Rolul Muzicii n Educatie

http://jrm.sagepub.com

Education Journal of Research in Music

DOI: 10.1177/0022429409343423 2009; 57; 267 Journal of Research in Music Education

Jessica Napoles

The Effects of Score Use on Musicians’ Ratings of Choral Performances

http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/57/3/267 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

MENC: The National Association for Music Education

can be found at:Journal of Research in Music Education Additional services and information for

http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jrm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/57/3/267 Citations

by Dorina Iusca on March 30, 2010 http://jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.menc.org

http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jrm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/57/3/267


1University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

Corresponding Author:Jessica Napoles, University of Utah, 1375 E Presidents’ Circle, Salt Lake City, UT 84112E-mail: [email protected]

The Effects of Score Use on Musicians’ Ratings of Choral Performances

Jessica Napoles1

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether viewing a musical score while listening (as opposed to not viewing the score) would affect musicians’ ratings of choral performance excerpts. University musicians (N = 240) listened to four excerpts of choral music (from Vivaldi’s Gloria) and rated them on a 10-point Likert-type scale for overall impression. Some of the participants heard a professional chorus and orchestra recording, and others heard a high school group recording. For both of the recordings, participants were divided into four groups in a counterbalanced design, with one group viewing the score for all four excerpts, another group never viewing the score, and the other two groups viewing the score for two of the excerpts but not the other two. Results of a three-way ANOVA with repeated measures indicated significant differences among groups. The group that never saw the scores gave significantly lower ratings than the group that saw all of the scores. The excerpts performed by the professional group were rated significantly higher than the excerpts performed by the high school group.

Keywords

score use, choral performance, adjudicator ratings

Adjudication is a regular component of musical performing groups’ experience and often is used as an assessment tool. Included most frequently at the secondary school level, adjudication of choirs, bands, and orchestras can have consequential effects. Many times, these effects are in the form of advancement to another level of

Journal of Research in Music Education

57(3) 267 –279© 2009 MENC: The National

Association for Music EducationReprints and permission: http://www

.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0022429409343423

http://jrme.sagepub.com



268 Journal of Research in Music Education 57(3)

performance (a superior rating at the district level qualifies a group to continue to the state or regional level). Other times, ratings can be an indication to principals, super-intendents, and parents about the overall effectiveness of their school’s conductor and/or performing ensemble. Many states have instituted adjudicator training ses-sions to help educate potential adjudicators about the process itself and the particular state’s rating forms and scales. It seems axiomatic, then, that if adjudication is common and consequential, it merits research. Research is needed to investigate measures of reliability and validation and to gain insight into what factors influence the decisions of adjudicators.

Some research has centered on constructing valid assessment devices for the adjudication process. The goal has been to develop a form or a scale that measures what it purports to measure. The validity of such devices has been investigated with choral music performances (Cooksey, 1977; Norris & Borst, 2007), clarinet performances (Abeles, 1973), euphonium and tuba performances (Bergee, 1988), jazz guitar improvisation performances (Horowitz, 1994), high school solo vocal performances (Jones, 1986), snare drum performances (Nichols, 1991), high school instrumental (woodwind and brass) performances (Saunders & Holohan, 1997), and string performances (Zdinski & Barnes, 2002), among others. Varying degrees of validity have been reported with these instruments.

A wealth of research has been conducted in an attempt to determine what issues affect reliability in adjudication settings. Some variables that have been identified as relating to reliability are panel size (Bergee, 2003; Burnsed, Hinkle, & King, 1985; Fiske, 1975) and teaching experience of the adjudicators (Fiske, 1977). Researchers have recommended a minimum of five adjudicators on a panel (some argued for seven) to attain acceptable reliability (Fiske, 1975). Judge reliability also has been shown to be higher for those with more teaching experience, particularly with instru-ments the adjudicator did not play (Fiske, 1977). Variables that have not appeared to affect reliability are academic achievement of the adjudicator, performing ability of the adjudicator (Fiske, 1977), prior experience in adjudication (Bergee, 2003), dura-tion of the performance, and whether the performance was taped or live (Vasil, 1973).

