listen to the client’s experience and respond to what is

being heard.

16

Myers (2000) conducted a qualitative study that explored empathic
listening from the vantage point of five female clients engaged in consecutive
therapeutic relationships with two different therapists. She pointed out that in
previous research studies, little or no attention was given to the client’s
contribution to the relationship or the client’s perception or experience of being
understood. Myers believed that if the therapeutic relationship is to be fully
explored, it makes sense to listen to the voices of clients as they report their
experiences of being heard. Results indicated that even though each of the
clients experienced empathic listening in a highly individualized and idiosyncratic
ways, participants more often experienced being heard when therapists created
a safe space for self-exploration, were actively and genuinely engaged in the
therapeutic dialogue (paraphrasing, clarifying, questioning, and remembering
details), and did not flinch when painful material was brought to the therapeutic
process.

Lee (1995) elucidates improvisational music therapy listening experiences
with Francis, a musician dying with AIDS. He attempted to describe the essence
of the therapeutic listening process through the verbal and musical voices of both
client and therapist. In his work, improvisation was the main mode that allowed
Francis to work with issues around death and to express himself within the
process. Lee indicated that, as sessions processed, he became an active
“listener,” and Francis actually considered the therapists’ listening to be
communicatively reciprocal to his playing. Words could not have expressed

Francis’s most inward feelings with the same magnitude as his improvisations,

17

and the therapist indeed heard and responded to this intensive message through
mutual musical interactions and musical byproducts. Lee emphasized that music
therapy was fundamentally based on an alliance between client and therapist,
and this relationship is central to the healing process.

Apparently the key point is “what you hear” and “how you listen” to clients.
Coming back to the question of how to “meet” the client through music in order to
facilitate therapeufic change, it seems possible to say that music therapists might
be able to meet clients through careful listening to their music. Indeed, “the
quality of the music and the quality of communication between people in the
music was dependent on how well they listened” (Ansdell, 1995, p. 151).
Becoming a “good” listener: Emeriential Group Music Therapy Improvisation

If the music therapist is to be effective in communicating with the client
through music, she needs to be capable of attending to the client’s sounds and
music. In order for the therapist to be competent in conveying her sensing of the
client's sounds and music, she needs to develop the skill necessary to be
musically empathetic to clients. Yalom (1995) claims that the nature of the group
interaction has the potential to bring about significant character and interpersonal
change among people in the group. According to him, the truly potent therapy
group will help people to identify and understand what goes well and what goes
wrong in their group interactions. He believes that actual personal group
experiences will allow therapists themselves to enrich their ongoing Ieaming

process and growth. For him, group dynamics are one of the most essential

18

avenues to human Ieaming, and he suggests that training in group experience is
necessary for deeper understanding and growth in therapists (Yalom, 1995)..

Amason ( 1998) conducted a study that focused on the musical experience
of five professional music therapists in a series of group music therapy
improvisational sessions that she facilitated. She used descriptive and
interpretive analysis as the means for revealing meaningful aspects of the
improvisational experiences. Study findings were described in group members’
and her own narrative, poetry, songs and artwork and interpreted through the
researcher’s reflections. The story of the group process and the researcher’s
thoughts and feelings were also used to report the findings. Amason concluded
that both the improvisational experience and the group process were helpful in
expanding important aspects of music therapy, and she believes that
implementation of music therapy groups for continuing education of professional
music therapists is an important concept for the field of music therapy.

Tims (1989) proposes that experiential Ieaming is an essential component .
of the future music therapy curricula in order for music therapists in training to
achieve clinical competence. According to him, students experience the effects
of the music therapy process and have the opportunity to practice its
implementation within experiential Ieaming. He specifically suggests
participation in music psychotherapy groups as a way for students to deal with
personal issues, and to recognize how music can be meaningful to them, as well

as to explore the meaning of music in therapy. He views experiential Ieaming as

19

“perhaps the best method available for getting at the qualities which make an
effective therapist” (p. 92).

Stephens ( 1987) describes the experiential improvisational music therapy
group as an effective method for training and supervision within a music therapy
education program. She points out the complex nature of the process of music
therapy and indicates that the music therapy group serves as an opportunity for
students to actually experience music therapy processes for themselves,
resulting in improved empathy. Stephens describes two types of experiential
music therapy groups possible within the music therapy curriculum: the training
group and the supervision group. Since the training group is more related to the
experiential group work, only the training group will be discussed here. Stephens
recommends that the training group meet weekly for one-hour sessions
throughout the course of each semester. The improvisation is based on a theme
or issue initiated by either group members or the facilitator. In order to
understand the improvisational group experiences, students keep logs describing
their experiences, which include description of interventions, musical
development and growth, and their interpretations and reflections of the meaning
of what happened within the sessions. Students receive feedback from the
group facilitator who reviews individual logs. According to Stephens, this
experiential music therapy can “enrich Ieaming and bring a more mature vision to
the student in training” (p. 169).

Milgram-Luterman (2000) conducted a phenomenological study that

examined the integration of personal growth experiences into the undergraduate

20

music therapy program. The researcher developed the concept of Music
Therapy Peer Support Groups (MTPSG) in which group members learn to
support and be supported by peers and develop self-awareness that is critical to
becoming effective music therapists. While a majority of the researchers agree
that the training group best serves the graduate level student (Bruscia, 1986,
1989; Hasser, 1985; Stephens, 1987), Milgram-Lutennan indicates the lack of
opportunity for personal growth experience among undergraduate students and
entry-level music therapists. In her study, improvisation, music and imagery,
relaxation, songwriting, and singing and chanting were integrated in order to
challenge students towards new awareness and to promote personal growth.
Data collection devices were individual journals, individual/group interviews, and
the researcher’s log. Results indicated that students particularly developed new
awareness in the realms of self, relationship and spirituality as a result of
participafion in the MTPSG.

Gardstrom (2001) proposes insightful practical techniques for
development of improvisational competency skills of music therapists in training.
She claims that improvisation courses designed for students need to focus on
enhancing comprehensive musicianship as well as developing those
complementary skills that support and enhance the improvisational experience.
She suggests three specific complementary Skills: 1) attending to sound and
music, 2) using descriptive language about music, and 3) facilitating verbal
processing of improvisation. Gardstrom emphasizes that courses in

improvisation need to give emphasis to “growth in both functional Skill (the actual

21

ability to create instrumental and vocal music in a variety of tonalities, meters,
forms, and idioms as well as construct songs extemporaneously for a diverse
range of clinical situations) and interactive musicianship (the use of music to
establish communication with the client and engage the client as “co-active
partner’ in the process of change,) as well as the development of competency
skills such as attending to, describing, and processing the improvisational
experience” (p. 86).

Despite the various research studies and clinical reports supporting music
therapy education based on experiential improvisational group music therapy,
there is no research that specifically focuses on the development of empathic
listening skills of music therapy students. It was the intent of this author to
capture the Ieaming process of empathic listening skills through experiential
improvisational group music therapy and to see whether this group experience

affected the students’ empathy toward others and their creative perception.

Chapter III
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Study Participants

The participants for this study consisted of nine female music therapy
undergraduate students from Michigan State University who volunteered to be
subjects in this study.

Criteria for subject selection were the following:

1) The participants were senior-level music therapy students.

2) The participants had minimal or no experience in group music therapy

improvisation.
3) The participants had minimal or no experience in interpreting music
created in music therapy improvisations.

Because the approach of improvisation in this study was group music therapy
improvisation as defined by Pavlicevic (2000) rather than traditional jazz and/or
blues improvisation, it was essential for participants to have a basic knowledge of
the application of improvisation in the field of music therapy. For this reason, it
was determined that the participants should be seniors in the undergraduate
music therapy program. Minimal or no experience in group music therapy
improvisation and its analysis was required, so that the participants would not be
prone to engage in predicting the study outcome.

