↓ Skip to main content

(Dis)agreement on Sight-Singing Assessment of Undergraduate Musicians

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
(Dis)agreement on Sight-Singing Assessment of Undergraduate Musicians
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00837
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graziela Bortz, Nayana G. Germano, Hugo Cogo-Moreira

Abstract

Assessment criteria for sight-singing abilities are similar to those used to judge music performances across music school programs. However, little evidence of agreement among judges has been provided in the literature. Fifty out of 152 participants were randomly selected and blindly assessed by three judges, who evaluated students based on given criteria. Participants were recorded while sight-singing 19 intervals and 10 tonal melodies. Interjudge agreement on melodic sight-singing was tested considering four items in a five-point Likert scale format as follows: (1) Intonation and pitch accuracy; (2) Tonal sense and memory; (3) Rhythmic precision, regularity of pulse and subdivisions; (4) Fluency and music direction. Intervals were scored considering a 3-point Likert scale. Agreement was conducted using weighted kappa. For melodic sight-singing considering the ten tonal melodies, on average, the weighted kappa (κw) were: κ1w = 0.296, κ2w = 0.487, κ3w = 0.224, and κ4w = 0.244, ranging from fair to moderate.. For intervals, the lowest agreement was kappa = 0.406 and the highest was kappa = 0.792 (on average, kappa = 0.637). These findings light up the discussion on the validity and reliability of models that have been taken for granted in assessing music performance in auditions and contests, and illustrate the need to better discuss evaluation criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Unspecified 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 6 19%
Psychology 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,017,594
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,893
of 30,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,714
of 331,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#359
of 646 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 646 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.