Researchers also have examined variables that affect ratings of performance. These have included accompaniment, expectation, gender, attractiveness, school size, time of day, and distance traveled to adjudication event. Accompaniment appears to affect ratings. Brittin’s (2002) participants rated trumpet and clarinet performances incor-porating CD accompaniment highest and performances with piano accompaniment lowest, and Geringer and Madsen’s (1998) participants rated accompanied versions of vocal and string performances higher than unaccompanied versions. Expectation also played a role in ratings of performance. Duerksen (1972) found that when listen-ers were told a performance was a student performance, they tended to rate it lower than when they were told it was a professional performance. It is unclear whether gender affects ratings of performances. In LeBlanc and Sherrill’s (1986) study, both female and male children preferred male performers, but Elliott’s (1995) evaluators (experienced musicians and educators) indicated a gender bias only for judgments



Napoles 269

made of performances by women. There was no conclusive result in LeBlanc and Cote’s (1983) investigation of gender bias with fifth and sixth graders. The attrac-tiveness of the performer appears to affect ratings in vocal performance (Wapnick, Darrow, Kovacs, & Dalrymple, 1997), violin performance (Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 1998), and piano performance (Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004; Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 2000).

School size has been studied extensively as it relates to adjudication advan-tages. Students from larger schools tended to score higher than students from smaller schools (Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Bergee & Westfall, 2005; Bergee & Platt, 2003; Lien & Humphreys, 2001). Lien and Humphreys (2001) also asserted that distance traveled to the adjudication event is important: Students who traveled shorter distances tended to perform at a higher level. The time of day a group or soloist per-forms is of great consequence, because performing later in the day (or on the 2nd day of a 2-day festival) increased the likelihood of receiving a superior rating (Adderly, 2001; Bergee & Platt, 2003; Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Bergee & Westfall, 2005; Wapnick, Flowers, Alegant, & Jasinskas, 1993).

Other variables that have been considered in conjunction with performance rat-ings are the educational level of the evaluators (and whether they are considered experts), the performing instrument or major area of the evaluators, the race of the performers, and the duration of excerpts. In most instances, evaluator expertise had no effect on ratings (Byo, 1987; Byo & Crone, 1989; Byo & Brooks, 1994; Doerksen, 1999; Hewitt & Smith, 2004; Mills, 1987; Schleff, 1992; Winter, 1993). Bergee (1993), however, reported mixed results. Undergraduates rated performances of their peers (in applied brass jury performances) higher than did faculty members but not consistently across all episodes. Performing instrument or major area of the evalua-tor related to performance ratings in some studies (Cowles, 1963; Fiske, 1975; Wapnick, Ryan, LaCaille, & Darrow, 2004) but not in others (Bergee, 1997; Hewitt & Smith, 2004). Race influenced ratings in both positive and negative ways. In one study, black listeners preferred performers they thought were black (MCrary, 1993), and in another study, black instrumentalists were rated lower than white instrumen-talists (Elliott, 1995). Duration of excerpts also appears to relate to performance ratings. Participants tended to give higher ratings to longer excerpts (Wapnick et al., 2005), especially if the excerpts were performed by professional (as opposed to high school or university) ensembles (Geringer & Johnson, 2007). Not surprisingly, if a performance is of higher quality, participants will want to listen longer.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether viewing or not viewing a musical score while listening to choral performance excerpts would affect musicians’ ratings of those excerpts. Another study has investigated score use in conjunction with adjudication, although the dependent measure in that study was consistency in evaluations of piano performance. Wapnick et al. (1993) concluded that the combina-tion of score use in addition to rating scales served as a distraction to the evaluation task, perhaps because there was a competition for focus of attention. Furthermore, although there was no harm in using the musical score or rating scales while judging,




neither improved judge consistency. In a directly related study, Droe (2008) examined the effect of looking at a music score while listening to a musical performance on the number and type of comments written by educators. Results indicated that the group using the score responded with more disapproval-of-performance comments than the group without a score and that the group not using a score responded with more approval-of-performance comments than the group with a score. It appears that the musical score did have some impact on adjudicator comments, although the role of the musical score on adjudicator ratings was not considered in that study. Perhaps participants also will rate more negatively when they are viewing the score than when they are not. In view of the number of adjudication festivals that allow judges to look at scores while listening to the performances, this seems an underinvestigated area of research. The present study was designed to answer the questions:

1. Is there a difference between score use conditions on high school and professional choral performance ratings?

2. Are there differences in performance ratings related to the level of performing group (professional vs. high school)?

MethodParticipants

Participants were 240 university musicians (207 undergraduate students and 33 grad-uate students) at a large state university. Participants included females (n = 147) and males (n = 93) who identified themselves as vocalists (n = 67), instrumentalists (n = 130), or both vocalists and instrumentalists (n = 43). Students were recruited from all music education courses, methods courses, and performing ensembles, because these students are likely to serve on adjudication panels in their future careers. Participants who listened to the professional recording included 25 vocalists, 84 instrumentalists, and 11 students who were both vocalists and instrumentalists (n = 120). Participants who listened to the high school recording included 42 vocalists, 46 instrumentalists, and 32 students who were both (n = 120).