Most participants were in their early twenties, except one who was in her
late twenties, and another who was in her early thirties. The study was conducted

within a peer-support group. This group was a required activity for senior music

23

therapy students, in which they could explore issues, cope with stresses, and be
assisted in seeking solutions to problems via verbal and musical Sharing and
interchange. However, because this group was to be focus of the author’s
research project, the students were given the choice of whether they wished to
participate in the study.
Research Site

The study took place in a large regular music classroom at Michigan State
University. The space was large enough for ten people when all the chairs were
pushed back. Since the room was uncarpeted, most group members chose to Sit
in a circle on the chairs. Students were encouraged to bring any instruments that
they wanted to use. The instruments already available in the room were a grand
piano, Orff instruments (xylophone, metallophone, bass resonator bars 8
glockenspiel), drums (ocean drum, paddle drums, tubano, djembe, konga, 8 floor I
gathering drum), wooden hand percussion instruments (wood maracas, guiro,
kokiriko, 8 rain stick), and metal hand percussion instruments (triangle,cabasa,
agogo bells, 8 tambourine).
M92

This study utilized a pretest-posttest design with only one group. Of the
nine students who originally agreed to participate in the study, two withdrew from
the study part way through the treatment period. All seven subjects were
administered two kinds of pretests prior to the music therapy improvisation
sessions to measure their degree of empathy and creative perception. The

group met every other week. There were four group improvisational sessions

24

followed by a month break, and then the final four sessions. Subjects were
administered the two posttests and completed an individual interview after
completion of the group sessions.
Measurement Scales

Degree of empathy was measured by the Balanced Emotional Empathy
Scale (BEES). BEES is a 30-item pencil and paper test that gives an objective
report of an individual’s tendency to feel and vicariously experience the emotional
experiences of others. The estimated time for completion of the test is ten ~
minutes. It is primarily a measure of emotional, not cognitive, empathy. The
BEES employs a nine-step Likert-style format rating that ranges from very strong
agreement (+4) through very strong disagreement (-4). According to Mehrabian
(2000), the validity for the BEES has been derived from studies conducted on the
original Emotional Empathy Tendency Scale (EETS), with which it is highly I
correlated (r = .77). The EETS was first published by Mehrabian in 1972, and
even though much of the item content is similar on the two instruments, the
author considers BEES to be superior to EETS in that its scores are more equally
balanced in regard to pleasantness and arousability factors. Mehrabian indicates
that individuals with high emotional empathic scores tend to be both pleasant
(positive) and arousable (reactive). The researcher requested permission to use
BEES, and it was granted by Albert Mehrabian, the author (see Apendix A).

Creative perception was measured by the Khatena-Torrance Creative
Perception Inventory (KT CPI). KTCPI consists of two instruments: What Kind of
Person Are You? (WKOPAY) and Something About Myself (SAM). The purpose

25

of both instruments is to provide a method of identifying creativity and creative
personalities. KT CPI reports research about its content validity, construct .
validity, and criterion-related validity for both parts. The content validity is the
weakest, and the manual states that defining the scope and sequence of creative
skills or talent is difficult, which precludes researchers from specifying the content
validity. On the other hand, the construct validity of the KTCPI is fairly well
defended through correlational studies, factor analyse, and cross-validation
studies. On criterion-related'validity studies for KT CPI includes other
instruments, observable behaviors, and observational judgement served as
criteria. Most validity issues with KT CPI have to do with self-report; however, the
correlations with non self—report instruments support the validity of KTCPI. In the
studies correlating with non self-report instruments that required a creative
response, the correlation ranged from .26 to .75, with the median correlation
being .425. Both SAM and WKOPAY are 50 item pencil and paper tests, and the
estimated time for completion of both tests is twenty minutes. WKOPAY asks a
subject to distinguish between creative and less creative individuals. Those who
taking the test are asked to select one of the pair of traits. If a person chooses
the creative trait, a point is added to the overall score, and this score then is
compared with norms to obtain a standard score on a scale of from 1 to 9.
Scores are reported as a total score and for the following dimensions:
1) Acceptance of Authority
- The characteristic of being obedient, respectful, and polite, and of

following rules and accepting others in power.

2)

3)

4)

5)

Self Confidence

- The characteristic of being sure of oneself and full of energy, getting
along well with others, wanting to learn or know, finishing the task at
hand, and remembering well.

Inquisitiveness

- The characteristic of always asking questions, feeling strong
emotions, talking a lot, demanding recognition and insisting on rights,
and being obedient.

Awareness of Others

- The characteristic of being respectful and polite, popular or well-liked
and caring, getting along well with others, and preferIing to work in a
group.

Disciplined Imagination

- The characteristic of being full of energy, imaginative and never
bored, trying different tasks, preferring tasks that challenge, not giving
up easily, finishing the task at hand, working hard, and seeking

adventure (Khatena 8 Torrance, 1998, p. 14).

Statements in SAM fall into one of three categories: personal traits, use of

creative thinking strategies, and creative production. The respondent simply puts
a check by the statements that are applicable to themselves. Scoring is done by
counting the number of items a person has checked, and this score iS compared
with norms to obtain a standard score on a scale from 1 to 8. The six factor

orientations measured are:

27

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

Environmental Sensitivity

- Openness to ideas of others; Relating ideas to what can be seen,
touched, or heard; Interest in beautiful and humorous aspects of
experiences; and Sensitivity to meaningful relations.

Initiative

- Directing and/or playing leads in plays; Producing new fomulas or
new products; and Bringing about changes in rules or ways things are
done.

Self Strength

- Sureness of own talents; Always finding a way to do something;
Talented in many ways; Risk taking; Desire to do better, and
Organization ability. I

Intellectuality

- Intellectual curiosity; Enjoyment of challenging tasks; Imagination:
Preference for adventure over routine; Liking for reconstruction of
things and ideas to form something different; Dislike for doing things in
the way others require.

Individuality

- Preference to working by oneself rather than in a group; Starting and
continuing projects on own interest; Considered different by others;
Finding fault in others to help them improve; Thinking for oneself;

Working for long periods without getting tired.

28

6) Artistry.

- Production of arts and crafts; Creating a new dance or song; Winning

prizes or having exhibits or works; Production of stories or poems

(Khatena 8 Torrance, 1998, p. 26).
Test-retest reliability coefficients for WAKPAY range from .71 to .97. For SAM,
the test-retest reliability coefficient varied from .77 to .98, with most of the studies
showing reliability greater than .90. This indicates that overall the reliability
appears to be satisfactory. The researcher received permission to use KTCPI
from the Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. (see Apendix B).
Procedure

The research group consisted of 7 music therapy senior level

undergraduate students. The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) and
the Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KT CPI) were administrated
as a pretest and a posttest. The estimated completion time for these two tests
was 30 minutes. A demographic questionnaire that included questions
concerning gender, age, ethnicity, musical background, previous experience with
improvisation, and attitudes and beliefs about improvisation was used as well
(See Appendix D). Music therapy group improvisation sessions were video- and
audio-recorded in order to facilitate analysis of the quality of improvised music
and its relation to various feelings and thoughts of the participants. Participants
engaged in eight one-hour sessions biweekly, dunng which they Spent
approximately 30 minutes improvising, 15 minutes for reflecting upon and

verbally discussing their experience, 10 minutes for listening back to their audio

29

recorded music, and 5 minutes filling out the experience check list. (See
Appendix E for contents of each session.) Session videos and results of the
check lists were not used as data for the study; rather, they were used as
feedback for the researcher in developing her own clinical skills. After the
completion of the study, the posttests were administrated and the subjects
participated in 30—minute individual interviews on which focusing each
participant’s experience of the music therapy group improvisation. (See
Appendix F for interview protocols.) These interviews were scheduled at a time
convenient to eaCh student. They were audio recorded and transcribed in order
for the researcher to analyze the meaning or Significance that the participants
gave to the music therapy improvisations.
AME

To determine whether participation in music therapy improvisation group
affects participants’ empathy level and creative perception, the pre-test and post-
test responses on the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) and the
Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI) were compared using
a paired sample t-test.

To understand what meaning or significance the participants would give to
the music therapy improvisation experience, individual interviews were
transcribed, analyzed in their contents by common pattemslthemes, and

synthesized as reflective data.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Empathy Measurement: The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES)

Pretest and posttest data of the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale
(BEES) were analyzed to compare differences within groups. (See Appendix G,
Tables A through N for raw scores.) A paired-sample t-test was conducted to
determine differences between mean pretest and posttest scores of students in
the group (See Table 1). The data show that there was no significant difference
(p > .05) between pretest and posttest scores, t(6) = 1.366, p = .221 . Only 2 out
of the 7 subjects indicated an increase in empathy level from pre- to posttest: the
raw score of one participant increased from 42 to 46, and that of another from 90
to 100, and in fact, the overall mean tended to be lower in the posttest.

Since the attendance rate for the study varied dramatically among
participants, the same paired-sample t-test was run, excluding the two
participants who did not attend at least half of the sessions, to see if the results
differed (See Table 2). No significant difference was found (p > .05) in this

comparison, t(4) = 1.613, p = .182.

