THE USE OF PERCUSSION IN THERAPY: A REALIST SYNTHESIS BY Copyright 2015 WILLIAM BROOKS MATNEY M.A., Texas Woman’s University, 2004 B.S., Texas Woman’s University, 2001 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Music Education and Music Therapy and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy _____________________________________ Chairperson – Cynthia Colwell, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Deanna Hanson-Abromeit, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Dena Register, Ph.D. _____________________________________ James Daugherty, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Ji Hye Jung, M.M. Date defended: May 8th, 2015 The Dissertation Committee for Bill Matney certifies That this is the approved version of the following dissertation: THE USE OF PERCUSSION IN THERAPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW _____________________________________ Chairperson – Cynthia Colwell, Ph.D. Date approved: May 13th, 2015 ii Abstract Background: Percussion use is common in both music therapy clinical practice and in publications. However, no comprehensive review regarding the use of percussion instruments in music interventions appears to exist. The investigator examined the various literature review types available in order to address the complex and contextual nature of percussion- related interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct a realist synthesis-type systematic review of the literature regarding the use of percussion in therapy in order to answer the following research questions. Research Questions: 1. When using published tools designed to evaluate quality of research, what was the outcome of this appraisal process when reviewing identified studies? 2. What are the context-mechanism-outcome configurations within percussion- related interventions as found through the systematic review process? Methods: Literature review types were examined in order to locate a systematic review type that best fit the research questions. The investigator used a prior database from Matney (in press), and employed inclusion/exclusion criteria to locate studies with reduced bias and increased study rigor. Eligible studies were examined using methodological evaluation tools, which were corroborated through inter-rater reliability. The investigator created evidence tables that included context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOC’s). These configurations were examined for larger patterns that may inform theory development. The investigator linked chains of evidence in accordance with the realist synthesis methodology, and offered CMOC propositions. iii Results: Results revealed that 30.91% of studies prior to eligibility screening did not report internal review board or consent procedures. Regarding experimental studies evaluated after screening, 34.79% did not report the type of randomization procedure used, and 43.48% were unclear regarding concealment of allocation. Reporting within qualitative and mixed-methods studies also lacked transparent reporting. The investigator presented CMOC’s for each individual study, and proposed evidence linkage that may promote theory development regarding percussion interventions. Conclusions: The percussion-related intervention literature that was evaluated demonstrates a lack of study rigor (internal review board and/or consent procedures, intention to treat principle), a lack of transparent and detailed reporting (randomization details, allocation concealment, treatment consistency amongst groups), as well as a lack of replication and transferability. While context-mechanism-outcome configurations can only provide tentative theory development due to the paucity of connections available, the literature suggests that particular mechanisms may promote effective outcomes in particular situations. The investigator provides implications for future research, clinical practice, and pedagogy. iv Acknowledgements I am grateful for a community of people who prepared me for, and supported me during, the dissertation process. More importantly, I am grateful for a community of people who will continue to be a part of my life. First, I thank Cynthia Colwell for providing me both detailed guidance and creative space during the research process. I have learned so much about focus, freedom, and service by your examples, which will undoubtedly be emulated in my future work with students. I am honored to have you as my mentor. I also owe gratitude to Deanna Hanson-Abromeit for supporting my outside-of-the- box thinking. I have benefitted immensely from our discussions about theory and design. Your research pursuits have acted as exemplars for my own lines of study, and they undoubtedly inspired this dissertation. You are an excellent educator, and I feel privileged to have been both a student of yours and a colleague-in-training. To Jim Daugherty, I am immensely appreciative of the opportunity to study philosophy under your rigorous and supportive tutelage. Your knowledge and guidance were invaluable to this dissertation, and to my growth as a philosophical writer. To Dena Register and Ji Hye Jung, for sharing of their time and expertise while serving on my dissertation committee. I thank you for your support, enthusiasm, listening ears, and wise suggestions. I am grateful to my mother, Carolyn Matney, as well as my sister, Melinda Levin, and brothers Jim and Rob Matney, for their continuous support throughout my life, including during those moments in the last three years where they helped with life factors that appeared overwhelming. v I thank Jennifer Fiore for her support, wisdom, and camaraderie during our life transitions from doctoral students to university educators. I look forward to our ongoing friendship, as based in a shared experience at the University of Kansas. And foremost, I thank Laurie Schwegler Matney, who not only encouraged me to follow this dream, but made the dream entirely possible with her own sacrifices. This dissertation is dedicated to her. vi Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER I Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Percussion in Therapy .......................................................................................... 6 Articulation of Prior Intervention Theories .......................................................... 7 Literature Reviews Regarding Music Instruments in Therapy ........................... 10 The Value of Literature Reviews ....................................................................... 12 CHAPTER II Understanding Literature Reviews ................................................................................. 13 Defining Literature Reviews .............................................................................. 13 Categorizing Literature Review Types ............................................................... 14 Traditional or Non-systematic Literature Reviews ............................................ 17 Disagreed-upon Literature Review Types .......................................................... 21 History of Systematic Review Terminology ...................................................... 25 Systematic Reviews ............................................................................................ 26 Theoretical Frameworks and Knowledge Frameworks .................................................. 44 Systematic Review Process ............................................................................................ 51 Summary, Conclusions, and Purpose Statement ................................................ 51 vii CHAPTER III Method ............................................................................................................................ 53 Building the Foundation ..................................................................................... 55 Operational Definitions ...................................................................................... 58 Defining the Scope of the Review ...................................................................... 64 Identification of Studies ..................................................................................... 64 Appraisal of Evidence: Screening and Eligibility of Included Studies .............. 68 Data Synthesis .................................................................................................... 75 Developing Narrative .......................................................................................... 77 CHAPTER IV Results ............................................................................................................................ 78 Research Question 1: When Using Published Tools Designed to Evaluate Quality of Research, What Was the Outcome of this Appraisal Process