Musical StimulusTo avoid introducing confounding variables, such as music selection, tempo, and difficulty, the researcher chose four excerpts from one selection (as opposed to mul-tiple selections) and two recordings: one of a professional choir and orchestra (Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, conducted by Robert Shaw, recorded in 1989) and another of a high school group from the southeastern region (recorded in 1996). A panel of three experienced choral directors listened to the two recordings and agreed that the performances were substantially different. The first four phrases



Napoles 271

of the first movement of Vivaldi’s Gloria (Gloria in excelsis deo) were chosen as the musical stimulus, because phrases were of a regular length (8–11 measures) with instrumental interludes between them to set them apart. The recording was played continuously for participants, with a bell signaling to turn the page for the next excerpt. I downloaded the score from the Choral Public Domain Library—so that no copyright infringements would occur—and copied and pasted the four distinct excerpts into a Microsoft Word document, one excerpt per page. A sample of a page that includes the musical score is provided in the appendix.

Design and ProcedureParticipants listened in groups to either the professional recording or the high school recording. This was randomly determined a priori. I attempted to have representa-tion from vocalists and instrumentalists that was in accordance with the population. Participants were then assigned to one of four groups (viewing scores or not) in a counterbalanced design, such that there was equal representation from each group. The no-scores group (n = 60) listened to the four excerpts without viewing any musical score. The all-scores group (n = 60) listened to the four excerpts while viewing the musical score for all four excerpts. One group (n = 60) listened to the four excerpts while viewing the musical score for Excerpts 1 and 3 only (Scores-1-and-3 group). Scores-2-and-4 group (n = 60) listened to the four excerpts while viewing the musical score for Excerpts 2 and 4 only. There were four forms of the answer sheet, one for each group. In total, there were eight groups, four that listened to the professional recording and four that listened to the high school recording. All groups were given the following directions:

You are being asked to participate in a research study about musical preferences. There is no right or wrong answer.

Each of you has a different form, some with musical scores and some without. DO NOT look at your neighbor’s sheet.

You will be listening to four excerpts from the first movement of Vivaldi’s Gloria. After listening to each excerpt, circle your rating for overall impression. When you hear the bell ring, turn the page for the next excerpt.

Are there any questions?

Each participant had a four-page booklet (in addition to the cover page, which included demographic information and the instructions), one page for each excerpt. Each page also included a space above the excerpt for participants to circle their rating for overall impression on a 10-point Likert-type scale with the words poor and excellent anchored on the left and right side, respectively. The page had either a musical score for that particular excerpt and a rating scale or just the rating scale without the score. The recording was played continuously from the beginning of the first excerpt to the end of the fourth excerpt. Following each excerpt, the researcher rang a bell to indicate the participants were to circle their ratings and turn the page for the next excerpt.




Results

Table 1 illustrates the means for all excerpts across groups. Standard deviations ranged from 0.92 to 2.17. Consistently, participants who listened to the professional recording rated the excerpts higher than participants who listened to the high school recording. In almost all of the cases, the highest mean ratings for each excerpt were for the group of participants who viewed all the musical scores and the lowest mean ratings for each excerpt were for the group of participants who viewed none of the musical scores.

Results of a three-way ANOVA with two between-subjects variables (condition and level of performing group) and one within-subjects variable (excerpt) indicated significant differences between the four conditions, F(3, 232) = 5.97, p < .01, partial η2 = .07. A Bonferroni post hoc test for multiple comparisons revealed that responses from the no-scores group were significantly lower than responses from the all-scores group: no scores, M = 5.99, SD = 2.17; all scores, M = 6.92, SD = 1.96. There were no other significant differences among groups. There also were significant differences between levels of performing groups, F(1, 232) = 451.15, p < .001, partial η2 = .66. Not surprisingly, participants that listened to the professional recording (M = 8.09, SD = 1.30) rated excerpts higher than those who listened to the high school recording (M = 4.75, SD = 1.66). There were no two-way or three-way interactions between or among any other variables, with the exception of a significant interaction among excerpt and level of group, F(3, 696) = 4.36, p < .01. The effect size of this interaction was minimal (partial η2 = .018), however. There were no significant differences among excerpts (p > .05).