TABLE 1
' Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations on the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale

 

 

M N SD
Pretest 76.43 7 20.61
Posttest 71.00 7 19.87

 

31

TABLE 2

Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations on the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale
(Excluded Version)

 

 

M N SD
Pretw 80.80 5 16.66
Posttest 72.60 5 18.98

 

Creativity Measurement I: Something About Myself (SAM)

Differences in pretest and posttest scores on the Khatena-Torrance

Creative Inventory (KTCPI) were compared between groups. Since KT CPI

consists of two instruments, the Something About Myself (SAM) and What Kind

of Person Are You? (WKOPAY), SAM was examined first. (See Appendix H for

raw scores.) The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 3. A

paired-sample t-test indicated that there were no statistically significance

differences (p > .05) between the pretest and posttest of the SAM, t(6) = -.544,

TABLE 3

The Something About Myself And Six Factor Orientations: Pretest and Posttest Score Mean
Scores (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) (n = 7)

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD
SAM 48.29 7.43 50.43 9.86
Environmental 48.43 9.64 51.86 4.88
Initiative 50.57 10.01 51.86 9.06
Self-Strength 46.00 10.92 49.71 10.64
lntellectudity 47.29 7.50 47.14 6.39
Individuality 48.14 8.59 43.71 9.95
Artistry 53.14 8.13 55.43 9.27

 

32

p = .606. No Significance differences was found (p > .05) within the Six factor
orientations of SAM either: Environmental Sensitivity (t (6) = -.909, p = .398),
Initiative (t (6) = -.393, p = .708), Self-Strength (t (6) = -1.494, p = .186),
Intellectuality (t (6) = .041, p = .969), Individuality (t (6) = 1.076, p = .323), and
Artistry (t (6) = -1.076, p = .323).

Visual inspection of the data revealed two outliers who had decreased
posttest scores. Since these two subjects were the only two with low attendance
for the sessions, the comparison was made excluding these subjects. The
means and standard deviations are Shown in Table 4. This new analysis
revealed that there was a statistically Significant difference (p < .05) between the
pretest and the posttest of SAM, t(4) = -4.961, p = .008. This was also true of

two factbr orientations: Initiative (t (4) = -3.833, p = .019) and Self-Strength

TABLE 4

The Something About Myself And Six Factor Orientations: Pretest and Posttest Score Mean
Scores (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) (Exclusive Version: n = 5)

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD
“SAM 45.60 7.16 53.60 10.09
Environmental 47.40 10.14 51 .00 4.47

Sensitivity

“Initiative 47.80 10.08 53.00 10.63
“Self-Strength 43.80 11.95 51.20 12.15
Intellectuality 45.40 6.07 50.00 4.18
Individuality 46.80 8.64 48.40 6.66
Artistry 51.20 8.64 55.80 10.01

 

”=p<.05.

(t (4) = -7.188, p = .002). No differences were found (p > .05) from the four other
factor orientations: Environmental Sensitivity (t (4) = -1.000, p = .374),
Intellectuality (t (4) = ~2.154, p = .098), Individuality (t (4) = -1.000, p = .374), and
Artistry (t (4) = -2.438, p = .071).

Creativity Measurement ll: What Kind of Person Ag Yop? (WKQFAYJ
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviation scores of a paired-
sample t-test for pretest and posttest data of the What Kind of Person Are You?

(WKOPAY). There was no difference (p > .05) between the pre and posttest
scores (t (6)= - 1.410, p = .208). No differences were found (p > .05) within the
five factor orientations of the WKOPAY: Acceptance of Authority (t (6) =.388, p =
.711), Self-Confidence (t (6) = -.255, p = .807), Inquisitiveness (t (6) = -.756, p =
.478), Awareness of Others (t (6) = .128, p = .903), and Disciplined Imagination (t
(6) = .170, p = .871).

TABLE 5

The What Kind of Person Are You And Six Factor On'entations: Pretest and Posttest Mean
Scores (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) (n = 7)

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD
WKOPAY 52.57 10.45 56.29 1 1 .40
Acceptance of 46.29 12.71 45.43 10.55

Authority

Self-Confidence 45.86 12.12 46.86 12.17
Inquisitiveness 45.86 8.67 48.14 5.64
Awareness of Others 50.43 6.43 50.00 8.62
Disciplined Imagination 48.71 8.85 48.29 13.16

 

TABLE 6

The What Kind of Person Are You And Six Factor Orientations: Pretest and Posttest Mean
Scores (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) (Exclusive Version: n = 5)

 

 

 

 

Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD
WKOPAY 49.60 1 1.17 54.60 12.93
Acceptance of 48.60 14.28 46.40 11.44

Authority

Self-Confidence 45.00 14.46 43.20 1 1 .48
Inquisitiveness 44.60 10.29 48.80 6.53
Awareness of Others 51.00 7.48 53.60 7.40
Disciplined Imagination 48.80 10.69 47.20 15.96

 

The comparison excluding the two subjects with low-attendance was also
run for the WKOPAY. The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 6.
No difference was found (p > .05) between groups (t (4) = -1.501, p = .208) on
the whole teat or for the five factor onentations: Acceptance of Authority (t (4)
=.776, p = .481 ), Self-Confidence (t (4) = .544, p = .615), Inquisitiveness (t (4) = -
1.072, p = .344), Awareness of Others (t (4) = -.677, p = .536), and Disciplined
Imagination (t (4) = .471, p = .662).

Compared to SAM, there was more fluctuation within WKOPAY in terms of
score ranges. Individual variances with subjects for each factor orientation were
much larger (See Appendix I for raw scores.)

Interviews

After all sessions were completed, seven students had individual
interviews and described their experiences in the music therapy improvisation
group. Three group members expressed their experiences in terms of their own

feelings.

Reflection1: Well, it was fun experience. I guess the time made it [a] little
hard to get there sometimes because we’re tired by the end of the day. It
energized us a lot and it was good to help us talk about issues that were
bothering us at that time. Overall, I thought it was good to bring the
students together to discuss issues and resolve things. In terms of music,
I don’t know whether music itself helped me to deal with specific issues. It
helped with get[ting] my frustrations out. It was like an outlet for my
feelings. If I was angry about something, I could beat on the xylophone....
It just helped me release my feelings.

Reflection 2: I felt that I could express my feeling. Actually Fridays, I’m
usually tired, and I remember one time I was playing the ocean drum. It
was so comfortable and I was very relaxed.

Reflection 3: I became more comfortable with improvisation and trusting in
the group. I think we became closer, and that made me feel good and
comfortable to be able to talk about everything.

I think one thing that made us feel frustrated [a] couple weeks ago was
that sometimes we wanted to act on things that we talked about [but we
couldn’t]. I think we finally got there [and] we took long time [to do so].
How we are going to react on it? I think that’s our next step. From that
point, working [issues] through music is always safe, I think.

Four group members described their experiences in terms of personal
connection through music.

Reflection 1: I think making music together before we started talking was a
way to connect to each other... It was kind of making an environment
more conducive to sharing ideas.

Reflection 2: Well, at first, we kind of started just doing whatever we
wanted in the improv. group, and it was kind of uncertain, like I didn’t really
know what to do. But by the time when we got done, I really enjoyed
improvising, so. I think first two or three times I don’t think that I’ve got
really a point that I made connection. I think that the first time I really got
the connection was the one when we talked about [student’s name delete]
and we did improv. for [student’s name deleted]. I liked from that point,
and I think a lot of improvs were more connected.

Reflection 3: I thought it was kind of a neat process that we went on.
Because with our group in particular, we started out not playing together at
all. And everyone was kind of just playing in their own little space and not
really listening at all. Well, listening , but not necessarily making changes
because of what they’ve heard or played with anybody. And I think by the
time we finished, especially our last one, we were all listening to each
other and responding to everybody. That was kinda neat to see.

36

Reflection 4: I enjoyed making music with all of my friends. And as we
played together more, I felt like we were [more] connected to each other,
and I was getting to used to it. At the beginning, I didn’t know what to do.
And I was just playing whatever to get it over with. But towards the end, I
felt like I knew what I wanted to play in order to make music with others.
And kind of listening to others. Like at the beginning, I couldn’t hear
anybody’s [music]. I was trying to play what I had to play. But at the end,
I was aware of everybody: what they were playing.

