The Development of A Guitar Performance Rating Scale Using A Facet-Factorial Approach

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 , SPRING 2010, 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: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27861480
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://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.
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education
This content downloaded from

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education ?2010 Board of Trustees
Spring 2010 No. 184 University of Illinois
The Development of a Guitar

Performance Rating Scale using
a Facet-Factorial Approach
Brian E. Russell
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the underlying aural factors of guitar performance by
developing a guitar performance rating scale using facet-factorial techniques. The initialphase of the
study included gathering items concerning the characteristics of a good or poor guitar performance
from guitar performance literature, previously constructed rating scales, and statements from profes
sional guitar players, guitar teachers, and college guitar majors. The item pool of statements was
examined for suitability and placed into a priori categories established in previous research. The 99
item statements were paired with a five-point Likert scale and used by 67 volunteer judges to adju
dicate 100 recorded samples of a wide range of guitar performance excerpts. The results of the 134
item pool adjudications were factor analyzed using a varimax rotation to identify the underlying
factor structure and the items that best supported each factor. The results of thefactor analysis yielded
a five-factor structure consisting of interpretation, tone, technique, rhythm/tempo, and intonation.
These factors accounted for approximately 71 % of the total variance. The selection of the 32 items
chosen to represent the factors of the Guitar Performance Rating Scale (GPRS) was based on factor
loadings. Alpha reliability for the GPRS was estimated at .962for the 32 item scale.
INTRODUCTION
The subject of accountability for teachers translates into the accurate documentation
of student achievement through assessment. Society needs citizens who are competent
and have the necessary skills to remain competitive in todays world. This requires the
educational systems responsible for training these citizens to be held accountable for the
quality of education being received.
Modern measurement and evaluation practices are focusing on the assessment
of student performance in real life situations, such as in musical performance assess
ment. In performance assessment, students are evaluated on their ability to apply skills,
demonstrate understanding of concepts, or meet specific objectives or criteria within
a real world 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 efficient enough to be useful in the classroom.
21

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Spring 2010 No. 184
In order to resolve the inherent potential for unreliability in music performance

assessment, researchers have been examining more accurate methods of collecting musi
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 help the teacher evaluate
instructional strategies of the past and select appropriate strategies for the future" (p.
19). Research on music performance assessment has produced several studies on the
development of music performance measures including methods for item selection,
item response, and judge reliability
Based on the work on Butt and Fiske (1969), who compared global versus facet
and factorial versus rationale strategies for measuring dominance, the facet-factorial
approach facilitates item selection through factor analysis across a broad domain. In
music performance assessment, facet-factorial techniques have been used to separate
and identify the 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 successfully employed facet-factorial methods to construct valid and reliable
performance measures.
Bergee (1987) points out that the lack of research concerning performance assess
ment is largely due to the complexity of musical performance, and "_it is nonetheless
important that we evaluate in performance what lends itself to evaluation" (p. 6). This
does not imply that assessments should consist solely of note and rhythm evaluations,
but also those less tangible aspects of performance. These aspects of performance can
be measured by identifying the factors that influence judgments about the quality of
musical performance. Better assessment tools must be developed if better educational
decisions are to be made.
The facet-factorial approach to rating scale development employs factor analysis to
identify performance factors that influence the assessment of a musical performance.
Facet-factorial strategies have been used to develop measures for wind instrument and
percussion performance (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987; Nichols, 1985), band perfor
mance (DCamp, 1980), choral and solo vocal performance (Cooksey, 1977; Jones,
1986), string performance (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2002), and jazz guitar improvisation
(Horowitz, 1994). The results of these studies suggest that the facet-factorial approach is
a viable and reliable method for identifying performance 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 guitar is a versatile instrument and has become a permanent fixture in many
musical styles around the world. According to market research, the guitar is one of the
most frequently sold instruments in the United States (Kratus, 2007; "What's driving
guitar sales?," 2005). Students of the guitar are able to experience both solo and group
performance. The wide stylistic range and the shear availability and volume of guitar
22

