Relationship between Playing Musical Instruments and Subjective Well-Being: Enjoyment of Playing Instruments Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for your replies to the comments. I agree that the authors have improved the article in line with my previous suggestions. It is appropriate to publish the article as it is.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. The revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Thank you for your replies to the comments. I agree that the authors have improved the article in line with my previous suggestions. It is appropriate to publish the article as it is.

Response 1: Your valuable comments have helped us improve the quality of this manuscript and have taught us a lot. Thank you for your satisfactory evaluation of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is internally coherent in its development, well-founded and cites reliable sources.

Some points that should be considered:

- There is no mention that it is a quantitative methodology

- the references should be more recent and up to date

-the questionnaire that is the basis of the research is not attached.

- criteria are mixed when drawing conclusions, so that the results are too generic

- as indicated in the limitations, the sample is not representative.

In addition, the analysis does not detail the ranges by age, sex, general studies, musical studies, profession, personal interests, among other aspects that could be clarifying and interesting.

 

I believe that some improvements should be made to give greater scientific strength to the study.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. The revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

Comments 1: There is no mention that it is a quantitative methodology.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Following your advice, we have included the following in the methodology section and conclusion section to indicate that quantitative methodology was used in this study. [Line 213] “This study employs a quantitative methodology.” “This study employed a quantitative research methodology to develop and validate the EPIS, demonstrating its robustness in measuring the enjoyment of playing musical instruments.”

Comments 2: The references should be more recent and up to date.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We couldn't help but explain the scale, and we have updated the references that are too old to the most recent ones. Below are updated references. [Line 473, 485-486, 493-495, 575-579]   Horden, P., Ed. Music as Medicine: The History of Music Therapy Since Antiquity. 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, 2000.   Merrill, J.; Omigie, D.; Wald-Fuhrmann, M. Locus of emotion influences psychophysiological reactions to music. PLoS One 2020, 15, e0237641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237641   Malakoutikhah, A.; Dehghan, M.; Ghonchehpoorc, A.; Parandeh Afshar, P.; Honarmand, A. The effect of different genres of music and silence on relaxation and anxiety: A randomized controlled trial. Explore (NY) 2020, 16, 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.02.005   Hair, J. F.; Black, W. C.; Babin, B. J.; Anderson, R. E. Multivariate data analysis; 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2010.   Cheung, G. W.; Cooper-Thomas, H. D.; Lau, R. S.; Wang, L. C. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2024, 41, 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

Comments 3: The questionnaire that is the basis of the research is not attached.

Response 3: The EPIS items are presented in Table 1 [Line 248]. The Chinese items originally given to the participants were included in the first submission, but were requested to be deleted during the first screening process and were therefore deleted. If you would like to refer to the scales (questionnaires) for criterion-related validity and scales for subjective well-being and happiness, I attached them (a zip file) as a Non-published Material. The zip file also contains preliminary items for EPIS.

Comments 4: Criteria are mixed when drawing conclusions, so that the results are too generic.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comments. Due to the limitations of our researchers' capabilities, there were some shortcomings in the conclusion section. We have supplemented the conclusion by including the implications of the results of this study and suggestions for further research. [Line 441-452]   This study employed a quantitative research methodology to develop and validate the EPIS, demonstrating its robustness in measuring the enjoyment of playing musical instruments. The EPIS exhibited a stable factorial structure, excellent model fit, and strong convergent and criterion-related validity, confirming its reliability and utility for researchers, educators, and music therapists. Importantly, the study revealed that the enjoyment of playing musical instruments significantly correlates with subjective well-being and happiness, thereby supporting the efficacy of music therapy that incorporates musical instruments. These findings underscore the potential of the EPIS as a valuable tool for future research and practical applications in enhancing individuals' mental health and life satisfaction through musical engagement. However, further research with diverse samples and experimental designs is needed to explore the causal relationships and expand the scale’s applicability.

Comments 5: As indicated in the limitations, the sample is not representative. In addition, the analysis does not detail the ranges by age, sex, general studies, musical studies, profession, personal interests, among other aspects that could be clarifying and interesting.