There was a commonality of comments comparing previous improvisation
experiences with this group experience. For students who had had an
experience with methodical music improvisation, such as being in a jazz band, it
was difficult for them to play freely at first without a specific structure to follow.
However, as they spent more time creating music freely within the group, they
felt that there was more freedom to express themselves, allowing their ways of
playing to become more expressive. For students who had had no previous
improvisation experience, there had been an image that improvisation was
something difficult. It was viewed as something for which one needed to have
specific musical knowledge, such as a blues chord progression. These students
said that they were fascinated with the fact that they actually could create music
without thinking about musical forms.

Reflection 1: This is like the first time that I ever done completely free

improvisation. Before, it would be like the Jazz band, or you have like pre-

set, chord changes and just improvised over that... It was hard at first,
when that was unstructured. It was hard to just play and not really have
any structure to follow. But I guess when I got used to it, it became more
expressive.

Reflection 2: I was thinking improvisation was something difficult.

Because my music history, I was always following the structure. I was
playing the'piano with music scores. So I was thinking that improvisation

37

was something difficult. But, this time I felt like, “Wow, ljust can play
music without thinking structures!”

On the other hand, one student said that she preferred having certain structures
over playing freely without them.

Reflection: Personally...even if it’s music therapy improvisation, there
should be a structure. And somebody who knows about music therapy
improvisation should provide the structure, so people can follow.... But
they can still be free. We can’t just go, “OK, I don’t know what to play,
but just I’ll move [my] hand.” [It] won’t motivate me or patient, I think. So, I
think there should be somebody who can provide [the structure]... For
example, ABBA or rondo form. So, people can make music together in A
section, and at B, they can be all free. So, it’s not totally free, so like
[when] people get bored, they can always go back to the structure.
Because I think human needs some kind of structure.

These reflections seemed to lead the students to think further about their
understanding of and attitude toward music therapy group improvisation.

Reflection 1: [This experience] made it [referring to attitude] more positive.
At first...l was kind of playing whatever and not really listening to anyone
else. But, when we started doing this, I did start listening to other people.

Reflection 2: I think it helped me realize how we can express feelings or
ideas just in music, and connect to people musically and not have to worry
about [expressing themselves] verbally or conceptually like, there can
be just a connection with music, and doesn’t have to have a specific
concrete idea or things [to express self]. I think it’s made my attitude more
positive towards improvisation.

Reflection 3: Music Therapy improvisation is more about your feelings
inside and connecting with other people. If you make up something
random on the xylophone, it doesn’t necessary have to follow the same
progression each time to mach with other people... It’s more free... more
freedom to express yourself and get in touch with other people.

Reflection 4: I think I didn’t know too much about music therapy
improvisation before. But I felt like improvisation was not that hard, and I
think I want to use [improvisation] more with many kinds of instruments for
my own sessions [with clients].

Reflection 5: When I heard about improvisation, I used to hesitate, but not
so much any more. But I never knew that it could make me feel frustrated

38

before. I became frustrated when the group wasn’t working together or

wasn’t purposefully listening. I just hadn’t thought about that aspect of it. I

guess that’s one thing that’s different.

Reflection 6: I think it led to a whole bunch of insights on it. If I will be in

charge of the group, I will know what people would feel. Actual doing and

getting this experience is important.

Reflection 7: I think I realized that it’s important to talk about what we

played afterwards. It really helped. If we didn’t talk about it, I would have

never thought about it. Because people talked about it, I realized what

was going on within the music. I think I do improvisation more and more.

I’m finding an importance of improvisation with this group.
When students were asked what were the most valuable experiences for them,
most of the students stated that just having the opportunity to do group music
therapy improvisation regularly was the most precious experience. More
specifically, students mentioned being in a group process in which members got
closer and became more comfortable with playing and listening to each other.
One student said, “ No matter what you play or how you play it, no matter how
small your part is, you’re affecting everyone else in the group. Well, I guess I
knew it already but it kind of reaffirmed it.” Another student commented, “I
remember the last session and the one before that one. When we didn’t
connect, it had a big effect on the group. And the session after that I tried to
actually connect with people through music, which made me realize that it
actually had an effect when you do connect!”

It seemed that awareness of the sounds increased towards to the end of

the sessions, and some students actually felt frustration when they sensed no

musical connection while they were improvising. This had quite an impact for

39

some students, and they commented on this as something they learned through
their group experiences. Three students specifically noted this process.

Reflection 1: I Ieamed a lot about group improvisation because usually
with improvisation, I just thought you play whatever you want, and l
Ieamed that even though it is improvisation, you still need to try to connect
with people and it was important to other members of the group too.
Because I guess me and another group member were never connected
with people. We just kind of went off and did our own thing, so it was nice
to hear that once you connected, it did make an impact on other people in
the group.

Reflection 2: I think I listen better now. Just having the experience every
other week to just sit down and listen to other people play. There are a lot
of group dynamics in music improvisation. That I hadn’t mought about
before. There’s a whole range of listening too. You can listen and really
not listen all at the same time. For instance, I thought I was paying
attention, but then I heard a [recorded] tape and I didn’t know that
someone else was playing the ocean drum! So though I knew there were
whole range of listening, but maybe not the extent. I think I’ve seen a
process: how the group as a whole got kind of used to the setting and
then, there was an adjustment and finally at the end, I think there was a
higher level.

Reflection 3: I’ve Ieamed that it’s easy for group members to become
frustrated and how quickly things can get to a point where [recording
inaudible at this point] a lot of stuff. I’ve also Ieamed that it is possible to
connect through music. I think we had never talked about each other’s
improvisation. I remember couple of weeks ago, one group member told
me that I never join the rest of the group when we do improvisation. That
was huge for me! I thought, “you’re kidding me! I don’t? Hal How
interesting!” I’ve never thought about it. I think it’s been really comfortable
with someone to be able to tell them, ”Hey!” just like not being offended by
that. So, next time I actually thought about that. “You know, I’m really
going to get into it this time and feel around me.” and I did. Then I realized
that I wasn’t doing it before. It was a funny, great expeIience. lwished
someone told me long time ago.

40

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Pugpose and Problems
The purpose of the study was to learn more about the effect of the
experience of group music therapy improvisation sessions on music therapy
senior students’ skills in attending to sounds and music. In this study, the
researcher focused on the students’ empathetic listening experience. The
specific research problems for this study were as follows: 1) To determine
whether participation in group music therapy improvisation affected students’
emotional empathy to others as measured by comparing pre-and posttest scores
on the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES), 2) To determine whether
participation in group music therapy improvisation affected the students’ creative I
perception as measured by pre- and posttest scores on the Khatena-Tonance
Creative Perception Inventory (KT CPI), which consists of two instruments: What
Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY) and Something About Myself (SAM), and 3)
To understand what meaning or significance the participants would give to the
music therapy improvisation experience, individual interviews were transcribed,
and a content analysis by common patterns/themes was performed. This
information was synthesized as reflective data.
mus
There were no significant differences between pretests and posttests of

the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) and the Khatena-Torrance

41

Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI) when analyzed with a two-tailed paired-
Sample t-test (p < .05). There were significant differences (p < .05) between the
pretest and the posttest of the Something About Myself (SAM) and the pretest
and posttest of two of its factor orientations (Initiative and Self-Strength) when
two students with low attendance were excluded from the analysis.

Although, in general, statistically significant differences were not found,
results of the content analysis of individual interviews revealed two common
themes that seemed to have an effect on the students’ empathy and creative
perception: 1) getting touch with and expressing ones own feelings and 2) a
feeling of personal connection through music. Students also seemed to start
recognizing the difference between music therapy improvisation and other forms
of music improvisation, such as jazz, in terms of its intentional focus.
Discussion

In summary, based on the particular measures chosen, music therapy
group improvisation sessions implemented every other week did not have a
significant effect on students’ emotional empathy level and creative perception.
However, the analysis excluding students with low attendance rates indicated
that creative perception might be affected by consistent participation in group
improvisational music therapy.

A close analysis of the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES)
showed that both means and raw scores declined from pre- to posttest in five out
of seven students who participated in the study (See Table 1 and Appendix G).

