Therapist variables

The video annotation not only involved coding child behaviours but also coding therapist behaviours. However, I was not interested in investigating the effect of predictor variables, such as session number or the child’s verbal ability, on these therapist behaviours. Rather, I hoped to generate data to further our understanding of the role of the therapist. These descriptive statistics enable us to reflect on the therapist behaviours that do or do not occur during the best moments in music therapy sessions. The frequency with which the therapist variables occurred during session excerpts is presented in scatter plots. One plot has been issued for each variable, displaying all the therapist-related observations collected across all children and intervention weeks. The x- and y-axes are identical to the axes in the scatter plots presenting the results for child variables.

Figure 32: Proportion ‘T-Play’

This scatter diagram shows how much time the therapist spent playing instruments during selected session excerpts. The proportion of playing has a mean of 71%, with ranges from 27.9% (occurring in week 11) to 97.5% (occurring in weeks 10 and 14). Regarding the amount of the therapist’s instrumental playing, no pattern of change becomes evident over the course of the intervention.

Figure 33: Proportion ‘T-Vocal’

In this chart, the amount of time the therapist used her voice in a musical way and with intent is visualised. How much the therapist vocalised or sang does not seem to depend on the intervention week. Over the course of the 13 interventions, the proportion of vocalising covers almost the full range from 13.4% (occurring in week 1) to 99.1% (occurring in week 18). The mean for ‘T-Vocal’ is 61.4%.

Figure 34: Proportion ‘T-Move’

The proportion of time the therapist moved expressively during session excerpts is depicted in this diagram. With a mean of 8.9% and ranges from 0% (occurring in all weeks but week 14) to 54.2% (occurring in week 15), this form of expression was used less often by the therapist than playing instruments and vocalising.

Figure 35: Proportion ‘T-Object’

This scatter plot visualises how often the therapist used objects, such as toys or colourful pieces of material, during the selected session excerpts. It is noticeable that objects were not used with any child during the first two weeks of intervention. Once introduced, incorporating objects during sessions became an important element with some children only. The highest proportion of time objects were used by the therapist was 62.2% (occurring in week 14). The overall mean for ‘T-Object’ is 7.7%.

Figure 36: Proportion ‘T-Talk’

This figure shows how much time the therapist spent talking during video excerpts. No obvious pattern of change in this behaviour can be seen over the course of the 13 interventions. On average, ‘T-Talk’ was coded in 16% of the five-second intervals. The proportion of talking ranges from 0% (occurring in weeks 3, 9, 10) to 45.6% (occurring in week 8).

Figure 37: Proportion ‘T-Smile’

This scatter plot illustrates that the proportion of time the therapist smiled or laughed during selected session excerpts varied quite a lot. The full range is 8.9% (occurring in week 3) to 100% (occurring in weeks 4, 10, 13, 16). The overall mean for ‘T- Smile’ is 71.4%. A proportion of 40% or less occurred only in the first eleven weeks.

Figure 38: Proportion ‘T-Look’

In this diagram, the proportion of time the therapist looked at the face of the child is depicted. It becomes evident that the therapist looked almost all of the time towards the child during most of the selected session excerpts. The mean for ‘T-Look’ is 94.9%. Only two data points represent a proportion of looking of less than 50% (occurring in weeks 3 and 10).

Figure 39: Proportion ‘T-Initiate’

When examining the data for ‘T- Initiate’, it becomes clear that the therapist initiated new elements for a very similar amount of time throughout all weeks of the interventions with all children. The proportion covers the range from 3.3% (occurring in week 9) to 31.6% (occurring in week 11), with a mean of 14.6%. No pattern stands out, i.e. the therapist did not initiate significantly more or less as sessions progressed. It is interesting, that the range and mean are similar to the range (1.8% to 41.7%) and mean (15.6%) of the child variable ‘Initiate’.

Figure 40: Proportion ‘T-Name’

As one can see in this scatter graph, the therapist used the name of the child at least once in excerpts of almost every session with every child. The mean for ‘T- Name’ is 14.6%, with a range from 0% (occurring in weeks 17 and 18) to 39% (occurring in week 6). The therapist’s use of the child’s name during music therapy seems to be slightly negatively correlated with the week of the intervention.

Figure 41: Proportion ‘T-Praise’

Praise was used by the therapist sparingly but consistently as can be seen in this scatter plot. The average proportion of ‘T-Praise’ is 6.8%. No distinct change in how often the therapist praised the child over the course of the intervention becomes apparent.

Figure 42: Proportion ‘T-Contact’

This scatter plot presents the data for ‘T-Contact’. Overall, the therapist did not use physical contact to reassure a child, gain their attention, or help them to play an instrument very much. The proportion of this therapist behaviour has a mean of 3.8% and ranges from 0% (occurring in all weeks) to 52.6% (occurring in week 13).

To enable a better overview of the observed therapist behaviours during the selected session excerpts, all mean values for each code are presented in the following figure. As therapist behaviours did not significantly change over the course of the interventions, overall mean scores are suitable to give an impression of therapist behaviours occurring in positive music therapy moments. Many of these behaviours can take place simultaneously. For example, the therapist can play guitar, sing, smile and look at the child at the same time. This explains why all means added together amount to more than 100%.