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Russell Facet-Factorial Guitar Performance Rating Scal<
repertoire helps reach a diverse audience. The popularity and versatility of the guitar
make it an invaluable tool in music education.
Research concerning guitar performance and guitar education tends to focus
heavily on methodology and historical analysis. The historical literature provides an
understanding of performer personalities 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
provide strategies for improving various aspects of guitar performance. Most method
ology resources are categorized by style (jazz, classical, rock, etc.) and level (beginner,
intermediate, and advanced). A further examination 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 from various descriptions regarding the qual
ity of a guitar performance including: phrasing/articulation, tempo/rhythm, dynamics,
tone, and technique. Unfortunately, studies regarding these general aspects of guitar
performance are non-existent. Research regarding guitar performance would help to
identify the factors that influence assessments of performance quality.
As far as it can be determined, research regarding guitar performance evaluation
and rating scale development have been limited to the evaluation of jazz guitar impro
visation. Therefore, a facet-factorial study focused on identifying the underlying factors
of general guitar performance would not only add to the current body of research sur
rounding facet-factorial research and begin to create a new and specific line of inquiry
into guitar performance and guitar pedagogy, but would help guitar educators diversify
the focus of their educational strategies in both classroom and studio environments.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation was to identify the underlying aural factors of guitar
performance by developing a guitar performance rating scale using facet-factorial tech
niques. This research was an attempt to add to the existing body of research on instru
mental performance measurement established by Abeles (1971), Jones (1986), Bergee
(1987), and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). Specifically, this study will seek answers to
the following questions:
1. What aural factors contribute to the assessment of a guitar performance?
2. What items best represent the factors that influence guitar performance
assessment?
3. How does the factor structure of the GPRS compare with previous facet
factorial research on performance rating scale development?
23

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
METHOD
The purpose of this study was to identify the underlying aural factors of guitar perfor
mance by developing a guitar performance rating scale using facet-factorial technique
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 guit
performance using the item pool, (f) factor analysis of the results including the iden
fication of performance factors and supporting items, (g) confirmatory factor analy
to establish the stability of the identified factors, and (h) construction of the Guit
Performance Rating Scale (GPRS) with Likert responses.
Performance Description Generation

The researcher, college guitar professors, and professional guitar players (n = 10) gen
ated the initial pool of item statements. Each participant was asked to describe or li
the characteristics of a "poor" or "good" guitar performance with respect to their o
experience. An additional 186 items were extracted from previous research conduct
by Abeles (1971), Bergee (1987), Zdzinski and Barnes (2002), and guitar related liter
ture (Phillips, 2002; Quine, 1990; Roberts & Hagberg, 1989; Stimpson, 1988). T
statements were screened for redundancy and suitability for evaluating aural aspects
guitar performance. Descriptions that focused on visual rather than aural aspects of g
tar performance were removed from the item pool. A total of 129 separate statemen
concerning aural guitar performance were selected for inclusion on the initial item poo
Item Pool Construction

The descriptive statements were converted into item statements that are suitable fo
judging a guitar performance. Each item was placed into a priori categories previou
established in guitar performance literature and the research of Abeles (1971), Berg
(1987), and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). The resultant performance dimension
included tone, intonation, interpretation, technique, rhythm, tempo, and musica
effect. To reduce the item pool to a more manageable size the items were re-examin
for redundancy and diversity of subject matter. One-hundred items were selected t
be included on the initial item pool. Examples of these statements are located in Tab
1. The items were evaluated to determine the positive or negative nature of each item
Both positive and negative items were desired in order prevent a set response wh
judging the performances. Any items deemed as neutral were 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 "Strongly Agree"
"Strongly Disagree." The statements were then numbered and placed on the adjudica
tion measure.
24

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Russell Facet-Factorial Guitar Performance Rating Scale
Table 1
Sample Items from Initial Item Pool
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 guita
teachers (n = 6), college undergraduate (n = 7) and gradu
senior high school freshman, sophomore, juniors, and
pants were asked to perform prepared pieces from their
was digitally recorded using a Sony Net-MD Mini-disc r
Electret Condenser Microphone (ECM-MS907) to ensure
each performance for the adjudications. The recordings
in length and were a minimum of 15 seconds in length.
sented a wide range of ability levels from beginner to prof
The track numbers from 1 to 100 were written down,
hat in pairs. The pairs of randomly-chosen performances w
discs. Each disc contained two separate recordings. The c
into evaluation packets. Each evaluation packet included
sheet, (b) a judging consent form, (c) two adjudication
disc with two randomly selected solo guitar recordings, a
judges solicited out of state).
Item Pool Evaluation