This was also true when the two students with low attendance were excluded

42

from the analysis. This could be explained from three points of view. First, it
might be possible that it was actually a natural occurrence for initial stages of
empathy levels to go down before beginning to increase. Since posttest scores
of five regular attendants all declined, there might be a possibility that empathy
might require longer period of time to be developed. Second, empathy toward
others may be closely related to the students’ mood on that specific day and
time, and external factors might affect test results. It is difficult to predict or
control the influence of external factors; however, it might be important to obtain
subjects’ mood conditions on the test administration day for comparison
purposes. Third, it might be possible that most of the students were unable to
relate their group experiences to more general daily life situations. Because the
BEES gives an objective report of an individual’s tendency to feel and/or
experience the emotional experiences of others in their daily life situations,
perhaps some students were simply not able to generalize their musical empathy
to non-music therapy situations. Perhaps future research needs to pursue or
reconstruct the assessment tool for specifically measuring empathy levels in
terms of musical context.

An analysis of the What Kind of Person Are You? (WKOPAY) indicated
that means of WKOPAY and two of its five factor orientations (Self-Confidence
and Inquisitiveness) increased from pre- to posttest. This result slightly changed
in the analysis excluding students with low attendance rates. A different factor
(Awareness of Others) then replaced Self-Confidence in the analysis. Even

though there were increases in these specific factors when individual scores

43

were examined, no significant differences were found. Possible reasons for this
could be that the study was too brief; students might Simply have needed more
time to experience group music therapy improvisation before changes occured.
Due to scheduling difficulties, there was no possibility for the researcher to see
the group on a weekly basis. The focus of WKOPAY is to present verbal stimuli
to elicit perceptions of sub-categories within a psychological self-concept that
would reflect the individual’s propensity for creative behavior (Khatena 8
Torrance, 1998). Perhaps students would also develop other creative
characteristics if they spend a longer time as a group and reflected upon their
music creation acts with other group members.

It is important to discuss the finding that the excluded version analysis
revealed: Mean scores of the Something About Myself (SAM) increased in every
factor examined, and five students actually made significant pretest to posttest
gains for SAM and two of its factor orientations (Initiative and Self-Strength). As
mentioned, SAM was constructed based on the notion that creativity is reflected
in a person’s personality characteristics, in her thinking process, and in the actual
byproduct. In this case, this byproduct could be improvisational music itself, and
it is possible that the group mu'sic therapy improvisation experiences might
influence these elements. Perhaps Initiative and Self-Strength might be the ones
that were most easily impacted by the experiences, and the other four factors of
SAM (Environmental Sensitivity, Intellectuality, Individuality, and Artistry) would
follow after the first two are developed. It is possible that students started feeling

comfortable enough in bringing about changes in the ways that they formerly

played and realized that they were capable of taking risks to make these
changes within the group.

The content of the interview data revealed two apparent themes:
expression of one’s own feelings and personal connections through music.

Some students indicated that they felt improvisational music served as an outlet
for their feelings, which helped them to release certain feelings which came out
during the sessions. In fact, they seemed to become more careful about their
choice of instruments and used differing instruments according to their feelings
and/or moods. In the same way, students reflected on their musical relationships
as more positive. They recognized that they began to listen and response to
each other through music. The fact that students has started realizing these
changes brings up the possibility of future development of their empathic
listening skills and creative aspects.

Although the results of the study differed depending on the analysis of the
two contrasting groups in terms of attendance, the author believes that this group
experience might have had a positive effect on their future empathic listening skill
development, based on the comments from individual interviews. Most
participants indicated that they became more aware of other people’s playing and
of the sounds in the music. Listening back to and discussing improvised music
after their playing seemed to give them different perspectives of their music,
feelings, and events at that time. Though there has been much debate regarding
undergraduate music therapy training at the higher levels (Bruscia, 1989;

Milgram-Luterman , 2000; Scartelli, 1987), it is possible that integrating group

45

music therapy improvisation experience into future undergraduate music therapy
education and training programs may be beneficial.

“With the appropriate music therapy education and clinical training,

undergraduates can begin to develop the skills necessary for a higher

level of music therapy practice” (Milgram—Luterrnan, 2000, p. 19).
Recommendations for Fmre Rem

Identifying potential weaknesses in the study may help to improve future
research on music therapy education, and practical training. Therefore, the
following recommendations are offered.

First, weekly meetings would be better to allow group consistency. Since
there was a scheduling conflict, the group could only meet every other week.
Finding a day and time for all students to meet weekly would have been difficult;
however, the time period between sessions made it difficult to make a smooth
start to each session or to process an issue from the previous session. The
researcher needed to remind the students each time what they had experienced
in the previous session.

Second, securing longer sessions across a longer span of time, ideally
two hour sessions over two semesters, would be desirable. This, again, would
not be easy in terms of the students’ busy schedules. However, an hour is
insufficient to do a warm-up discussion, improvisation, listening-back, and
analytical discussion. Since the group also needed to serve as a support group
for the students, there were times when they needed to process issues verbally.

This often left no time for improvisation and its reflection. It is recommended

either to lengthen the time of the sessions or to have separate focused groups:
peer support group for one hour and improvisation group for another.

Third, attendance should be mandatory for group members. Although all
the students were required to be in the group as a part of a class requirement,
some students were absent from the group, assuming no consequential results
would come from their absences. In fact, research results were dependent on
the attendance rate, and, most of all, it was disruptive to the group process to
have such inconsistent attendance. One student clearly pointed it out: “It was a
big distraction when five members cf the group didn’t Show up and then came
next time. It. was hard to relate over each time and try to connect with people
that aren’t there every time.”

Fourth, keeping individual logs or journals after each session may be
beneficial, in order for students to more accurately get in touch with their own
experiences. The interview itself helped students to reflect on their thoughts and
feelings; however, writing down experiences, observations, and reflections of
each session may help students to remember small important things that will
usually fade away as time passes.

Fifth, a larger sample size would be necessary before any generalizations
could be made from these results. This is often a difficult task in any group
therapy study situation since the size of the group tends to be small. To facilitate
a greater number of subjects, the data collection could be from various groups

from many different universities.

47

Sixth, the concepts of both empathy and creativity are difficult to define
and/or measure, and the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES) and the
Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI) were possibly not the
most appropriate means of measuring these concepts for this specific study. For
instance, the lack of statistical significance in empathy may be due to situational
differences in terms of experiencing empathy. This study involved sharing
personal issues and/or concerns through both verbal and nonverbal means in
which subjects were encouraged to listen to how their improvisational music
interacted as a whole and how each person related to the music through her
playing. It is possible that some students might have been more able than others
to relate their group experiences to general daily life Situations. Perhaps some
students were simply not able to generalize their musical empathy to non-music
therapy situations. Another possibility is that empathy levels may actually decline
in early stages of intervention before beginning to increase. Perhaps future
research needs to secure a longer period of sessions in order to see whether
empathy levels actually increase after a certain period of time.

Seventh, future studies should include a control group without music
therapy improvisation for comparison purposes. Again, obtaining enough
subjects for two separate groups may be a difficult task, Since the number of
senior-level music therapy students tends to be small. However, future studies
that employ control group would be helpful in searching for the most effective
way for music therapy students to become sensitive to their clients’ music and to

convey their empathy through music.

Conclusion

The notion of sensing and communicating empathy through music is
abstract, and it is difficult to elucidate its essence; yet as a music therapist, the
author believes that this concept is extremely important in the music therapy
process and needs to be addressed within the music therapy context. Through
actual group experiences, the student subjects seemed to begin to understand
that music therapy improvisation had the potential to generate powerful
emotional intimacy between and among participants. There were certainly
moments of intimate interpersonal relationships between the group members and
the researcher, and the spontaneous music making seemed to facilitate these
personal and meaningful moments.

The other focus of the study, creativity, is also complex and often difficult
to define or measure. Within a music therapy context, creativity might be
explained as the ability to perform various practical musical competencies, such
as instrumental, vocal, and movement improvisation. However, as the study
progressed, it became clear that creativity was very closely related to the
therapists’ sense of awareness: awareness of the client, awareness of the music
of the client and the therapist, and its relation to the world around and within the
client. When students became aware of sounds around them, they started to
listen and observe others more carefully. It seemed that this was the moment
when students started changing the way they played. Perhaps they realized that

they needed to be “creative” to connect with other people through music.

49

In conclusion, the author hopes that the findings of this study generate
several ideas and new insights for future research. The study is only a
beginning, and the conclusions often were supported only by the subjective
speculations made during and after the study to elucidate important aspects of
group improvisational music therapy experiences. Therefore, further
investigation needs to be conducted to validate the tentative conclusions of this
study.