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to examine whether the use of the musical score affected listener ratings of choral excerpts and whether these ratings might be differ-ent depending on the level of the performing group. Not surprisingly, listeners rated the professional group higher than the high school group, and this difference was significant. The ratings for the professional group (Atlanta Symphony Orchestra and Chorus) ranged from 7.53 to 8.53 on a 10-point scale, whereas the ratings for the high school group ranged from 4.03 to 5.73. One concern of the researcher was that in an attempt to avoid introducing confounding variables, four excerpts were chosen from the same piece and the recording was played continuously. Did this discourage listeners from making discriminations among excerpts, knowing that it was the same performing ensemble for all four excerpts? Apparently some distinction was made although not a large one.

The participants who saw no musical scores rated excerpts lower than participants who saw all of the musical scores. Perhaps this finding is an indication that the score was a distraction, or that being free of the score, listeners were more critical of what



273

Tabl

e 1.

Mea

ns fo

r A

ll Ex

cerp

ts a

nd C

ondi

tions

Ex

cerp

t 1

Exce

rpt

2 Ex

cerp

t 3

Exce

rpt

4 O

vera

ll

H

igh

H

igh

H

igh

H

igh

H

igh

Con

ditio

n sc

hool

Pr

ofes

sion

al

scho

ol

Prof

essi

onal

sc

hool

Pr

ofes

sion

al

scho

ol

Prof

essi

onal

sc

hool

Pr

ofes

sion

al

No

scor

es

4.03

(1.

42)

8.00

(1.

01)

4.60

(1.

35)

7.53

(1.

27)

4.33

(1.

29)

7.66

(1.

29)

4.16

(1.

46)

7.63

(1.

58)

4.28

(1.

38)

7.70

(1.

30)

All

scor

es

5.50

(1.

77)

8.

30 (

0.98

) 5.

40 (

1.61

) 8.

20 (

0.92

) 5.

73 (

1.68

) 8.

30 (

1.34

) 5.

73 (

1.74

) 8.

23 (

1.30

) 5.

59 (

1.68

) 8.

25 (

1.14

)Sc

ores

4.

40 (

1.83

) 8.

26 (

1.08

) 4.

63 (

1.62

) 8.

21 (

1.37

) 4.

43 (

1.59

) 8.

06 (

1.46

) 4.

56 (

1.71

) 8.

10 (

1.60

) 4.

50 (

1.67

) 8.

17 (

1.38

) 1

and

3Sc

ores

4.

20 (

1.60

) 8.

13 (

1.25

) 5.

20 (

1.62

) 8.

16 (

1.34

) 4.

40 (

1.58

) 8.

53 (

1.43

) 4.

73 (

1.50

) 8.

10 (

1.21

) 4.

63 (

1.60

) 8.

23 (

1.30

) 2

and

4O

vera

ll 4.

53 (

1.74

) 8.

17 (

1.08

) 4.

95 (

1.57

) 8.

02 (

1.26

) 4.

72 (

1.63

) 8.

14 (

1.40

) 4.

80 (

1.69

) 8.

01 (

1.43

)

Stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns s

how

n in

par

enth

eses

.




they were hearing. Another possibility is that this was a focus-of-attention issue, and if the participants had no score, they were not as engaged with the task and thus more negative. Alternatively, with nothing to use as reference while listening, the listener could give the task his or her full attention and in fact be more discerning of mis-takes. It is difficult to say with certainty, and these findings generate more questions that encourage further studies.

The results from the conditions that included musical scores for two excerpts but not the other two are curious. An interesting trend surfaced with these groups: They consistently gave the middle ratings in comparison with the group that saw all of the scores and the group that saw none of the scores. One could argue that this task would indeed seem foreign. In regular settings, an adjudicator would either receive the scores or not receive them. Nevertheless, it is intriguing that having some scores is different from having no scores (although not statistically different) and that the performing group received the most benefit when the adju-dicator had all of the scores.