Public school guitar and string teachers (n = 3), college gu
graduate and graduate guitar and string performance m
and graduate music education majors (n = 23), and profes
from Florida, California, and South Carolina were solicit
to evaluate the performance recordings using the Likert-
judge received one evaluation packet. The judges were instr
ing, rate them separately using the Likert scale items (n =
packet. Judges were allowed to play the recordings as ma
the adjudication of the performances (Zdzinski &: Barnes
Once the item pool evaluations (n = 134) were collected
the researcher re-examined the item pool for any redu
(n = 99) was submitted for factor analysis. The item po
25

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
over a period of three months. The responses to each item were entered onto an elec
tronic spreadsheet according to the following response key: 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree,
3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree. Once all responses were entered, the
results were 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 its major components (Asmus, 1989). The resultant
factor loadings were then rotated to identify factor-simple items that adequately rep
resent each performance factor. An orthogonal rotation was selected to maintain the
autonomy of the factors and provide clarity to the analysis (Asmus, 1989). The type of
orthogonal rotation employed was varimax. The utilization of this statistical technique
was also established in previous research by Abeles (1971), Jones (1986), Bergee (1987),
and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002).
The first research question posed in this study asked what aural factors contribute
to the assessment of a guitar performance. Identification of factors was determined
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 factors with
Eigenvalues over 1.00. The results indicated thirteen factors with 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 test was performed to illustrate
the range of prospective performance factors. The scree test indicated that the first four
factors account for a larger portion of the variance than the subsequent nine factors.
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
performance dimensions represented in the item pool: tone, intonation, interpretation,
technique, rhythm, tempo, and musical effect. The four-factor rotation resulted in four
separate components. The distribution of factor loadings indicated a combination of
(a) rhythm/tempo/technique /interpretation/musical effect, (b) interpretation/rhythm/
musical effect, (c) technique/intonation/ tempo, and (d) tone. The interpretation of 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
simple structure, solutions containing six factors or more were no longer factor simple
and therefore not acceptable.
26

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
The five-factor model best fit the a priori structure. The distribution of loadings
clearly illustrated the clusters of interrelated items in each category. The factors selected
for retention were (a) interpretation/musical effect, (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 interpretation of 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 together on Factor 1 were originally selected for the interpre
tation and musical effect performance dimensions. Since the items originated from a
combination of both of performance dimensions it was decided to label this factor as
Interpretation/Musical Effect. This factor accounted for a large percentage of the vari
ance and has been described as a general musical factor (Abeles, 1971; Bergee, 1987).
The high loading items grouped together on Factor 2 belong to the performance
dimension of technique. This factor was labeled Technique according to the interpreta
tion of the high loading items clustered on Factor 2. High loading items on Factor 3
originally were selected to represent the rhythm and tempo performance dimensions. In
agreement with the research of Bergee (1987) judges in the present study seem to value
items regarding steady and controlled rhythms and tempos. This factor was labeled
Rhythm/Tempo.
The factor loadings on Factor 4 indicate a grouping of items that originate from the
a priori factor of tone. Items that originated from the intonation performance dimension
did not load on this factor and instead clustered separately on 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 as Tone and Factor 5 was labeled as Intonation.
The second research question asked what items are most representative of the fac
tors that influence guitar performance assessment. Items for the 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 factor matrix was
examined to identify those items with the highest factor loadings on the factor they are
selected to represent. The structure coefficients for this group ranged from .452 to .816.
Each item was examined to determine the factor simple nature of each item. All GPRS
items maintained low secondary loadings (.3 or below). Items with secondary factor
loadings of .4 and above were not considered for inclusion on the GPRS.
A total of 44 items were examined for redundancy, appropriateness, and diversity
of content. Items selected for the GPRS had higher factor loadings on the factor they
were selected to represent than any other factor. Thirty-two items were selected for
inclusion on the GPRS. The items were distributed as follows: (a) interpretation/musi
cal effect = 7 items, (b) technique = 7 items, (c) rhythm/ tempo = 7 items, (d) tone = 7
items, and (e) intonation = 4 items.
27

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
To establish the stability of the factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis

was performed on the thirty-two selected items. A principal components analysis with
a varimax rotation was used to confirm the five-factor solution. The factor loadings
obtained in this confirmatory factor analysis ranged from .573 to .829 (see Table 2).
All GPRS items maintained 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 this measure. The percentage of variance
accounted for by this five-factor structure is 71%.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .931 with a subject
to-variable ratio of 3:1. Both are deemed appropriate according to the criteria presented
by Asmus (1989). In order to establish internal reliability a reliability analysis was con
ducted. All negatively worded items were recoded in order to obtain a more accurate
estimation. The Alpha reliability for the GPRS was estimated at .962. The results of the
confirmatory factor analysis as well as the reliability analysis established the stability of
the five-factor structure.
Table 2
Factor Loadings for 32-ltem Guitar Performance Rating Scale (GPRS)
I II III IV V
GPRS Items
MUSEF TMPO ?^
Melodic expression. 0.829 0
No contrasts in performance. -0.78
Ihe interpretation was musical. 0
Spiritless playing. -0.774 -0.
Performance not expressive. -0.75
Performance reflected sensitivity.
Melodic phrasing. 0.693 0.
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
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
Tone quality is beautiful. 0.397 0.711 0.242 0.145 -
There was a lack of tonal color. -0.324 -0.688 -0.105 -0.207
28

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
I II III IV V
GPRS Items
TONE TECH INTON
MUSEF TMPO
String
and smooth. crossing is controlled 0.2
Played fluently. 0.319 0.310 0.719 0.260 -0.038
P?or syn^mzationofpick ^3 _Q m _QJlQ _Q0.243
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 repeated notes. -0.093 -0.117 -0.177 -0.673 0.257
Lack of a steady pulse. -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 third question in this study asked how the factor structure of the GPRS com
pares with previous facet-factorial research on performance rating scale development.
Results of the factor analysis performed on the initial item pool produced five factors
to assess guitar performance. These five factors are (a) Interpretation/Musical Effect, (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/Musical Effect factor is present
in the Abeles, Jones, Bergee, and Zdzinski and Barnes studies. The four remaining
factors of Technique, 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 the Bergee and Zdzinski and Barnes studies,
and both Tone and Intonation factors appear separately in the Abeles and Zdzinski and
Barnes studies. Table 3 illustrates the comparisons of the different factor structures.
29

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
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
musicianship intonation tone
rhythm/ suitability/
ensemble rhythm/tempo rhythm/tempo rhythm/tempo
continuity
articulation technique technique vibrato technique
intonation diction intonation intonation
tempo
DISCUSSION
The results of the factor analysis revealed a five-factor structure for aural guitar pe
mance. The five-factor model was deemed most appropriate since the four-factor
tion grouped several broad performance factors together and solutions over six f
spread single performance dimensions across several factors. The factor structure of
present study is similar to those found in previous research by Abeles (1971),
(1986), Bergee (1987) and Zdzinski and Barnes (2002). The factors represented o
GPRS also occur in at least two of the supporting facet-factorial rating scale dev
ment studies with the exception of tone. The tone factor is only represented as a
factor in both the present study and the research of Abeles.
An examination of the differences between the factor structures of previous stu
on instrumental performance rating scale development and the GPRS indicates th
variation in the factor structure is possibly due to basic differences in guitar tech
and instrument construction. For example, in guitar performance intonation is la
decided by the tuning mechanisms and string quality and is not necessarily an in
tor of the performers ability to produce an appropriate tone (i.e., a bad tone ma
produced on a tuned instrument and vice versa). In contrast, stringed-instrument
is intimately linked with the articulation of the right hand (Zdzinski & Barnes, 2
For brass performance tone and intonation are influenced by a combination of
embouchure and the function of the breathing mechanism.
The thirty-two items selected for inclusion on the GPRS had high loadings on
priori factors they were selected to define and relatively low loadings on the other fac
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis and scree test substantiated the initia
factor solution that included: (a) Interpretation/Musical Effect, (b) Tone, (c) Techn
30

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Russell Facet-Factorial Guitar Performance Rating Scal<
(d) Rhythm/Tempo, and (e) Intonation. Each factor was represented by seven items with
the exception of the Intonation factor which is represented by four items. The limited
number of items representing the Intonation factor is due to the limited number of items
originally collected for the initial item pool. GPRS items were selected to represent dif
ferent aspects of the same factor. Selecting an array of items that measure various aspects
of a factor allowed for a more accurate definition of the factors. Items which were redun
dant in content were not considered for inclusion on the GPRS.
CONCLUSIONS
In the present study the facet-factorial approach was used to identify the underlying aura
factors that influence guitar performance assessment as well as items that support variou
aspects of these factors. The factors identified in this study are Interpretation/Musica
Effect, Technique, Rhythm/Tempo, Tone, and Intonation. These performance factors are
reported to represent 71% of the components that influence guitar performance evalu
tion. The identification of these factors creates opportunity for educators to select appr
priate instructional strategies to help students develop musical skill in those aural aspects
of performance that have the majority influence on our assessments of musical quality.
The facet-factorial approach is one method of successfully identifying the perfor
mance dimensions that influence adjudication and selecting items that appropriately
represent those dimensions. This method has successfully been applied to performanc
rating scale construction for wind and percussion performance (Abeles, 1971; Bergee
1987; Nichols, 1985), band performance (DCamp, 1980), choral and solo vocal
performance (Cooksey, 1977; Jones, 1986), string performance (Zdzinski & Barnes,
2002), and jazz guitar improvisation (Horowitz, 1994). This study substantiates the
use of facet-factorial methods as objective and consistent in the development of mor
accurate music performance assessments.
The factors identified in this study are similar to those identified in previous research
on performance assessment. Factors such as Musical Effect and Interpretation stay
autonomous regardless of instrument while others differ according to the characteristics
of the instrument being evaluated. The factors of Interpretation, Technique, Rhythm/
Tempo, Tone, and Intonation are reoccurring throughout facet-factorial research. The
implications of this reoccurrence could potentially lead to the development of a genera
instrumental/musical performance rating scale.
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 thes
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

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
can isolate the deficient performance factor(s) and focus instruction on improvement
in this area. The use of an established guitar performance factor structure, such as pro
duced in this investigation, will also help address the issue of accountability in public
school and university guitar programs.
Several extensions for further research can be derived from the results of the cur
rent study. One possible extension would be to use the items of the Guitar Performance
Rating Scale (GPRS) in a criteria-specific rubric rating scale format. The eventual con
struction of a valid and reliable rubric for evaluating guitar performance could poten
tially be a valuable source of information for teachers and a vehicle for improvement in
student performance. Researchers investigating the development and application of cri
teria-specific rating scales indicate substantial reliability when 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-factorial and criteria-specific approaches could potentially produce a new
more reliable, valid, and efficient model for not only guitar performance measurement
but musical performance measurement in general.
The majority of facet-factorial performance rating scales are focused on the aural
aspects of instrumental performance. While some researchers (Jones, 1986) have had a
moderate amount of success with including visual aspects of performance more research
needs to be conducted. Suggestions for further research on 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 general musical performance structure. The reoccurring nature of the factors
revealed in the present study and in previous research on facet-factorial performance
rating scale construction suggests a potential performance structure that may include
but not be limited to interpretation, musical effect, technique, rhythm, tempo, tone,
and intonation.
REFERENCES
Abeles, H. F. (1971). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the devel
opment of a rating scale for clarinet music performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Maryland, College Park.
Asmus, E. (1989). Factor analysis: A look at the technique through the data of rainbow. Bulletin of
the Council for Research in Music 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 of Research in Music Education, 41, 328-342.
Bay, M. (1948). Mel Bays modern guitar method: Grade 1. Pacific, MO: Mel Bay.
Bergee, M. J. (1987). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the
development of a rating scale for euphonium and tuba music performance. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 49(05), 1086A.
32

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury perfor
mances. Journal of Research in Music 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 of Research in Music 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

development of a 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)
Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42-48.
Krout, R. (1983). Teaching basic guitar skills to 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 the Council for Research in Music Education, 100, 14-19.
Marshall, W. (2001). Best ofWes Montgomery: A step-by-step breakdown of his guitar style and 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 three dimensions: 50 years of legendary guitar,
Volume 1. Pacific, MO: Mel Bay.
Mead, D. (2004). Talking Guitars: A master class with the worlds greats. London: 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. (UMI No. 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

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC
Phillips, R. M. (2002). The influence of Miguel Llobet on the pedagogy, repertoire, and stature of
the guitar in the twentieth century (Spain). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (04), 1183A.
Quine, H. (1990). Guitar technique: Intermediate to advanced. New York: Oxford.

Radocy, R. (1986). On quantifying the uncountable in musical behavior. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music 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 of Music 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 of Research in Music 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:
Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Girted Education, Council for Exceptional Children.
(ERIC Digest No. ED 381986)
Van Eps, G. (1980). Harmonic mechanisms for the guitar, 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 of Research in Music Education, 50, 245-255.
34

139.67.14.98 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:03:36 UTC

The Development of A Guitar Performance Rating Scale Using A Facet-Factorial Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of A Guitar Performance Rating Scale Using A Facet-Factorial Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Author(s): Brian E. Russell

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27861480

This content downloaded from