The implementation of this research project was a challenging, yet worthy,
experience for the author to further develop her clinical skills and insights. The
author believes that both the therapist and the group members gained a new and
greater respect for the power of music to bring about new insights and change in

the way one views and perceived oneself and others.

REFERENCES

Alley, J. N. (1978). Competency based evaluation of a music therapy
curriculum. Journal of Mpsic Therapy, 1_5_, 9-14.

Alvin, J. (1978). Msic Therapy for the Autistic Child. London: Oxford
University Press.

American Music Therapy Association. (2001 ). Member sourcebook: 2001.
Silver Spring, MD: Author.

‘ Ansdell, G. (1995). Music for life: Aspects of creative music therapy with

adult clients. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Amason, C. L. (1998). The experience of music therapists in an
improvisational music therapy group. (Doctoral Dissertation, New York

University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International 59 (09A), 3386.

 

Austin, D. S. (1991). The musical mirror: music therapy for the
narcissistically injured. In K. E. Bruscia (Ed.), Case Studies in music therapy (pp.
293-307). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona.

Barret-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a
nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 91-100.

Baston, C. D., 8 Coke, J. (1981). Empathy: A source of altruistic
motivation for helping. In J. Rushton 8 R. Sorrentino (Eds), Altruism and helping
behavior (pp.167-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.

 

Bohart A., 8 Greenberg, L. S. (1997). Empathy reconsidered.
Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

51

Boone, P. C. (1989). Future trends and new models for clinical training.
Music Therapy Perspectives, 1, 96-99.

Bruscia, K. E. (1986). Advanced competencies in music therapy. Misip
Therapy, gm), 57-67.

Bruscia, K. E. (1989). The content of music therapy education at graduate
and undergraduate levels. Music Therapy Perspectives, 1, 83-87.

Bruscia, K. E., Hesser, B., 8 Boxill, E. H. (1981). Essential competencies .
for the practice of music therapy. Music Therapy, 1(1), 43-49.

Bruscia, K. E. (1987). lmprovisational Models of Music Therapy.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Bruscia, K. E. (1998). Defining Music Therapy (2" ed.). Gilsum, NH:
Barcelona.

Bruscia, K. E. (2001). A qualitative approach to analyzing client
improvisations. Music therapy perspectives, _1_9(1), 7-21.

Buie, D. H. (1981). Empathy: Its nature and limitations. Journal of the
American Psychoanalyp'c Association, Q, 281-307.

Bunt, L. (1994). Music therapy: An art beyond words. New York:
Routledge.

Burns, DD, 8 Nolen-Hoeksma, S. (1992). Therapeutic empathy and

recovery from depression in cognitive-behavioral therapy: A structural equation

model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholpgy, 69, 441-449.

52

Davis, W. B., Gfeller, K. E., 8 Thaut, M. H. (1992). An introduction to
music therapy: Theory and practice. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill.

Duan, C., 8 Hill, C. E. (1996). The current state of empathy research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, Q, 261-274.

Gardstrom, C. S. (2001). Practical techniques for the development of
complementary skills in musical improvisation. Music Therapy Perspectives,
19(2), 82-87.

Groene, R. W., 8 Pembrook, R. G. (2000). Curricular issues in music
therapy: A survey of collegiate faculty. Music Therapy Perspectives, _1__8_(2), 92-
102.

Henderson, H. (1991). Improvised songs stories in the treatment of a
thirteen-year-old sexually abused girl from the Xhosa tribe in South Africa. In K.
E. Bruscia (Ed), Case studies in music therapy (pp. 209-217). Gilsum, NH:
Barcelona.

Hesser, B. (2001). The transfonnative power of music in our lives: A
personal perspective. Music therapy perspectives, _1_9(1), 53-58.

Hughes, M. H. (1995). A comparison of mother-infant interactions and the
client-therapist relationship in music therapy sessions. In T. WIgram, B.
Saperston, 8 R. West (Eds), The art and science of music therapy: A handbook
(pp. 296-308). Harwood Academic.

Ivey, A. E., 8 Ivey, M. B. (1999). Intentional interviewing 8 counseling:

Facilitating client development in a multicultural society (4“ ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Jensen, K. L., 8 McKinney, C. H. (1990). Undergraduate music therapy
education and training: Current status and proposals for the future. Journal of
Music Therapy, 2_7_, 158-178.

Khatena, J., 8 Torrance, E. P. (1998). Khatena Torrance Creative
Perception Invgeptorv: Instruction Manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Lambert, M. J., De Julio, S. S., 8 Stein, D. M. (1978). Therapist
interpersonal skills: Process, outcome, methodological considerations, and
recommendations for future research. Psycholpgical Bulletin, 85, 467-489.

Lee, C. (1996). Music at the Edge: The Mtg: Therapy Experiences of a
Musician with AIDS. London: Routledge.

Linehan, M. M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. In A. Bohart 8 L.
S. Greenberg (Eds), Empathy reconsidered, 134-162. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Mintz, J., 8 Auerbach, A. (1988). _W_hp
will benefit from psvchotherapy?: Predicting therapeutic outcomes. New York:
Basic Books.

Mahoney, M. (1995). Human change process. New York: Basic Books.

Maranto, C. D. (1989). Future trends, issues of accountability, and new
models for music therapy education and training. Music Therapy Perspectives,
1, 100-102.

Milgram-Luterman, J. (2000). A phenomenological study of a music
therapy peer support group for senior music therapy students. (Doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts

International 62 (03A).

 

Nordoff, P. 8 Robbins, C. (1977). Creative Music Therapy. New York:
Harper and Row.

Oldfield, A. (1995). Communicating through music: the balance between
following and imitating. In T. Wigram, B. Saperston, 8 R. West (Eds), Ine_ar_t
and science of music therapy: A handbook (pp. 226-237). Harwood Academic.

Orlinsky, D., Grawe, K., 8 Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in
psychotherapy - Noch einmal. In A. Bergin 8 S. Garfirld (Eds), Handbook of
psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 270-376). New York: Wiley.

Patterson, C. H. (1984). Empathy, warmth, and genuineness in
psychotherapy: A review of reviews. Psychotherapy, 2_1(4), 431-438.

Pavlicevic, M. (1997). Music therapy in context: Music, meaning, and
relationship. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Pavlicevic, M. (1999). Music therapy- Intimate notes. London: Jessica
Kingsley.

Pavlicevic, M. (2000). Improvisation in music therapy: Human
communication in sound. Journal of music therapy, QM), p.269—285.

Peters, J. S. (2000). Music therapy: An introduction (2"6 ed). Springfield,
IL: Charles C Thomas.

55

Priestley, M. (1994). Essays on Analyp'cal Music Therapy. Phoenixville,

PA: Barcelona

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 2_1 (2), 95-
103.

Rogers, C. R. (1965). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice,
implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathetic: An unappreciated way of being. flip

Counseling Psycholpgists, 5(2), 2-10.

Rudd, E. (1998). Music therapy: Improvisation, communication, and

culture. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona.

 

Salas, J., 8 Gonzalez, D. (1991). Like singing with a bird: lmprovisational
music therapy with a blind four-year-old. In K. E. Bruscia (Ed), Case studies in
music therapy (pp. 19-27). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona.

Sawyer, F. H. (1975). A conceptual analysis of empathy. Annual of
Psychoanalysis, _3, 37-47.

Scartelli, J. P. (1989). A rationale for levels of certification in music
therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 1, 103-107.

Smith, M. L., 8 Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy
outcome studies. American Psycholpgist, 32, 752-760.

Scheiby, B. B. (1991). Mia’s fourteenth - the symphony of fate:

Psychodynamic Improvisation therapy with a music therapy student in training. In

K. E. Bruscia (Ed), Case studies in music therapy (pp. 273-290). Gilsum, NH:
Barcelona.

Standley, J. M. (1989). A prospectus for the future of music therapy:
Education standards, requirements, and professional designations. _M_U§jp
Therapy Perspectives, L103—107.

Stephens, G. (1987). The experiential music therapy group as a method
of training and supervision. In C. Maranto and K. Bruscia (Eds). Perspectives on
music therapy education and training (pp. 169-176).

Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D., 8 Elliot, R. (1986). Are all psychotherapies
equivalent? American Psychologist, _4_1 , 165-180.

Taylor, D. B. (1987). A survey of professional music therapists concerning
entry level competencies. m of Mpsific Tlflapy, 2_4, 114-145.

Tims, F. (1989). Experiential Ieaming in the music therapy curriculum.
Music Therapy Perspectives, _7_, 91-92.

