Date of Award

5-21-2015

Document Type

Thesis and Dissertation

Degree Name

Master of Music (MM)

Department

School of Music

First Advisor

Andrea Crimmins

Abstract

Domestic violence or intimate partner violence refers to physical, sexual, or emotional harm committed by a current or former intimate partner. Intimate partner violence has varied and serious repercussions in the lives of its victims. The direct consequences of violence combined with the physical aftermath of emotional distress, fear, and anxiety can lead to a variety of ailments. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and suicide are both major concerns for female victims of IPV. Considering that the issues faced by many victims of DV are pervasive and complex, treatment for survivors needs to be comprehensive and multifaceted. Music therapy is an evidence-based form of treatment that is well-suited for addressing the issues faced by victims of this type of abuse. This study focused on the use of music therapy in decreasing the distress levels of victims of intimate partner violence as well as comparing expressive and receptive music therapy techniques. The researcher hypothesized that expressive music therapy would be more effective in decreasing distress than receptive music therapy. In this study, a board-certified music therapist (MT-BC) facilitated four music therapy sessions at domestic violence shelters. The group participants were women who were actively fleeing a threat of harm from a former or current intimate partner. Two of the sessions focused on expressive music therapy interventions and two sessions focused on receptive music therapy sessions. The participants (N = 13) were asked to rate their distress with an adapted form of the K6 distress scale before and after music therapy sessions. It was found that there were no significant differences in participantsâ?? distress levels whether they participated in expressive or receptive music therapy. Regardless of the questions or the type of therapy, distress scores significantly decreased from the pretest (M = 2.50, SE = 1.5) to the posttest (M = 1.80, SE = 1.6), Wilk's ï?? = .37, F(1, 11) =18.80, p = .001, ï?¨2 = .63.

Comments

Imported from ProQuest Miner_ilstu_0092N_10553.pdf

Page Count

63

Share

COinS