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. It is not easy to conduct a study with a sample that represents people worldwide. However, it was stated that the data obtained through the survey company and online can regionally represent Chinese adults. Additionally, we noted as a limitation of the study that we did not analyze the data by gender, age, academic majors, profession, or personal interests, and future research should consider these factors. [Line 424-428]   First, the study sample is not fully representative of the global population because data collection was conducted online in China. Even so, since the people registered with the survey company and those surveyed online reside throughout China, the sample in this study is regionally representative of Chinese adults. Additionally, this study did not analyze the data by sex, age, academic majors, profession, or personal interests, further study should consider these variables as they may influence the results, which is a limitation of the current study.

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for your effort so far in getting your manuscript to review. The manuscript entitled ‘‘Relationship between Playing Musical Instruments and Subjective Well-being: Enjoyment of Playing Instruments Scale’’. This research was conducted both to develop a scale and to establish the validity and reliability of the developed scale. Although there are scales in the literature to measure the relationship between participation in musical activity and subjective well-being, there is no scale for enjoying playing an instrument as stated by the authors.  So overall, I believe the study is important and will be useful to other researchers and practitioners. However, I have identified a few minor issues in the text of the manuscript for which I would like to call for your attention. Please find my comments and feedback below with reference to pages:

Abstract

The summary section provides a quick overview of this research.

Page 1- Data on the aforementioned enjoyment were collected using open-ended questions… You can add who you asked these open-ended questions to, as described in the method.

1.Introduction

The introduction is generally well written. It provides explanatory information on how the enjoyment of playing an instrument scale can fill the gap in the field. The references cited are relevant. However, more references could have been made to more recent references, i.e. to the last five years. I also suggest that the authors look at the following research.

1.           Krause AE, Davidson JW, North AC. Musical Activity and Well-being. Music Perception. 2018 Apr 1;35(4):454–74.

2.Method

Both the number of participants and the measurement tools and statistical analyses used are suitable for scale development and validity and reliability.

3.Results

The results are presented in accordance with the aim of the research. However, figure 1 is a well-made version of table 2. For this reason table 2 can be removed or put in the supplementary material (Of course, this is my opinion).

Page 7- Correlational analysis revealed that EPIS scores were positively correlated with sub-jective well-being (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), life satisfaction (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), positive emotions (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), and negative emotions (r = 0.30, p < 0.001)…….  Are the numbers in this paragraph correct according to Table 4?

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion and conclusions sections were written in line with the results.

 I congratulate you all on the exciting manuscript I considered to be well-written.

 

Author Response

Reviewer Comments and Responses

 

 

Thank you very much for your comments to improve the quality of this articles and we learned a lot.

 

The revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1. (Abstract) Page 1- Data on the aforementioned enjoyment were collected using open-ended questions… You can add who you asked these open-ended questions to, as described in the method.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your nice comment. As you advised, we added what you commented as shown below. (Line 15-16)

Primary information about the aforementioned enjoyment were collected from fourteen Chinese laypersons, five music graduates, and five music teachers using open-ended questions.

 

Point 2. (Introduction) The introduction is generally well written. It provides explanatory information on how the enjoyment of playing an instrument scale can fill the gap in the field. The references cited are relevant. However, more references could have been made to more recent references, i.e. to the last five years. I also suggest that the authors look at the following research.

Krause AE, Davidson JW, North AC. Musical Activity and Well-being. Music Perception. 2018 Apr 1;35(4):454–74.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We added what you introduced us as a reference.

21. Krause, A. E.; Davidson, J. W.; North, A. C. Musical activity and well-being: A new quantitative measurement instrument. Music Percept. 2018, 35, 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2018.35.4.454

 

Point 3. (Methods) Both the number of participants and the measurement tools and statistical analyses used are suitable for scale development and validity and reliability.

Response 3: Thank you for the good evaluation.

 

 

Point 4. (Results) The results are presented in accordance with the aim of the research. However, figure 1 is a well-made version of table 2. For this reason table 2 can be removed or put in the supplementary material (Of course, this is my opinion).

 

Page 7- Correlational analysis revealed that EPIS scores were positively correlated with sub-jective well-being (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), life satisfaction (r = 0.47, p < 0.01), positive emotions (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), and negative emotions (r = 0.30, p < 0.001)…….  Are the numbers in this paragraph correct according to Table 4?

 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment. As you commented, almost all of Table 2 overlaps with Figure 1. So, as you advised, we removed Table 2.

And, thanks for your detailed review. Embarrassingly, there was a typo in two correlation coefficients. We have corrected them. And in addition, we carefully looked again to see if there were similar mistakes elsewhere. (Line 261-263)

 

Correlational analysis revealed that EPIS scores were positively correlated with subjective well-being (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), life satisfaction (r = 0.59, p < 0.01), positive emotions (r = 0.57, p < 0.001), and negative emotions (r = 0.25, p < 0.001).