The low effect sizes attributable to score-viewing groups (never higher than .07) indicate that there is a large amount of the variance that is unexplained. Given that the effect size for level of performing group (.66) was so much higher, one possible explanation is that regardless of the viewing condition, the issue of whether partici-pants considered the ensemble to be of high quality was most important. It is also possible that because the performance of the professional ensemble was of such high quality, there was little to distinguish between excerpts, and scores reflected a ceiling effect.

The present study’s findings contradict those reported by Droe (2008). Droe’s participants who viewed the score wrote more negative performance comments than the participants who did not view the score. In contrast, participants of the current study who viewed the scores rated the performance more positively than those who did not view the scores. Interestingly, these findings are also in contrast with those of Wapnick et al (1993). In that study, the researchers concluded that the combination of score use in addition to rating scales served as a distraction to the evaluation task. It is possible that viewing a score can draw attention to specific musical elements, which might encourage a more negative response if these are not executed correctly. Alternatively, perhaps having a score while listening to an excellent performance allows the adjudicator to rate that performance even higher, knowing that the inten-tions of the composer were followed.

It is important to note some of the limitations of this study. Because participants were assigned to groups, the distribution of vocalists and instrumentalists was not always balanced. In addition, several excerpts were used from the same piece, and it is possible that this did not allow for adequate discrimination among excerpts, especially given that the recording was played continuously and by the same ensemble. Similarly, participants who had some musical scores but not others could have been influenced by the excerpts they did see. A future study might



Napoles 275

include only groups that view scores and others that do not. Given that the partici-pants in this study were all collegiate music students, it would be interesting to find out whether these results would be replicated with more sophisticated and/or expe-rienced judges.

What do this study’s findings imply about adjudication? At the very least, the notion that adjudicators should have musical scores while they listen to performing ensembles should be questioned and examined further. Future research should be conducted that investigates the role of the musical score during the adjudication process: whether score use is intended to give the adjudicator a reference point to determine if errors are being made or to ensure that the adjudicator knows the piece. Perhaps the score is merely a convenient tool to facilitate making comments (i.e., “in Measure 5 . . .”). More research is necessary to determine how the use of the musical score enhances or detracts from the listening experience. Further study is also needed to make educated decisions and perchance influence the adjudication training process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Table 2. Comparisons Between Groups

M (SD)

4.28 (1.38)4.50 (1.67)4.63 (1.60)5.59 (1.68)7.70 (1.30)8.17 (1.38)8.23 (1.30)8.25 (1.14)

Level of group

High schoolHigh schoolHigh schoolHigh schoolProfessionalProfessionalProfessionalProfessional

Condition

No scoresScores 1 and 3Scores 2 and 4All scoresNo scoresScores 1 and 3Scores 2 and 4All scores

Significantly different from

All scores (p < .05)

No scores (p < .05)All scores (p < .05)

No scores (p < .05)




Appendix

Sample Response Page With Musical Score



Napoles 277

References

Abeles, H. F. (1973). Development and validation of a clarinet performance adjudication rat-ing scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 246–255.

Adderly, C. L. (2001). Does the hour of the day affect student selection for instrumental hon-ors ensembles? Contributions to Music Education, 28, 103–113.

Bergee, M. J. (1988). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the development of a rating scale for euphonium and tuba music performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1086A.

Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 19–27.

Bergee, M. J. (1997). Relationships among faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 601–612.

Bergee, M. J. (2003). Faculty interjudge reliability of music performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 137–150.

Bergee, M. J., & Platt, M. C. (2003). Influence of selected variables on solo and ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 244–256.

Bergee, M. J., & McWhirter, J. L. (2005). Selected influences on solo and ensemble festival ratings: Replication and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 177–190.

Bergee, M. J., & Westfall, C. R. (2005). Stability of a model explaining selected extramusi-cal influences on solo and small-ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 253–271.

Brittin, R. L. (2002). Instrumentalists’ assessment of solo performance with compact disc, piano, or no accompaniment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 63–74.

Burnsed, V., Hinkle, D., & King, S. (1985). Performance evaluation reliability at selected concert band festivals. Journal of Band Research, 21, 22–29.

Byo, J. L. (1987). Effects of texture and number of parts on the ability of music majors to detect performance errors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 51–66.

Byo, J. L., & Brooks, R. (1994). A comparison of junior high musicians’ and music educators’ performance evaluations of instrumental music. Contributions to Music Education, 21, 26–38.

Byo, J. L., & Crone, L. J. (1989). Adjudication by nonmusicians: A comparison of professional and amateur performances. Missouri Journal of Music Education, 26, 60–73.

Cooksey, J. M. (1977). A facet-factorial approach to rating high school choral music perfor-mance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 100–114.

Cowles, C. V. (1963). Aesthetic judgments of high school music students. (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Southern California, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts International, 24, 3778A–3779A.

Doerksen, P. F. (1999). Aural-diagnostic and prescriptive skills of preservice and expert instru-mental music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 100–114.

Droe, K. L. (2008, April). The effect of the music score on educators’ written comments. Paper presented at the MENC National Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Duerksen, G. L. (1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical perfor-mance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 268–272.




Elliott, C. A. (1995). Race and gender as factors in judgments of musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 50–55.

Fiske, H. (1975). Judge-group differences in the rating of secondary school trumpet perfor-mances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, 186–196.

Fiske, H. (1977). Relationship of selected factors in trumpet performance adjudication reli-ability. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 256–263.

Geringer, J. M., and Madsen, C. K. (1998). Musicians’ ratings of good versus bad vocal and string performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 522–534.

Geringer, J. M., & Johnson, C. M. (2007). Effects of excerpt duration, tempo, and perfor-mance level on musicians’ ratings of wind band performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 289-301.

Hewitt, M. P., & Smith, B. P. (2004). The influence of teaching-career level and primary performance instrument on the assessment of music performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 314–327.

Horowitz, R. A. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation perfor-mance (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 3443A.

Jones, H. (1986). An application of the facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the development of a rating scale for high school vocal performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1230A.

LeBlanc, A., & Cote, R. (1983). Effects of tempo and performing medium on children’s music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 57–66.

LeBlanc, A., & Sherrill, C. (1986). Effect of vocal vibrato and performer’s sex on children’s music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34, 222–237.

Lien, J. L., & Humphreys, J. T. (2001). Relationships among selected variables in the South Dakota all-state band auditions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 146–155.

McCrary, J. (1993). Effects of listeners’ and performers’ race on music preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 200–211.

Mills, J. (1987). Assessing solo musical performance: A preliminary study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 119–125.

Nichols, J. P. (1991). A factor analysis approach to the development of a rating scale for snare drum performance. Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 15, 11–31.

Norris, C. E., & Borst, J. D. (2007). An examination of the reliabilities of two choral festival adjudication forms. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 237–251.

Ryan, C., & Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Attractiveness bias in the evaluation of young pianists’ performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 141–154.

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

Schleff, J. S. (1992). Critical judgments of undergraduate music education students in response to recorded music performances. Contributions to Music Education, 19, 60–74.

Vasil, T. (1973). The effects of systematically varying selected factors on music performing adjudication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.



Napoles 279

Wapnick, J., Darrow, A. A., Kovacs, J., & Dalrymple, L. (1997). Effects of physical attractive-ness on evaluation of vocal performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 470–479.

Wapnick, J., Flowers, P., Alegant, M., & and Jasinskas, L. (1993). Consistency in piano perfor-mance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 282–292.

Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A., (1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 510–521.

Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A. (2000). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on evaluation of children’s piano performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 323–336.

Wapnick, J., Ryan, C., Campbell, L., Deek, P., Lemire, R., & Darrow, A. A. (2005). Effects of excerpt tempo and duration on musicians’ ratings of high-level piano performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 162–176.

Wapnick, J., Ryan, C., LaCaille, N., & Darrow, A. A. (2004). Effects of selected variables on musicians’ ratings of high-level performances. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 7–20.

Winter, N. (1993). Music performance assessment: A study of the effects of training and expe-rience on the criteria used by music examiners. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 34–39.

Zdinski, S. F., & Barnes, G. V. (2002). Development and validation of a string performance rating scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 245–255.

Bio

Jessica Napoles is assistant professor of choral music education at the University of Utah. Her research interests include music teacher effectiveness.

Submitted Sept. 11, 2008; accepted June 2, 2009



Documents

Rolul Muzicii n Educatie