Truax, C. B., Wargo, D. 6., Frank, J. D., Imber, S. D., Battle, C. C.,
Hoehn-Saric, R., Nash, E. H., 8 Stone, A. R. (1966). The therapist’s contribution
to accurate empathy, nonpossessive warmth, and genuineness in

psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2_2, 331-334.
Watson, J. C. (2002). Re-visioning empathy. In D. J. Cain (Ed),

Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice (pp. 445-471 ).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

57

Wright, L. M. (1992). A levels system approach to structuring and
sequencing pre-practica musical and clinical competencies in a university music
therapy clinic. Mc ThergijPerspectives, 18, 36-44.

Wyatt, J. G., 8 Furioso, M. (2000). Music therapy education and training:

A survey of master’s level music therapists. MUSIC therapy perspectives, 18(2),
103-109.

Yalom, l. D. (1995). The theopy and practice of group psychotherapy:
Forth edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.

APPENDICES

59

APPENDIX A

The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale

Those who wish to use the inventory should contact the author for permission.

Dr. Albert Mehrabian
1130 Alta Mesa Road
Monterey, CA 93940

Telephone: (831) 649-5710
Fax: (831 ) 373-6610
E-mail: am@kaaj.com

APPENDIX B

The Kathena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory
(The Something About Myself 8 The What Kind of Person Are You?)

Those who wish to use the inventory should contact the publisher for permission.
Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
480 Meyer Road
Benseville, IL 60106-1617

Telephone: (630) 766-7150

61

APPENDIX C

Participant lnfonnation

62

Participant Information

In this study, Karin Akamatsu, Music Therapist-Board Certified, will be
conducting a research experiment. The purpose of this research is to learn more about the
experience of group music therapy improvisation sessions with music therapy
undergraduate students. Of particular interest is the effect of the experience of group
improvisation on students’ emotional empathy to others and on their creative perception.
While your full participation is essential to the success of the research project, you are not
required to participate in the research project. Participation in the study is voluntary and
will not adversely affect your rights and welfare. Specific participation will include the
following:

1. Completion of two assessment inventories at the beginning and the ending of
the experiment. The first assessment inventory that will be used is called the
Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). The BEES is a measurement of
individual’s vicarious emotional response to perceived emotional experience
of others. The second assessment inventory that will be used is called the
Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (KTCPI). The KTCPI is an
instrument that predicts how well respondents will perform in situation that
require creative thinking. Estimated test completion time is 40 minutes.
Schedule for these tests will be made at a time that is convenient for both you
and the experimenter.

2. Participation in seven music therapy improvisation sessions over seven weeks.
The session will be one hour in length. You will spend about 30 minutes for
improvisation, 15 minutes for reflecting upon and verbally discussed your
experience with music, 10 minutes for listening back to the music, and 5
minutes for filling out the experirnenter-designed improvisation experience
checklist. Sessions will be video recorded in order to analyze the quality of
improvised music and its relation to various feelings and thoughts of
participants.

3. Participation in individual interview about your experience of music therapy
improvisation. These interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed in
order to analyze what meaning or significance the participant would give to
the music therapy improvisation. The interview will be scheduled at a time
that is convenient for both you and the experimenter. It will be conducted in
the Spring semester, 2002. Estimated interview time is 30 minutes.

Any information that you agree to provide will remain confidential. That means that
your name will not be associated with any of the data collected, nor with the responses
you have provided, the research findings that are presented, or any discussion of the
outcome. You will remain anonymous in any report of the research findings. Your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent by law.

63

There is no physical harm for those who participating in the study. There might be a
possibility of psychological discomfort such as fear and anxiety due to the process of
musical element analysis paired with personal feelings, thoughts and/or issues. However,
the experimenter is a board-certified music therapist and has been educated to deal with
situations in which people might have various negative responses. The experimenter will
provide an opportunity for you to talk about individual issues if desired. You also have a
right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Benefits which will be gained by individual participants will be:

1) Gaining emotional support from other group members and the experimenter through
therapeutic interaction.

2) Having a opportunity to solve personal conflict and/or problems.

3) Developing sensitive music listening skills which are essential for becoming
competent music therapist.

4) Having an opportunity to be aware of the essential qualities of improvised music
making.

Again, as either a full participation or partial participation, you may also choose to
withdraw from the study without penalty or reprisal at any time.

If you choose to participate in the research project, please sign the attached consent form
to indicate your voluntary agreement to participate. For any questions or concerns that
may be raised by participating in this study, contact:

Frederick Tims, Ph. D. Karin Akamatsu, MT-BC
MSU School of Music MSU Music Therapy Clinic
Music Bldg. #149 (517) 353-6426

(517) 353-9122 (H) 347-6957
tims@msu.edu akamatsl @msu.edu

For any questions about participant’s rights as human subjects of research, contact:

Ashir Kumar, M.D.

UCRIHS Chair

Room 246, John Hannah Administration Building
(517) 355-2180

UCRIHS@msu.edu

WEB SITE: - http://www.msu.edu/user/ucrihs/

Improvisation Group will meet every other we;_l<_ for one hour on Fridays from 3:00 to
4:00 pm The group will meet in Room 103 of the Music Practice Building and begin
on Friday, October 19. We will meet four times this semester: October 19, November 2,
16, and December 7. The new schedule for next semester will be determined in January,
2002.

APPENDIX D

Consent Form and Demographic Questionnaire

65

Research Project Consent Form

I (print your name) hereby give
my voluntary and informed consent as a full participant in the research project, Group
improvisational music therapy: Its relation to emotional empathy and creative perception
in senior music therapy students. I hereby authorize the release of information
highlighted on this form (Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowed
by law.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature Date

Name: Project ID#

e-mail address: Telephone:

Age: Gender (circle one): Male Female

 

Ethnicity (circle one): African-American/Black. Asipn/Asipn—Amerifl, Caucasiap,

 

H§p° anic/Latir_t,' Multiracial, Native AmericaruPpcific IslanderLOtheH )

Music background (e.g., your primal instruments, music preference, length of time that

you have learned certain musical skills):

 

 

Do you have any experiences with improvisation? (circle one) Yes No

If you answer “yes,” please describe them shdrtly.

 

 

 

How would you describe improvisation?

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

Sessions

67

Sessions

Session 1 started with an orientation and focusing strategies to establish
group guidelines and rapport. The session began with sharing issues or
concerns that the students wanted to or needed to talk about. Issues arising
their current clinical work led students to come up with a theme of
“unpredictability,” and the group decided to improvise their feelings about
“unpredictability”. Discussion followed in terms of their experiences of
improvising this specific feeling.

Session 2 started with spontaneous improvisation. The group welcomed
one student who had been suffering from psychiatric distress and often needed
to be absent from school on the day of the session. After listening to the
student’s stories of her past/current conditions, all members wanted to express
how happy they were to have her in the group and they expressed their support
through music.

Session 3 opened with a review of previous sessions, and the group
discussed the differences between music of session 1 and 2. A common issue
arose over a conflict with a staff member that some students needed to talk
about and share with other group members. The session time was used to assist
them in this process. No music was made during this session.

Session 4 focused on trying to resolve the issue from the previous
session. Students struggled with resolution of the issue as a group, since there
were differing levels of emotional involvement in terms of perceiving the issue

itself. The researcher suggested trying the “splitting” technique, which Mary

Priestley (1994) developed as one of her Analytical Music Therapy techniques.
With the splitting technique, people project a part of the self onto another
character, and in doing so, it is hoped they might be able to feel both sides of the
conflict. The groups were divided into two, and one group improvised their
feelings onto the other group members, who pretended to be the cause of the
issue. These two groups took turns and later shared how they felt while they
were playing/receiving music.

Session 5 required a second orientation, since there were two non-music
therapy major students joining the group. It was an unavoidable situation since
the researcher was notified by the instructor on the day of the session that these
students would be required to be in the group. Concepts of music therapy
improvisation were explained, and the group decided to “try out” free style
improvisation. Then, the researcher encouraged listening to other group
members’ playing. Students compared the first and the second improvisations in
terms of what happened within the music and their own feelings toward the music
and how attracted they were to it.

Session 6 consisted of verbal processing; no music was made during the
session. The students were so concerned about their internship placements and
used the time to share their thoughts with each other. The new two students
were no longer in the group, since they agreed to come back after this research
project was finished.

Session 7 started with students’ engaging in spontaneous improvisation.

Once the music had ended, the researcher encouraged students to respond to it

69

freely, then, asked specific questions about interpersonal aspects of their playing.
The group started reflecting on their clinical experiences, and listening to
recordings of the improvisation. This led the group to analyze further their
awareness of sounds.

Session 8 promoted continued analysis of the group improvisation and
each participant’s experiences. Spontaneous improvisation began the session
and it continued for thirty minutes. Group members listened back to their
improvised music again and contributed their individual reflections. The unique
characteristics of music were discussed, and the group discussed the difference

among individual attention to the various sounds.

70

APPENDIX F

Personal Interview Protocol

71

Interview Protocol
. Tell me about your experience during this study.

. Have you found any relationship between the quality of music and your
feelings andl or thoughts?

. How would you describe this experience in comparison to your previous
improvisation experience?

. How has the experience affected your understanding of music therapy group
improvisation?

. How has the experience affected your attitude toward music therapy group
improvisation? '

. Describe the‘one thing that was most valuable to you in your experience.
Why?

. Describe the one thing that was least valuable to you in your experience.
Why?

. What have you Ieamed in your experience?

72

APPENDIX G

The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale

Raw Scores

73

TABLE A

The Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale
Individual Pretest and Posttest Raw Score Figure

Test Raw Scores of the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 42 46
2 105 85
3 63 57
4 89 88
5 74 60
6 90 100
7 72 61
120
100 l
(0
Pi 80 l
O
o
(D
3 6° .
40 I
CIBEES pruhct
20. .8553 poem
1 2 3 4 5 e 7

PARTICIPANTS

74

APPENDIX H

The Something About Myself & Six Factor Orientations

Raw Scores

'75

TABLE B

Individual Pretest and Posttest Raw Score Figure

The Something About Myself

Test Raw Scores of the Something About Myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 55 43
2 58 71
3 43 52
4 55 42
5 45 49
6 42 51
7 40 45
30
7o .
a)
E 60*
O
0
a)
E set
M
Dam m
30 .SAMW

 

 

 

AI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 4 5

PARTICIPANTS

76

 

 

The Something About Myself
Six Factor Orientations

Factor 1: Environmental Sensitivity

TABLE C

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 1: Environmental Sensitivity

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 59 49
2 31 49
3 49 49
4 43 59
5 59 59
6 49 49
7 49 59
7O
60 I
(D
E 50 -
O
0
(I)
DEnw‘mnrmnhl
3° " Sensitivity prahct
.Environnuntal
20 Sunlidty pom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPANTS

TABLE D

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 2: Initiative

The Something About Myself

Six Factor Orientations

Factor 2: Initiative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretea Posttest
1 52 52
2 63 7O
3 52 57
4 63 46
5 39 46
6 39 46
7 46 46
80
7o .
w ...
a: so -
O
o
(I)
40 -
Dnitiative prahct
30 _ .lniiativepottect
1 2 3

PARTICIPANTS

78

 

TABLE E

The Something About Myself
Six Factor Orientations

Factor 3: Self-Strength

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 3: Self-Strength

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 57 51
2 64 72
3 41 46
4 46 41
5 41 46
6 41 51
7 32 41
80
7O '
a) sol
w
r:
O
a so-
3 I
40 I
30 . Dal-Strength prom
ISelf-Stronom
20 _ pcctbct
1 3 4 5
PARTICIPANTS

79

TABLE F

The Something About Myself
Six Factor Orientations

Factor 4: Intellectuality

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 4: Intellectuality

 

 

 

 

 

   

Participants Pretest Posttast
1 44 36
2 54 54
3 49 49
4 60 44
5 4O 44
6 40 49
7 44 54
70
60 1 -_l
(I)
LLI
a:
8
(0 5° '
E
401 Dlnbllectudity
precast
I mummy
30 pm

 

 

 

 

AI

 

 

 

 

 

3 4 5 6 7

PARTICIPANTS

 

TABLE G

The Something About Myself
Six Factor Orientations

Factor 5: Individuality

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 5: Individuality

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 44 28
2 59 59
3 36 44
4 59 36
5 51 51
6 44 44
7 44 44
7o
60 I
.7
co
it: 50'
O
8
:w- 7
:lrndvuuaity
3° ' plant
I lndvirhdlty
20 pose-st

 

 

 

A1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 4 5 6 7

PARTICIPANTS

81

 

TABLE H

The Something About Myself
Six Factor Orientations

Factor 6: Artistry

Test Raw Scores of Six Factor Orientation 6: Artistry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 62 62
2 54 62
3 54 62
4 .54 47
5 62 62
6 47 54
7 39 39

7o
60 I
to
LU
a:
8
a) 50'
E
40 .
30 v
1 2 3 4 5
PARTICIPANTS

82

APPENDIX I

The What Kind of Person Are You? & Five Factor Orientations

Raw Scores

TABLE I

The What

Kind of Person Are You?

Individual Pretest and Posttest Raw Score Figure

Test Raw Scores of the What Kind of Person Are You?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 59 55
2 66 74
3 46 39
4 61 66
5 54 57
6 36 48
7 46 55
so
70-
U)
E 60-
O
o
m
g...
401
I:IWKOPAYm
so I .wxopAvpom
1 2 3 4 5 s 7

PARTICIPANTS

 

The What Kind of Person Are You?
Five Factor Orientations

Factor 1: Acceptance of Authority

TABLE J

Test Raw Scores of Five Factor Orientation 1: Acceptance of Authority

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 46 51
2 28 28
3 56 56
4 35 35
5 56 46
6 63 56
7 4O 46

7o
60 -
to
E2 50' I
O
0
(D
E 4‘
a:
30-
20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

PARTICIPANTS

85

The What Kind of Person Are You?
Five Factor Orientations

Factor 2: Self-Confidence

TABLE K
Test Raw Scores of Five Factor Orientation 2: Self-Confidence

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 44 64
2 52 39
3 48 48
4 52 48
5 48 ' 52
6 57 52
7 20 25
70
6° 1

RAW SCORES
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

PARTICIPANTS

TABLE L

The What Kind of Person Are You?
Five Factor Orientations

Factor 3: Inquisitiveness

Test Raw Scores of Five Factor Orientation 3: Inquisitiveness

 

 

 

 

 

Participants Pretat Posttea
1 49 44
2 44 54
3 60 49
4 49 49
5 44 54
6 44 49
7 31 38
70
60 ‘
(D
E 50-
O
O
(D
g 401
anulcltivcnocs
3° ' pram
.lnquicitiveness
20. pecans:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPANTS

87

 

The What Kind of Person Are You?
Five Factor Orientations

Factor 4: Awareness of Others
TABLE M

Test Raw Scores of Five Factor Orientation 4: Awareness of Others

 

 

 

 

     

 

   

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 52 41
2 46 52
3 58 52
4 46 41
5 52 66
6 58 52
7 41 46
70
6° 1
U)
UJ
a:
o a
B so .
3
40-1 Dmcfomors
m
.Awum of Others
so pom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPANTS

The What Kind of Person Are You?
Five Factor Orientations

Factor 5: Disciplined Imagination

TABLE N

Test Raw Scores of Five Factor Orientation 5: Disciplined Imagination

 

 

Participants Pretest Posttest
1 51 51
2 56 61
3 35 22
4 46 51
5 51 46
6 61 61
7 41 46

 

 

7O

60I

     

RAW SCORES
8

20ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1O

 

     

PARTICIPANTS

89

APPENDIX J

Human Subject Committee

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Commlttee on
Research Involvlng
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
246 Administration Building
East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180

FAX: 517/353-2976

leb: www.muedu/user/ucrihs
E-Mail: ucrihsOmsuedu

rne uranium sure University
roa is institutional My
mum in Adieu.

...-l “AAA-n“. “J“

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

October 10, 2001

TO: Frederick TIMS
102 Music Bldg.

RE: IRB# 01-670 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-A,B,C,D

APPROVAL DATE: October 10, 2001

TITLE: GROUP IMPROVISATIONAL MUSIC THERAPY: ITS RELATION TO
EMOTIONAL EMPATHY AND CREATIVE PERCEPTION IN SENIOR MUSIC
THERAPY MAJORS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://wwrv.msu.edu/user/ucrihs

Sincerely,

 

UCRIHS Chair

AK: kj
cc: Karin Akamastsu

4967 Campus Hill Dr. A301
Okemos, Ml 48864 91

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IWWWWW