 

Point 5. (Discussion and conclusions) The discussion and conclusions sections were written in line with the results.

 I congratulate you all on the exciting manuscript I considered to be well-written.

Response 5: Thank you for the good evaluation

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the first paragraph, the first four sentences present ideas that are mostly all self-evident. The final sentence is more conjecture, yet it is the only sentence that does not have a supporting citation.

 

In the second paragraph, the statement that "research has already proven…" Is stated an overly strong terms, especially the word "proven." Many people in the social sciences reject the idea that research "proves" anything, instead conceiving it as the process of collecting evidence in support of theoretical explanations. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but is an important difference to others. Ultimately, I don't think there's a reason to make this statement so strongly, when it could simply be said, that "music can induce physiological changes related to emotional responses," without the assertion that it's  been  "proven" by research. 

 

Given the value that science places on precision in communication, I would like researchers who study music to avoid broad statements, such as "music may improve intellectual abilities." What is meant by "music"? Listening to music? Performing music? Creating music? And what kind of music? Only classical music (as some pseudo-scholars purport)? And what "intellectual abilities"? 

 

The closest thing I could find to a purpose statement for the study was: “Therefore, this study developed a reliable and valid tool that can properly measure why people enjoy playing musical instruments, and examines how this enjoyment correlates with subjective well-being and happiness.” It was unclear to me how the results of the questionnaire are used to determine WHY they enjoy playing musical instruments. Does a person’s responses allow them to be categorized as primarily motivated by one of the three Factors determined, or is the questionnaire really meant to produce as single score that describes the degree to which they enjoy playing musical instruments?

 

I object to labeling a measurement tool as "valid" and "reliable" as if it can be pronounced or certified as such completely and unconditionally. I would prefer that these researchers share the tools that they have created and the supporting evidence for its validity and reliability. Regarding the use of this tool in future research— as it should be with all research—the issue will be the reliability and validity of the MEASURES that the tool is used to collect, not of the tool itself. Researchers show a great lack of rigor by choosing a tool that has been previously declared valid and reliable--in a different context with different human participants--and use this to absolve themselves of the responsibility to gather/present evidence for the reliability and validity of THEIR MEASURES using the tool. I would appreciate the authors of this current paper not facilitating this negligence in research practice. 

 

In the Participants section, the first paragraph describes a group of 24 people. It says they were asked to “describe the reasons or purposes for which they enjoy playing musical instruments,” but it is unclear why these people were asked this. The next paragraph then mentions 361 participants for the survey. So what was the role of the group of 24? Were they the participants in a pilot study administration of the survey? Or were the responses of these 24 people the basis for constructing the items of the survey? This needs to be communicated more clearly to readers. And if these 24 people did play an important role in the research, then more information is needed about how these specific people were chosen. How were the laypersons selected (and why only 14)? What were the relevant characteristics of the music graduates and teachers?

 

Section 2.2.1 reports that the literature reviewed was used to create 50 items. The general findings of this literature review need to be shared in the Introduction (or in a section titled Review of Literature) before the Methods section. The findings from the literature are much more important to this research than very broad statements, such as “Humans have used music since ancient times” (first paragraph of the Introduction) or overly conclusive statements that practically undermine the need for the present research, e.g., “We assumed that the enjoyment of playing musical instruments can positively affect subjective well-being and happiness. Previous studies indicate that music engagement can enhance subjective well-being or happiness.” Rather than using the text prior to the Method section to communicate such things, it would better serve this research to report the findings from the literature review that informed the creation of the items of the survey questionnaire. This is how construct validity is established.

 

The statistical procedures seem to be sound, and many of the correlation coefficients are high. What is lacking is the explanation of theory underlying the relationships between variables tested here. In other words, how is the validity of the EPIS supported by correlating it to the MUSE, MRS, and UMI. And what happened to the data collected by the SHS? Were these data used?

 

I would prefer the Discussion section to offer a true discussion, i.e., consideration/exploration of ideas prompted by the results, rather than restating the results and citing ideas of past research. Exactly what should be discussed depends on the stated purpose of the study, which could be made more clear from the outset. Also, some of the statements offered in this section seem like speculation or possibilities that are state in an overly conclusive way, e.g., “This suggests that having people play musical instruments can be utilized therapeutically to restore social relationships, promote self-esteem, improve mental health, and reduce stress responses.” This seems like too much to assert based on a correlation between two subscales.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English seemed fine to me. I did not have any problems with the English per se. I wanted some ideas to be stated more clearly or in different terms, but I do not think this was an issue of quality of English.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments and Responses

 

 

Thank you very much for your comments to improve the quality of this articles and we learned a lot.

 

The revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1. In the first paragraph, the first four sentences present ideas that are mostly all self-evident. The final sentence is more conjecture, yet it is the only sentence that does not have a supporting citation.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. This was a sentence to continue from the introduction paragraph to the next paragraph, but we made a mistake and used an expression that was too assertive. We modified the sentence as shown below (Line 35-36). (And in the next paragraph, sentences and evidence supporting this sentence are presented.)

These ways of using music continue today because perhaps they have some advantages.

Point 2. In the second paragraph, the statement that "research has already proven…" Is stated an overly strong terms, especially the word "proven." Many people in the social sciences reject the idea that research "proves" anything, instead conceiving it as the process of collecting evidence in support of theoretical explanations. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but is an important difference to others. Ultimately, I don't think there's a reason to make this statement so strongly, when it could simply be said, that "music can induce physiological changes related to emotional responses," without the assertion that it's been "proven" by research.

Response 2: Thank you for your nice advice. We completely agree with you. As you advised, I removed the "research has already proven" as shown below (Line 42-43).

 

Music can induce physiological changes related to emotional responses [7].

 

Point 3. Given the value that science places on precision in communication, I would like researchers who study music to avoid broad statements, such as "music may improve intellectual abilities." What is meant by "music"? Listening to music? Performing music? Creating music? And what kind of music? Only classical music (as some pseudo-scholars purport)? And what "intellectual abilities"?

Response 3: Thank you very much for your good comment. Yes, it was an ambiguous sentence. So, we described cognitive development rather than “intellectual abilities” with other reference. And we added a reference to the sentence after that (Line 93-105).

Your comment is correct. I also believe that different genres of music will be effective. By the way, as a middle-aged person, classical music is boring and psychologically unhelpful to me. I enjoy pop music.

 

Furthermore, musical training may promote cognitive development [15] and learning a playing a musical instrument may have some social adaptive functions [16].

 

 

Miendlarzewska, E. A., Trost, W. J. How musical training affects cognitive development: Rhythm, reward and other modulating variables. Front Neurosci. 2014, 7, 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00279  

Cope, P. Informal learning of musical instruments: The importance of social context. Music Educ. Res. 2002, 4, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800220119796

 

 

Point 4. The closest thing I could find to a purpose statement for the study was: “Therefore, this study developed a reliable and valid tool that can properly measure why people enjoy playing musical instruments, and examines how this enjoyment correlates with subjective well-being and happiness.” It was unclear to me how the results of the questionnaire are used to determine WHY they enjoy playing musical instruments. Does a person’s responses allow them to be categorized as primarily motivated by one of the three Factors determined, or is the questionnaire really meant to produce as single score that describes the degree to which they enjoy playing musical instruments?

 

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. Factor analysis in developing a scale to measure a variable allows us to conceptualize the variable. Therefore, the factors can be measured for each subscale, but the scores for all scales can be added to calculate the total score for enjoyment of playing musical instrument.

 

Point 5.  I object to labeling a measurement tool as "valid" and "reliable" as if it can be pronounced or certified as such completely and unconditionally. I would prefer that these researchers share the tools that they have created and the supporting evidence for its validity and reliability. Regarding the use of this tool in future research— as it should be with all research—the issue will be the reliability and validity of the MEASURES that the tool is used to collect, not of the tool itself. Researchers show a great lack of rigor by choosing a tool that has been previously declared valid and reliable--in a different context with different human participants--and use this to absolve themselves of the responsibility to gather/present evidence for the reliability and validity of THEIR MEASURES using the tool. I would appreciate the authors of this current paper not facilitating this negligence in research practice.

Response 5: Thank you for your good evaluation and insightful comment. As you know, reliability is a psychometric term that indicates whether the same results are obtained when measured again, and validity that indicates whether it measures what it is intended to measure. However, researchers are well aware that true scores for measurement values cannot exist in reality, so complete reliability and validity cannot be expected in reality. Based on your opinion, we have removed the words "valid" and "reliable". (Line 75-76)

 

Therefore, this study developed a tool that can properly measure why people enjoy playing musical instruments, and examines how this enjoyment correlates with subjective well-being and happiness.

Point 6. In the Participants section, the first paragraph describes a group of 24 people. It says they were asked to “describe the reasons or purposes for which they enjoy playing musical instruments,” but it is unclear why these people were asked this. The next paragraph then mentions 361 participants for the survey. So what was the role of the group of 24? Were they the participants in a pilot study administration of the survey? Or were the responses of these 24 people the basis for constructing the items of the survey? This needs to be communicated more clearly to readers. And if these 24 people did play an important role in the research, then more information is needed about how these specific people were chosen. How were the laypersons selected (and why only 14)? What were the relevant characteristics of the music graduates and teachers?

Response 6: It's a shame that we couldn't explain it in detail. Because we were unable to conduct a focused group interview due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected basic information to construct the scale items through open-ended questions. So, we revised it as follows (Line 84-89). As this was the basic task for constructing the items of the scale, we selected subjects for open-ended questions through convenience sampling.

To obtain primary information about the enjoyment of playing musical instruments for constructing the items of the scale, 14 Chinese laypersons, five music graduates, and five music teachers were asked open-ended questions. Among them, 13 were women and 11 were men, and their ages ranged from 21 to 40. They were asked to “describe the reasons or purposes for which they enjoy playing musical instruments.” The focused group interview could not be conducted due to coronavirus disease 2019.

Point 7. Section 2.2.1 reports that the literature reviewed was used to create 50 items. The general findings of this literature review need to be shared in the Introduction (or in a section titled Review of Literature) before the Methods section. The findings from the literature are much more important to this research than very broad statements, such as “Humans have used music since ancient times” (first paragraph of the Introduction) or overly conclusive statements that practically undermine the need for the present research, e.g., “We assumed that the enjoyment of playing musical instruments can positively affect subjective well-being and happiness. Previous studies indicate that music engagement can enhance subjective well-being or happiness.” Rather than using the text prior to the Method section to communicate such things, it would better serve this research to report the findings from the literature review that informed the creation of the items of the survey questionnaire. This is how construct validity is established.

Response 7: There was no formal literature review process for item development.   The knowledge gained from reviewing related previous studies and literature for this study only contributed to developing the questions. Therefore, the sentence was modified as follows. (Line 101-102)

 

After reviewing the results of the open-ended questionnaires, a total of 50 items on the enjoyment of playing instruments were developed.

 

Point 8. The statistical procedures seem to be sound, and many of the correlation coefficients are high. What is lacking is the explanation of theory underlying the relationships between variables tested here. In other words, how is the validity of the EPIS supported by correlating it to the MUSE, MRS, and UMI. And what happened to the data collected by the SHS? Were these data used?

Response 8: We agree with your comment. There are limitations in verifying criterion-related validity as there are no other tools to measure motivation or enjoyment of playing musical instruments.

SHS is a tool to measure subjective happiness, and the results of the correlation analysis between the EPIS measurement results and the SHS measurement results were presented in Table 3 and it was described. (Line 266-269)

 

 

 

Point 9. I would prefer the Discussion section to offer a true discussion, i.e., consideration/exploration of ideas prompted by the results, rather than restating the results and citing ideas of past research. Exactly what should be discussed depends on the stated purpose of the study, which could be made more clear from the outset. Also, some of the statements offered in this section seem like speculation or possibilities that are state in an overly conclusive way, e.g., “This suggests that having people play musical instruments can be utilized therapeutically to restore social relationships, promote self-esteem, improve mental health, and reduce stress responses.” This seems like too much to assert based on a correlation between two subscales.

Response 9: We agree with your advice. As you advised, we modified the wording to make it seem like an assertion. (Line 308-310; 317-320) Additionally, the limitations of the study regarding this concern include the following. (Line 341-342)

 

The cognitive refreshment and stimulation subscale of the EPIS closely correlated with the engaged production subscale of the MUSE. This suggests that having people play musical instruments may be utilized therapeutically to restore social relationships, promote self-esteem, improve mental health, and reduce stress responses.

 

This finding suggests that playing instruments may be used as a psychotherapeutic tool for enhancing people’s life satisfaction. Thus, music therapy using musical instrument playing may effectively improve the client’s subjective well-being and happiness, particularly life satisfaction.

 

Finally, the causal relationship cannot be concluded with certainty based on correlational studies rather than experimental study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended to update some quotes about music therapy, benefits of music in people's daily lives and the importance of playing musical instruments. The following articles are recommended:

https://theconversation.com/cuales-son-los-beneficios-cerebrales-de-tocar-un-instrumento-163225

https://hub.europe.yamaha.com/article/beneficios-sociales-de-aprender-a-tocar-un-instrumento

https://cimcyc.ugr.es/informacion/noticias/beneficios-cognitivos-y-academicos-tocar-instrumentos-musicales-la

https://www.tomorrow.bio/es/post/un-estudio-de-la-universidad-de-exeter-relaciona-tocar-instrumentos-o-cantar-con-la-mejora-de-la-memoria-en-la-tercera-edad-2024-01-5948917773-neuroscience

https://revistas.uam.es/rim/article/view/18522

https://revistamedica.com/musica-bienestar-emocional-reduccion-estres/

https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-74672021000100139

It would be interesting to know the EPIS questionnaire since it is a novelty of the research.

Methodology and analysis are well done

The discussion and conclusions are interesting.

 

The limitations of the study are appropriate because the sample is unrepresentative.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer Comments and Responses

 

 

Thank you very much for your comments to improve the quality of this articles and we learned a lot.

 

The revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1. It is recommended to update some quotes about music therapy, benefits of music in people's daily lives and the importance of playing musical instruments. The following articles are recommended:

 

https://theconversation.com/cuales-son-los-beneficios-cerebrales-de-tocar-un-instrumento-163225

https://hub.europe.yamaha.com/article/beneficios-sociales-de-aprender-a-tocar-un-instrumento

https://cimcyc.ugr.es/informacion/noticias/beneficios-cognitivos-y-academicos-tocar-instrumentos-musicales-la

https://www.tomorrow.bio/es/post/un-estudio-de-la-universidad-de-exeter-relaciona-tocar-instrumentos-o-cantar-con-la-mejora-de-la-memoria-en-la-tercera-edad-2024-01-5948917773-neuroscience

https://revistas.uam.es/rim/article/view/18522

https://revistamedica.com/musica-bienestar-emocional-reduccion-estres/

https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-74672021000100139.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your good advice. These are good sites we can refer to. However, there are limitations in citing Internet information in journal articles, and it is difficult for us and our readers to understand sites in Spanish. So, we included one of the papers you introduced and one of the English papers on the site as references.

 

24. García, S. M.; Fernández-Company, J. F. Hacia un enfoque terapéutico integrado: musicoterapia y mindfulness contra el estrés y la ansiedad. Revista De Investigación En Musicoterapia. 2023, 7, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.15366/rim2023.7.003
25. Román-Caballero, R.; Vadillo, M.; Trainor, L.; Lupiáñez, J. Please don't stop the music: A meta-analysis of the cognitive and academic benefits of instrumental musical training in childhood and adolescence. Res. Rev. 2022, 35, 100436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100436.

 

Point 2. It would be interesting to know the EPIS questionnaire since it is a novelty of the research.

Response 2: Thank you for your good evaluation.

 

Point 3. (Methods) Methodology and analysis are well done.

Response 3: Thank you for the good evaluation.

 

Point 4. (Discussion and conclusions) The discussion and conclusions are interesting.

Response 5: Thank you for your good evaluation.

 

Point 5. The limitations of the study are appropriate because the sample is unrepresentative.

Response 5: Thank you for your understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, the authors seem to have sufficiently addressed the concerns I raised in my review. I am satisfied that this paper is now deserving of publication. 

Author Response

We really appreciate your notes to improve the quality of this manuscript, and again we learned a lot.

 

Newly revised parts were marked in red, and we included the page and line of the revised part.

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1. Although the study's methodology and procedures are well-structured and attractive, and the reviewers confirmed the revisions. I find that the coherence between the literature review and the study's output is rather weak. The fundamental premise of their selected validation tools and the primary study on factors influencing the enjoyment of playing instruments do not substantially address the 'playing' aspect of music. The authors mention that there are no tools assessing the enjoyment of playing, but only singing or listening,  however, many of the items they drew from the preliminary study do not reflect the 'expressive' aspect of music but rather music experience in general.  Their statements about the enjoyment of music are too broad and superficial (e.g., mixed with statements on the therapeutic benefits of music in various domains).

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. Aside from the effects of music therapy through playing musical instruments, we thought we had no choice but to describe music use, music engagement, and music listening, as you pointed out, as there was little research on psychological effects of playing musical instruments. Due to our lack of ability, we have missed including the part about the 'express' aspect of music. Therefore, we have included the following statements and references. However, we would appreciate it if you could understand that it’s still lacking in discussion about expressive aspect of music. (Line 49-51)

However, it was found that there are psychological effects not only in receptive listening to music, but also in the expression of music [14,15].

14. Kim, A. J. Differential effects of musical expression of emotions and psychological distress on subjective appraisals and emotional responses to music. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 491. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13060491
15. Belgrave, M. The effect of expressive and instrumental touch on the behavior states of older adults with late-stage dementia of the Alzheimer's type and on music therapist's perceived rapport. J. Music. Ther. 2009, 46, 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/46.2.132

 

Point 2. The objective study is confusing whether the scale is to measure the 'degree' of enjoyment of playing or to examine 'why' they play the instrument (line 75).

Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We made that part a little clearer. (Line 51-52)

 

Thus, the current study investigates the various reasons of people enjoy playing musical instruments and the degree to which they enjoy it.

Point 3. Additionally, the authors did not provide sufficient information regarding the selected tools for criterion-referenced validity. For example, the 'Music Receptive Scale' does not quite fit the 'expressive' aspect of playing, as it focuses more on listening. Therefore, I would like  to request the authors for additional literature reviews on 'playing' aspect of music and also  the rationale for the tools they selected how they pertain to the playing enjoyment.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable advice. In fact, when we were planning the study, we did not have a tool to measure the psychological effects of playing a musical instrument, so we included the music use or music engagement scale as an existing scale to verify criterion-related validity. Although MRS also has the expression “music,” it is true that there are many items related to listening music. Therefore, the limitations of the study were further specified as follows

 

Second, the measures selected to verify criterion-related validity were not based on playing musical instruments accurately. Those scales do not sufficiently include the expressive aspect of playing musical instruments, especially the Music Receptive Scale focuses more on music listening; therefore, a limitation exists in terms of examining the criterion-related validity of the EPIS.

 

Point 4. Also more description on how the primary survey was done, because they are basic premise of factor structures (narrowing down to 16 items only).

Response 4: As you advised, the process until the 16 items were finalized was further refined as follows. Although related to our response to the Notes below, phenomenologically, clinically, or therapeutically important items may have been removed in the process of narrowing down the items to satisfy statistical standards. (Line 105-118)

 

After reviewing the results of the open-ended questionnaires, a total of 50 items on the enjoyment of playing instruments were developed. The themes of preliminary items for enjoyment of playing musical instruments included emotional savoring, cognitive enjoyment, social enjoyment, feeling of accomplishment, and enjoyment that could not be distinguished otherwise. After two rounds of content validity verification conducted by four professors majoring in music or psychology, 34 preliminary items were selected. In this process, among the items evaluated as being too similar, the item recommended to be the most representative was selected, and those evaluated as inappropriate were modified or removed. Those selected as preliminary items had a content validity index (CVI) value of 0.75 or higher. Among the 34 preliminary items, none had response values higher than 4.5 or lower than 1.5, which were significantly different from the average [33]. No item had a skewness and kurtosis of two or more deviations from the normal distribution, and no item showed inter-correlation coefficients greater than 0.80 [34]. With the 34 items, items with factor loadings of less than 0.35 were continuously excluded from the EFA processes.

 

 

Point 5. Statistical performance cannot compensate for the weaknesses in the coherence of the study's initial objective.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your good comment. We are totally agreed with you. As a psychologist, I have developed psychological scales and worked on validating and standardizing internationally used tools into Korean versions, but I have felt many weaknesses and limitations when trying to meet the needs of internal consistency, stable factorial structure, and goodness-of-fit statistics.

However, because there are many cases where statistical standards are required for the scale to be used for research purposes, we ask for your understanding as we inevitably conduct research accordingly.

 

So, we have added the following limitations related to this problem. (Line 348-352)

 

Fourth, in the process of statistical analysis to satisfy the criteria required in psychometrics to be used as a research tool, that is, a stable factorial structure and satisfactory validity and reliability, necessary items of enjoyment of playing musical instruments may have been excluded. Therefore, it is also necessary to develop a scale that includes various items of the enjoyment of playing musical instruments without considering such conditions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx