Council for Research in Music Education

The Development of a Guitar Performance Rating Scale using a Facet-Factorial Approach

Author(s): Brian E. Russell
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 184 (SPRING 2010), pp. 21-
34
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27861480
Accessed: 19-06-2015 13:26 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27861480?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education ?2010 Board of Trustees
Spring 2010 No. 184 Universityof Illinois

The Development of a Guitar

Performance Rating Scale using
a Facet-Factorial
Approach
Brian E. Russell
UniversityofMiami
Coral Gables, Florida

ABSTRACT
Thepurpose of thisstudywas to identifythe underlying auralfactors ofguitarperformanceby
developinga guitarperformanceratingscaleusing The initialphaseof the
facet-factorialtechniques.
items concerning the characteristics a or
study included gathering of poor guitar performance
good

from guitar performance literature, previously constructed rating scales, and statements from profes
item statements was
sional guitar players, guitar teachers, and college guitar majors. The pool of
examined and placed intoa priori categories
for suitability establishedinprevious research.
The99
were
itemstatements paired with afive-pointLikertscaleand used by67 volunteer judges toadju
dicate 100 recordedsamplesofa wide rangeofguitarperformanceexcerpts. The resultsof the 134
itempool adjudicationswerefactor analyzed usinga varimax rotationto identifytheunderlying
factor structure
and theitemsthatbestsupportedeach
factor.The results
ofthefactor
analysis
yielded
a structure intonation.
five-factor consisting of interpretation, tone, technique, rhythm/tempo, and
Thesefactorsaccounted
for approximately 71 % of thetotalvariance.The selectionof the32 items
chosento represent
the
factors of theGuitarPerformanceRating Scale (GPRS) was based onfactor
loadings. for theGPRS was estimatedat .962for the32 itemscale.
Alpha reliability

INTRODUCTION
The of accountability for teachers translates into the accurate documentation
subject
of student achievement assessment. needs citizens who are
through Society competent
and have the necessary skills to remain competitive in todays world. This requires the
educational systemsresponsible for training these citizens to be held accountable for the
quality of education being received.
Modern measurement and evaluation are on the assessment
practices focusing
of student in real life situations, such as in musical assess
performance performance
ment. In performance assessment, students are evaluated on theirability to apply skills,
demonstrate of concepts, or meet or criteria within
understanding specific objectives
a realworld situation (Asmus, 1999; Payne, 2003; Thurlow, 1995). This approach to
educational assessment requires reliable and valid measures to keep both students and
teachers accurately informed,yet efficientenough to be useful in the classroom.

21

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

In order to resolve the inherentpotential for unreliability inmusic performance

assessment, researchers have been more accurate methods of collecting musi
examining
cal performance data (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987, 2003; Radocy, 1986; Whybrew,
1971). Asmus (1999) states, "Greater precision in assessment will provide better
information to both student and teacher, because it can the teacher evaluate
help
instructional strategiesof the past and select appropriate strategiesfor the future" (p.
19). Research on music assessment has several studies on the
performance produced
of music measures methods for item selection,
development performance including
item response, and judge reliability
Based on thework on Butt and Fiske (1969), who compared global versus facet
and factorial versus rationale for measuring dominance, the facet-factorial
strategies
facilitates item selection factor across a broad domain. In
approach through analysis
music assessment, facet-factorial have been used to
performance techniques separate
and identifythe independent performance factors that influence the quality of instru
mental performance.A number of studies (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987; Cooksey, 1977;
DCamp, 1980; Horowitz, 1994; Jones, 1986; Nichols, 1985; Zdzinski & Barnes,
2002) have methods to constructvalid and reliable
successfullyemployed facet-factorial
measures.
performance

Bergee (1987) points out that the lack of research concerning performance assess
ment is largelydue to the complexity ofmusical performance, and "_it isnonetheless

important thatwe evaluate in performancewhat lends itselfto evaluation" (p. 6). This
does not imply that assessments should consist solely of note and rhythmevaluations,
but also those less tangible aspects of performance. These aspects of performance can
be measured by identifyingthe factors that influence judgments about the quality of
musical Better assessment tools must be if better educational
performance. developed
decisions are to be made.

The facet-factorialapproach to rating scale development employs factor analysis to

identifyperformance factors that influence the assessment of a musical performance.
Facet-factorial have been used to measures for wind instrument and
strategies develop

percussion performance (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987; Nichols, 1985), band perfor
mance (DCamp, 1980), choral and solo vocal performance (Cooksey, 1977; Jones,
1986), stringperformance (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2002), and jazz guitar improvisation
(Horowitz, 1994). The resultsof these studies suggest that the facet-factorialapproach is
a viable and reliablemethod for identifyingperformance factors and selecting the items
that best represent the performance factors.The current study intended to extend the
line of facet-factorial research to solo
guitar performance.
The is a versatile instrument and has become a
permanent fixture in many
guitar
musical stylesaround theworld. According tomarket research, the guitar is one of the
most frequently sold instruments in theUnited States (Kratus, 2007; "What's driving

guitar sales?," 2005). Students of the guitar are able to experience both solo and group
performance. The wide stylisticrange and the shear availability and volume of guitar
22

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scal<

repertoirehelps reach a diverse audience. The popularity and versatilityof the guitar
make it an invaluable tool in music education.

Research and education tends to focus

concerning guitar performance guitar

heavily on methodology and historical analysis. The historical literatureprovides an

understanding of performerpersonalities and influence (Dickert, 1994; McClellan &
Bratic, 2003; Mead, 2004), techniques/strategies(Marshall, 2001; Rice, 1999;Walker,
2004), repertoire (Jones,2004; Martinez, 2003; Morris, 2005; Scarfullery,2004), and
the role of the guitar throughout history (Stanek, 2004). Guitar methodology resources
for improving various aspects of guitar Most method
provide strategies performance.

ology resources are categorized by style (jazz, classical, rock, etc.) and level (beginner,
intermediate,and advanced). A furtherexamination of this literature(Bay, 1948; Fink,
1973; Greene, 1981; Hall, 1990; Krout, 1983; Marsters, 2002; Quine, 1990; Roberts
& Hagberg, 1989; Shearer, 1963; Sor, 1971; Stimpson, 1988; Van Eps, 1980) yields
several performance dimensions gathered fromvarious descriptions regarding the qual
ityof a guitar performance including: phrasing/articulation, tempo/rhythm,dynamics,
tone, and technique. Unfortunately, studies regarding these general aspects of guitar
are non-existent. Research would to
performance regarding guitar performance help

identifythe factors that influence assessments of performance quality.

As far as it can be determined, research regardingguitar performance evaluation
and rating scale development have been limited to the evaluation of jazz guitar impro
visation. Therefore, a facet-factorialstudy focused on identifyingthe underlying factors
of general guitar performancewould not only add to the currentbody of research sur

rounding facet-factorialresearch and begin to create a new and specific line of inquiry
into guitar performance and guitar pedagogy, butwould help guitar educators diversify
the focus of their educational in both classroom and studio environments.
strategies

PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigationwas to identifythe underlying aural factors of guitar

performance by developing a guitar performance rating scale using facet-factorialtech

niques. This researchwas an attempt to add to the existingbody of research on instru
mental performancemeasurement established byAbeles (1971), Jones (1986), Bergee
(1987), and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). Specifically, this studywill seek answers to
the following questions:

1. What aural factors contribute to the assessment of a

guitar performance?

2. What itemsbest represent the factors that influenceguitar performance

assessment?

3. How does the factor structureof theGPRS compare with previous facet
factorial research on scale
performance rating development?

23

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

METHOD
The purpose of this studywas to identifythe underlying aural factorsof guitar perfor
mance by developing a guitar performance rating scale using facet-factorialtechniques.
The order of this investigation proceeded as follows: (a) gathering of descriptions

regarding guitar performance, (b) gathering recordings of guitar performance, (c)

construction of the initial item pool, (d) selection of judges, (e) evaluation of guitar

performance using the itempool, (f) factor analysis of the results including the identi
fication of performance factors and supporting items, (g) confirmatoryfactor analysis
to establish the stabilityof the identifiedfactors, and (h) construction of the Guitar
Performance Rating Scale (GPRS) with Likert responses.

Performance Description Generation

The researcher,college guitar professors,and professional guitar players (n = 10) gener
ated the initial pool of item statements.Each participant was asked to describe or list
the characteristics of a or with to their own
"poor" "good" guitar performance respect
An additional 186 items were extracted from previous research conducted
experience.

byAbeles (1971), Bergee (1987), Zdzinski and Barnes (2002), and guitar related litera
ture (Phillips, 2002; Quine, 1990; Roberts & Hagberg, 1989; Stimpson, 1988). The
statements were screened for redundancy and for evaluating aural of
suitability aspects

guitar performance.Descriptions thatfocused on visual ratherthan aural aspects of gui

tar were removed from the item pool. A total of 129 statements
performance separate

concerning aural guitar performancewere selected for inclusion on the initial itempool.

Item Pool Construction

The statements were converted into item statements that are suitable for
descriptive
a a
judging guitar performance. Each itemwas placed into priori categories previously
established in guitar performance literatureand the research ofAbeles (1971), Bergee
(1987), and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). The resultant performance dimensions
included tone, intonation, tempo, and musical
interpretation, technique, rhythm,
effect. To reduce the item to a more size the items were re-examined
pool manageable
for redundancy and diversity of subjectmatter. One-hundred itemswere selected to
be included on the initial item pool. Examples of these statements are located inTable
1. The items were evaluated to determine the positive or nature of each item.
negative
Both and items were desired in order a set when
positive negative prevent response

judging the performances.Any itemsdeemed as neutralwere reworded or discarded.

The item statements (n = 100) selected to be included on final item pool were

paired with a five-point Likert scale. The Likert scale ranged from "StronglyAgree" to
on the adjudica
"StronglyDisagree." The statementswere then numbered and placed
tion measure.

24

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scale

Table 1
Sample ItemsfromInitialItemPool

14. Tone
quality
inconsistent. SA A N D SD
28. Insecure technique. SA A N D SD
40. Excellent rhythm. SA A N D SD
53. Clear projection of time feel. SA A N D SD
79. A dull performance. SA A N D SD

Performance Material Collection

The participants in this study included professional guitar players (n = 2), college guitar
teachers (n = 6), college undergraduate (n = 7) and graduate guitarmajors (n = 3), and
senior high school freshman, sophomore, juniors, and seniors (n = 37). These partici
pants were asked to perform prepared pieces from their repertoire.Each performance
was digitally recorded using a Sony Net-MD Mini-disc recorder (MZ-N10) and Sony
Electret Condenser Microphone (ECM-MS907) to ensure an accurate reproduction of
each performance for the adjudications. The recordings (n = 100) averaged 27 seconds
in length and were a minimum of 15 seconds in length.The recording samples repre
sented a wide range of ability levels from beginner to professional.
The tracknumbers from 1 to 100were written down, separated, and drawn from a
hat in The of randomly-chosen were transferred onto
pairs. pairs performances compact
discs. Each disc contained two separate recordings.The compact discswere then placed
into evaluation packets. Each evaluation packet included (a) an information/direction
sheet, (b) a judging consent form, (c) two adjudication measures, (d) one compact
disc with two randomly selected solo guitar recordings,and (e) a mailing envelope (for

judges solicited out of state).

Item Pool Evaluation

Public school guitar and stringteachers (n = 3), college guitar professors (n = 7), under
=
graduate and graduate guitar and stringperformancemajors (n 27), undergraduate
=
and graduatemusic education majors (n 23), and professional guitar players (n = 7)
fromFlorida, California, and South Carolina were solicited as volunteer judges (N= 67)
to evaluate the performance recordingsusing theLikert-scale itempool. Each volunteer

judge receivedone evaluation packet. The judgeswere instructedto listen to each record
=
ing, rate them separatelyusing theLikert scale items (n 100), and returnthe evaluation
packet. Judgeswere allowed to play the recordingsasmany times as necessary to aid in
the adjudication of the performances (Zdzinski &: Barnes, 2002).
Once the itempool evaluations (n = 134) were collected and thedata was recorded,
the researcher re-examined the item pool for any redundancy. The final item pool
=
(n 99) was submitted for factor analysis. The item pool evaluations were collected
25

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

over a of three months. The to each item were entered onto an elec
period responses
tronic spreadsheet according to the following response key: 5 = Strongly =
Agree, 4 Agree,
3 =Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = StronglyDisagree. Once all responseswere entered, the
resultswere analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

RESULTS
A factor analysis of the item pool [n = 99) was performed to examine the structure
of aurally evaluated guitar performance. A principal components method was used
to organize the item pool into itsmajor components (Asmus, 1989). The resultant
factor loadings were then rotated to identifyfactor-simple items that adequately rep
resent each factor. An rotation was selected to maintain the
performance orthogonal

autonomy of the factors and provide clarity to the analysis (Asmus, 1989). The typeof
orthogonal rotation employed was varimax. The utilization of this statistical technique
was also established in previous researchbyAbeles (1971), Jones (1986), Bergee (1987),
and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002).
The firstresearchquestion posed in this study asked what aural factors contribute
to the assessment of a guitar Identification of factors was determined
performance.

by criteria outlined in previous research (Bergee 1987; Asmus, 1989): (a) Eigenvalues
greater than 1.00, (b) scree test, and the (c) distribution of factor loadings. A fac
tor analysis, using the method described above, was performed using factorswith

Eigenvalues over 1.00. The results indicated thirteen factorswith Eigenvalues greater
than 1.00. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) was .682
and indicated a matrix suitable for factoring.A scree testwas performed to illustrate
the range of prospective performance factors.The scree test indicated that the firstfour
factors account for a of the variance than the subsequent nine factors.
larger portion
Therefore, no fewer than four factors were rotated. Additional rotations between four

and thirteen factors were performed.

The factor rotations between 4 and 13 resulted in various combinations of the
dimensions in the item tone, intonation, interpretation,
performance represented pool:

technique, rhythm,tempo, and musical effect.The four-factorrotation resulted in four

separate components. The distribution of factor loadings indicated a combination of
(a) rhythm/tempo/technique/interpretation/musicaleffect,(b) interpretation/rhythm/
musical effect,(c) technique/intonation/tempo, and (d) tone. The interpretationof the
first three factors in this solution suggested a less complex solution existed. The five
factor solution yielded the factors of (a) interpretation/musical effect, (b) technique,
(c) rhythm/tempo, (d) tone, and (e) intonation. The six-factor rotation and solutions

beyond six factors produced a complex factor structure that spread loadings for one
factor across several components. Since the purpose of this procedure is to establish
structure, solutions six factors or more were no factor
simple containing longer simple
and therefore not
acceptable.

26

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scale

The five-factormodel best fit the a priori structure.The distribution of loadings

clearly illustratedthe clustersof interrelateditems in each category.The factors selected
for retentionwere (a) interpretation/musicaleffect, (b) technique, (c) rhythm/tempo,
(d) tone, and (e) intonation. Each factor had an Eigenvalues of larger than 2.00. The
combination of the factors accounted for approximately 71% of the total variance.
This combination was selected due the logical interpretationof clustered variables
and the completeness of the criteria outlined by Bergee (1987) and Asmus (1989): (a)
Eigenvalues greater than 1.00, (b) scree test,and the (c) distribution of factor loadings.
Items that clustered togetheron Factor 1were originally selected for the interpre
tation and musical effectperformance dimensions. Since the items originated from a
combination of both of performance dimensions itwas decided to label this factor as
Interpretation/MusicalEffect. This factor accounted for a largepercentage of the vari
ance and has been described as a generalmusical factor (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987).
The high loading items grouped togetheron Factor 2 belong to the performance
dimension of technique. This factorwas labeledTechnique according to the interpreta
tion of the high loading items clustered on Factor 2. High loading items on Factor 3

originallywere selected to representthe rhythmand tempo performance dimensions. In

agreementwith the researchof Bergee (1987) judges in the present study seem to value
items regarding steady and controlled rhythms and tempos. This factorwas labeled

Rhythm/Tempo.
The factor loadings on Factor 4 indicate a grouping of items thatoriginate from the
a factor of tone. Items that from the intonation dimension
priori originated performance
did not load on this factor and instead clustered separatelyon Factor 5. This is in con
trast to Bergee (1987) who maintains that "tone quality and intonation are inseparable
variables in performance" (p. 91). These factors remained separated in all solutions in
the present study.Factor 4 was labeled asTone and Factor 5 was labeled as Intonation.
The second research asked what items are most of the fac
question representative
tors that influence assessment. Items for the Guitar Performance
guitar performance

Rating Scale (GPRS) were selected based on the rotated component matrix obtained
from the factor analysis of the initial item pool evaluations. The factormatrix was
examined to identifythose itemswith the highest factor loadings on the factor they are
selected to represent.The structurecoefficientsfor thisgroup ranged from .452 to .816.
Each itemwas examined to determine the factor simple nature of each item.All GPRS
itemsmaintained low secondary loadings (.3 or below). Itemswith secondary factor

loadings of .4 and above were not considered for inclusion on theGPRS.

A total of 44 itemswere examined for redundancy, appropriateness, and diversity
of content. Items selected for theGPRS had higher factor loadings on the factor they
were selected to represent than any other factor. items were selected for
Thirty-two
inclusion on theGPRS. The itemswere distributed as follows: (a) interpretation/musi
cal effect= 7 items, (b) technique = 7 items, (c) rhythm/tempo = 7 items, (d) tone = 7
and intonation = 4 items.
items, (e)

27

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

To establish the stability of the factor structure, a confirmatoryfactor analysis

was performed on the thirty-twoselected items.A principal components analysiswith
a varimax rotation was used to confirm the five-factor solution. The factor
loadings
obtained in this confirmatoryfactor analysis ranged from .573 to .829 (seeTable 2).
All GPRS itemsmaintained low secondary loadings of .3 or below. Only the "Lack of
clarity in picked passages" item possessed a secondary loading of .407. However, this
was deemed as appropriate for the purpose of thismeasure. The percentage of variance
accounted for by thisfive-factorstructure is 71%.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .931with a subject
to-variable ratio of 3:1. Both are deemed appropriate according to the criteriapresented
byAsmus (1989). In order to establish internal reliabilitya reliabilityanalysiswas con
ducted. All negativelyworded itemswere recoded in order to obtain a more accurate
estimation. The Alpha reliabilityfor theGPRS was estimated at .962. The resultsof the

confirmatoryfactor analysis aswell as the reliabilityanalysis established the stabilityof

the five-factor structure.

Table 2
Factor Loadings for 32-ltem Guitar Performance Rating Scale (GPRS)

I II III IV V
GPRS Items
?^ ^ TONE TECH INTON
MUSEF TMPO

Melodic expression. 0.829 0.304 0.171 0.229 -0.053

No contrasts in performance. -0.785 -0.226 -0.178 -0.073 0.146
Ihe interpretationwas musical. 0.779 0.217 0.282 0.324 -0.048

Spiritless playing. -0.774 -0.291 -0.166 -0.050 0.196

Performance not -0.752 -0.290 -0.127 -0.308 0.089
expressive.
Performance reflectedsensitivity. 0.747 0.284 0.245 0.274 -0.046
Melodic phrasing. 0.693 0.292 0.276 0.327 -0.058

Tone is strong. 0.133 0.787 0.324 0.145 -0.110

Tone is full. 0.221 0.774 0.202 0.128 -0.190
Thin tone quality. -0.296 -0.771 0.055 -0.091 0.080
Tone is rich. 0.329 0.745 0.222 0.170 0.033
Sound is clear and resonant. 0.192 0.719 0.192 0.189 -0.219
Tone quality is beautiful. 0.397 0.711 0.242 0.145 -0.049
There was a lack of tonal color. -0.324 -0.688 -0.105 -0.207 0.170

28

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scale

III III V
IV
GPRS Items
TONE TECH INTON
MUSEF TMPO

String crossing is controlled 0.255 0.162 0.737 0.198 -0.181

and smooth.

Played fluently. 0.319 0.310 0.719 0.260 -0.038

P?or
^3 _Q
m _QJlQ _Q0.243
syn^mzationofpick
and rrethand fingers.
Lack of clarity in picked
-0.223 -0.704 -0.407 0.216
passages.

Flubbed. -0.157 -0.258 -0.689 -0.260 0.185

Attacks were clean. 0.171 0.154 0.663 0.389 -0.085

The tempo was steady. 0.266 0.125 0.296 0.788 -0.030

Correct rhythms. 0.281 0.104 0.295 0.728 -0.108
Off-beats played properly. 0.152 0.209 0.213 0.682 -0.200
Hurried notes. -0.093 -0.117 -0.177 -0.673 0.257
repeated
Lack of a steadypulse. -0.267 -0.172 -0.350 -0.673 0.082

Tempo not controlled. -0.321 -0.096 -0.392 -0.651 0.091

The tempo was in good taste. 0.104 0.272 0.196 0.623 -0.305

Played out of tune. -0.070 -0.234 -0.193 -0.248 0.812

Intonation is good. 0.139 0.327 0.241 0.258 -0.770
Intonation is inconsistent. -0.024 -0.275 -0.217 -0.068 0.682

Ignored key signature. -0.136 0.127 -0.088 -0.123 0.573

The thirdquestion in this study asked how the factor structureof theGPRS com
pares with facet-factorial research on scale
previous performance rating development.
Results of the factor analysis performed on the initial item pool produced five factors
to assess guitar performance. These five factorsare (a) Interpretation/MusicalEffect, (b)

Technique, (c) Rhythm/Tempo, (d) Tone, and (e) Intonation. All of the factors identi
fied, in this research have previously appeared in rating scale development studies for
woodwind (Abeles, 1971), voice (Jones, 1986), brass (Bergee, 1987), and string instru
ments (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2002). The Interpretation/MusicalEffect factor is present
in the Abeles, Jones, Bergee, and Zdzinski and Barnes studies. The four remaining
factors ofTechnique, Rhythm/Tempo, Tone, and Intonation factors appear in the fol

lowing combinations: Technique appeared in both Bergee and Jones studies,Rhythm

and Tempo combination appeared in both theBergee and Zdzinski and Barnes studies,
and both Tone and Intonation factorsappear separately in theAbeles and Zdzinski and
Barnes studies.Table 3 illustratesthe comparisons of the differentfactor structures.

29

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

Table 3
Comparison of Facet-Factorial Factor Structures

Zdzinski & Russell

Abeles (1971) Jones(1986) Bergee(1987) Barnes (2002) (current)

interpretation/ interpretation/ interpretation/ interpretation/

interpretation musical effect musical effect musical effect musical effect
tone/ tone quality/ articulation/
tone tone
intonation tone
musicianship

rhythm/ suitability/
ensemble rhythm/tempo rhythm/tempo rhythm/tempo
continuity

articulation vibrato
technique technique technique

intonation diction intonation intonation

tempo

DISCUSSION
The results of the factor revealed a five-factor structure for aural
analysis guitar perfor
mance. The five-factor model was deemed most since the four-factor solu
appropriate
tion several broad factors and solutions over six factors
grouped performance together
dimensions across several factors. The factor structure of the
spread single performance

present study is similar to those found in previous research byAbeles (1971), Jones
(1986), Bergee (1987) and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). The factors representedon the
GPRS also occur in at least two of the supporting facet-factorialrating scale develop
ment studieswith the exception of tone. The tone factor is only representedas a single
factor in both the present study and the research ofAbeles.
An examination of the differencesbetween the factor structuresof previous studies
on instrumentalperformance rating scale development and theGPRS indicates that the
variation in the factor structure is possibly due to basic differences in guitar technique
and instrument construction. For in intonation is
example, guitar performance largely
decided by the tuningmechanisms and stringquality and is not necessarily an indica
tor of the performers ability to produce an appropriate tone (i.e., a bad tonemay be
on a tuned instrument and vice versa). In contrast, tone
produced stringed-instrument
is intimately linkedwith the articulation of the righthand (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2002).
For brass performance tone and intonation are influenced by a combination of the
embouchure and the function of the breathingmechanism.
The thirty-twoitems selected for inclusion on theGPRS had high loadings on thea
priori factors theywere selected to define and relativelylow loadings on the other factors.
The resultsof the confirmatoryfactor analysis and scree test substantiated the initialfive
factor solution that included: (a) Interpretation/MusicalEffect, (b)Tone, (c)Technique,

30

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scal<

(d) Rhythm/Tempo, and (e) Intonation. Each factorwas representedby seven itemswith
the exception of the Intonation factorwhich is representedby four items.The limited
number of items representingthe Intonation factor isdue to the limitednumber of items

originally collected for the initial itempool. GPRS itemswere selected to representdif
ferent aspects of the same factor. an array of items that measure various aspects
Selecting
of a factor allowed for amore accurate definition of the factors. Itemswhich were redun
dant in contentwere not considered for inclusion on theGPRS.

CONCLUSIONS
In thepresent study the facet-factorialapproach was used to identifytheunderlying aural
factors that influence assessment as well as items that various
guitar performance support

aspects of these factors.The factors identified in this study are Interpretation/Musical

Effect,Technique, Rhythm/Tempo,Tone, and Intonation. These performance factorsare
to represent 71% of the components that influence evalua
reported guitar performance
tion.The identificationof these factorscreates opportunity for educators to select appro
priate instructionalstrategiesto help studentsdevelop musical skill in those aural aspects
of that have the majority influence on our assessments of musical
performance quality.
The facet-factorialapproach is one method of successfully identifyingthe perfor
mance dimensions that influence adjudication and selecting items that appropriately

represent those dimensions. This method has successfullybeen applied to performance

rating scale construction forwind and percussion performance (Abeles, 1971; Bergee,
1987; Nichols, 1985), band performance (DCamp, 1980), choral and solo vocal
performance (Cooksey, 1977; Jones, 1986), stringperformance (Zdzinski & Barnes,
2002), and jazz guitar improvisation (Horowitz, 1994). This study substantiates the
use of facet-factorialmethods as objective and consistent in the development ofmore
accurate music assessments.
performance
The factors identifiedin this studyare similar to those identifiedinprevious research
on assessment. Factors such as Musical Effect and stay
performance Interpretation
autonomous regardlessof instrumentwhile others differaccording to the characteristics
of the instrumentbeing evaluated. The factors of Interpretation,Technique, Rhythm/
Tone, and Intonation are facet-factorial research. The
Tempo, reoccurring throughout

implications of this reoccurrencecould potentially lead to the development of a general

instrumental/musical rating scale.
performance

Suggestions for Further Research and Implications for Teachers

The performances evaluated in this investigation represented a wide array of perfor
mance abilities. The underlying aural factors that influenced the judgments of these

performances suggest that these performance dimensions are applicable regardless of

performance ability on the guitar.This has implications for improvement of classroom
and private guitar instruction.By utilizing the factors identified in this study, teachers

31

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

can isolate the deficient performance factor(s) and focus instructionon improvement
in this area. The use of an established factor structure, such as
guitar performance pro
duced in this investigation,will also help address the issue of accountability in public
school and university guitar programs.
Several extensions for furtherresearch can be derived from the resultsof the cur
rent study.One possible extensionwould be to use the itemsof theGuitar Performance
a con
Rating Scale (GPRS) in criteria-specificrubric rating scale format.The eventual
struction of a valid and reliable rubric for evaluating guitar performance could poten
a in
tiallybe a valuable source of informationfor teachers and vehicle for improvement
student Researchers the development and of cri
performance. investigating application

teria-specific rating scales indicate substantial reliabilitywhen evaluating instrumental

and vocal performances (Azzara, 1993; Levinowitz, 1989; Rutkowski, 1990; Saunders
Sc Holahan, 1997). Therefore a measure that utilizes a combination of the strengths
of the facet-factorialand criteria-specificapproaches could potentially produce a new
more reliable, valid, and efficientmodel for not only guitar performancemeasurement
but musical measurement in
performance general.
The majority of facet-factorialperformance rating scales are focused on the aural
aspects of instrumentalperformance.While some researchers (Jones, 1986) have had a
moderate amount of success with visual of performance more research
including aspects
needs to be conducted. Suggestions for furtherresearchon guitar performance include
the development of a rating scale that utilizes both visual and aural aspects of guitar
performance.
A much broader research suggestion involves an examination of the possible exis
tence of a musical structure. The nature of the factors
general performance reoccurring
revealed in the present and in research on facet-factorial
study previous performance
scale construction a structure that may include
rating suggests potential performance
but not be limited to interpretation,musical effect,technique, rhythm,tempo, tone,
and intonation.

REFERENCES
Abeles, H. F. (1971). An application of thefacet-factorial approach to scale construction in thedevel

opment of a rating scalefor clarinet music performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

University ofMaryland, College Park.
Asmus, E. (1989). Factor analysis: A look at the technique through the data of rainbow. Bulletin of
the Council for Research inMusic Education, 101, 1-29.

Asmus, E. (1999). Music assessment concepts. Music Educators Journal, 86(2), 19-24.

Azzara, C. D. (1993). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary instrumental

students' music achievement. Journal ofResearch inMusic Education, 41, 328-342.

1. Pacific, MO: Mel

Bay, M. (1948). Mel Bays modern guitar method: Grade Bay.

J. (1987). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction

in the
Bergee, M.
a music performance. Dissertation
development of rating scale for euphonium and tuba
Abstracts International, 49(05), 1086A.

32

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Russell Facet-FactorialGuitar PerformanceRating Scale

Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury perfor
mances. Journal
ofResearch inMusic Education, 41, 19-27.
Butt, D. S., & Fiske, D. W. (1969). Differential correlates of dominance scales. Journal oj^Personality
37(3), 415-428.

Cooksey, J.M. (1977). A facet-factorial approach to rating high school choral music performance.
Journal ofResearch inMusic Education, 25, 100-114.

DCamp, C. B. (1980). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in

the development of a rating scale for high school band performance. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 41, 1462A.

Dickert, L. (1994). An analysis of Freddie Greens style and his importance in the history of jazz

guitar. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(10), 3030A. (UMI No. 9506755)

Fink, P. H. (1973). The development and evaluation of instrumental materials for a beginning
class in heterogeneous strings including the guitar. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34(05),
2678A.

Greene, T. (1981). Jazz guitar: Single note soloing, Vfr/.7.Miami, FL: Belwin-Mills.

Hall, J. S. (1990). Jim Hall: Exploring Jazz Guitar. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.

Horowitz, R. A. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation performance.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11 A), 3443.

Jones, H. (1986). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the

a
development of rating scale for high school vocal solo performance. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 1230A.

Jones, M. E., Jr. (2004). Key classes and textural dissonance: An instrument-specific study of the
idioms, textures, and structures of selected early romantic music for the guitar (1799-1850).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(07), 2421A. (UMI No. 3141602)

J. (2007). Music at the tipping

Kratus, education point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42-48.

Krout, R. to
(1983). Teaching basic guitar skills special learners (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO:
Magnamusic-Baton.
Levinowitz, L. M. (1989). An investigation of preschool children's comparative capability to sing songs
with and without words. Bulletin of theCouncil for Research inMusic Education, 100, 14-19.

Marshall, W. (2001). Best ofWesMontgomery: A step-by-step breakdown of his guitar styleand techniques.
Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.

Marsters, N. L. (2002). First year guitar: A classroom text (3rd ed.). Class Guitar Resources.

Martinez, K. J. (2003). The use and adaptation of the folia in select solo guitar repertoire (c. 1600
20th century). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07), 2306A.

McClellan, J.,& Bratic, D. (2003). Chet Atkins in threedimensions: 50 years of legendary guitar,
Volume 1. Pacific, MO: Mel Bay.

D. master class with theworlds greats. London:

Mead, (2004). Talking Guitars: A Sanctuary
Publishing Ltd.

Morris, S. (2005). A study of the solo guitar repertoire of the early nineteenth century. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 2005. Dissertation Abstracts International,
65(10), 3621A. (UMINo. 3151461)
Nichols, J. P. (1985). A factor analysis approach to the development of a rating scale for snare drum

performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3282A.

Payne, D. A. (2003). Applied educational assessment (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson
Learning.

33

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Bulletinof theCouncil forResearch inMusic Education Spring 2010 No. 184

Phillips, R. M. (2002). The influence ofMiguel Llobet on the pedagogy, repertoire, and stature of
the guitar in the twentieth century (Spain). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (04), 1183A.

H. Guitar to advanced. New York: Oxford.

Quine, (1990). technique: Intermediate

Radocy, R. (1986). On quantifying the uncountable inmusical behavior. Bulletin of the Council for
Research inMusic Education, 88, 22-31.

Rice, D. R. (1999). An examination of the song cycles of Thea Musgrave. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 60(09),3197A. (UMI No. 9947703)

Roberts, H., & Hagberg, G. (1989). Guitar compendium: The praxis system: technique, improvisation,
musicianship, and theory.Germany: Advance Music.
Rutkowski, J. (1990). The measurement and evaluation of children's singing voice development.

Quarterly Journal ofMusic Teaching and Learning, 1(1 & 2), 81-95.

Saunders, T. C, & Holahan, J.M. (1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of high
school instrumental performance. Journal ofResearch inMusic Education, 45, 259-272.

Scarfullery, R. (2004). Twentieth-century composers from the Dominican Republic: An overview and
analysis of the guitar music of Luis Cernuda, Pedro Holguin-Veras, Manuel Simo, and Miguel
Pichardo. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(05), 1589A. (UMI No. 3134511)

Shearer, A. (1963). Classic Guitar Technique, Vol. 1 (Rev. 2nd ed). New York: Franco Colombo.

Sor, F. (1971). Methodfor the Spanish guitar (A.Merrick, Trans.). New York: Da Capo.
Stanek, M. C. (2004). Guitar in the opera literature:A study of the instrument's use in opera
during the 19th and 20th centuries. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(02), 345A. (UMI
No. 3123945)
Stimpson, M. (1988). The guitar: A guide for students and teachers.New York: Oxford.

Thurlow, M. (1995). National and State Perspectives on Performance Assessment. Reston, VA:
on Disabilities and Girted Education, Council for Exceptional Children.
Clearinghouse
(ERICDigestNo. ED 381986)
Van Eps, G. (1980). Harmonic mechanisms for theguitar, Volume 1. Pacific, MO: Mel Bay.

Walker, T. M. (2004). Instrumental differences in characteristics of expressive musical performance.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (07), 2429A. (UMI No. 3141703)

(2005, October 1).What's driving guitar sales? Retailers with strong guitar sales discuss the trends
propelling the industry's leading product category. The Free Library (2005). Retrieved
from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/What's driving guitar sales? Retailers with strong guitar
sales...-a0138442536

Whybrew, W E. (1971). Measurement and evaluation in music (2nd ed.). Iowa: WMC Brown.

Zdzinski, S. F., & Barnes, G. V. (2002). Development and validation of a string performance rating
scale. Journal ofResearch inMusic Education, 50, 245-255.

34

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:26:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions