presentation skills rating scale

Evaluating Business Presentations: A Six Point Presenter Skills Assessment Checklist

Posted by Belinda Huckle  |  On December 4, 2019  |  In Presentation Training, Tips & Advice

In this Article...quick links

1. Ability to analyse an audience effectively and tailor the message accordingly

2. ability to develop a clear, well-structured presentation/pitch that is compelling and persuasive, 3. ability to connect with and maintain the engagement of the audience, 4. ability to prepare effective slides that support and strengthen the clarity of the message, 5. ability to appear confident, natural and in control, 6. ability to summarise and close a presentation to achieve the required/desired outcome, effective presentation skills are essential to growth, and follow us on social media for some more great presentation tips:, don’t forget to download our presenter skills assessment form.

For many business people, speaking in front of clients, customers, their bosses or even their own large team is not a skill that comes naturally. So it’s likely that within your organisation, and indeed within your own team, you’ll find varying levels of presenting ability. But, without the basis for an objective assessment of these skills, it can make it more difficult to persuade someone that, perhaps, some presentation skills coaching might help transform their ability to do their job (benefiting your business), improve their prospects for promotion (benefiting their career) and dramatically improve their own self-confidence (benefiting their broader life chances).

So, how do you evaluate the presenting skills of your people to find out, objectively, where the skill gaps lie? Well, you work out your presentation skills evaluation criteria and then measure/assess your people against them. 

To help you, in this article we’re sharing the six crucial questions we believe you need to ask to make a professional assessment of your people’s presenting skills. We use them in our six-point Presenter Skills Assessment checklist ( which we’re giving away as a free download at the end of this blog post ). The answers to these questions will allow you to identify the strengths and weaknesses (i.e. skills development opportunities) of anyone in your team or organisation, from the Managing Director down. You can then put training or coaching in place so that everyone who needs it can learn the skills to deliver business presentations online, or face-to-face, with confidence, impact and purpose.

Read on to discover what makes a great presentation and how to evaluate a presenter using our six-point Presenter Skills Assessment criteria so you can make a professional judgement of your people’s presenting skills.

If you ask most people what makes a great presentation, they will likely comment on tangible things like structure, content, delivery and slides. While these are all critical aspects of a great presentation, a more fundamental and crucial part is often overlooked – understanding your audience .  So, when you watch people in your organisation or team present, look for clues to see whether they really understand their audience and the particular situation they are currently in, such as:

• Is their content tight, tailored and relevant, or just generic?
• Is the information pitched at the right level?
• Is there a clear ‘What’s In It For Them’?
• Are they using language and terminology that reflects how their audience talk?
• Have they addressed all of the pain points adequately?
• Is the audience focused and engaged, or do they seem distracted?

For your people, getting to know their audience, and more importantly, understanding them, should always be the first step in pulling together a presentation. Comprehending the challenges, existing knowledge and level of detail the audience expects lays the foundation of a winning presentation. From there, the content can be structured to get the presenter’s message across in the most persuasive way, and the delivery tuned to best engage those listening.

Flow and structure are both important elements in a presentation as both impact the effectiveness of the message. When analysing this aspect of your people’s presentations look for a clear, easy to follow agenda, and related narrative, which is logical and persuasive.

Things to look for include:

• Did the presentation ‘tell a story’ with a clear purpose at the start, defined chapters throughout and a strong close?
• Were transitions smooth between the ‘chapters’ of the presentation?
• Were visual aids, handouts or audience involvement techniques used where needed?
• Were the challenges, solutions and potential risks of any argument defined clearly for the audience?
• Were the benefits and potential ROI quantified/explained thoroughly?
• Did the presentation end with a clear destination/call to action or the next steps?

For the message to stick and the audience to walk away with relevant information they are willing to act on, the presentation should flow seamlessly through each part, building momentum and interest along the way. If not, the information can lose impact and the presentation its direction. Then the audience may not feel equipped, inspired or compelled to implement the takeaways.

Connecting with your audience and keeping them engaged throughout can really be the difference between a great presentation and one that falls flat. This is no easy feat but is certainly a skill that can be learned. To do it well, your team need a good understanding of the audience (as mentioned above) to ensure the content is on target. Ask yourself, did they cover what’s relevant and leave out what isn’t? 

Delivery is important here too. This includes being able to build a natural rapport with the audience, speaking in a confident, conversational tone, and using expressive vocals, body language and gestures to bring the message to life. On top of this, the slides need to be clear, engaging and add interest to the narrative. Which leads us to point 4…

It’s not uncommon for slides to be used first and foremost as visual prompts for the speaker. While they can be used for this purpose, the first priority of a slide (or any visual aid) should always be to add to the audiences’ experience and understanding through effective use of visual data .

The main problem we see with people’s slides is that they are bloated with information, hard to read, distracting or unclear in their meaning. 

The best slides are visually impactful, with graphics, graphs or images instead of lines and lines of text or bullet points. They should also be clear in their message and add reinforcement to the argument or story that is being shared. How true is this of your people’s slides?

Most people find speaking in front of an audience (both small and large) at least a little confronting. However, for some, the nerves and anxiety they feel can distract from their presentation and the impact of their message. If members of your team lack confidence, both in their ideas and in themselves, it will create awkwardness and undermine their credibility and authority. This can crush a presenter and their reputation. 

This is something that you will very easily pick up on, but the good news is that it is definitely an area that can be improved through training and practice. Giving your team the tools and training they need to become more confident and influential presenters can deliver amazing results, which is really rewarding for both the individual and the organisation.

No matter how well a presentation goes, the closing statement can still make or break it. It’s a good idea to include a recap on the main points as well as a clear call to action which outlines what is required to achieve the desired outcome.

In assessing your people’s ability to do this, you can ask the following questions:

• Did they summarise the key points clearly and concisely?
• Were the next steps outlined in a way that seems achievable?
• What was the feeling in the room at the close? Were people inspired, motivated, convinced? Or were they flat, disinterested, not persuaded? 

Closing a presentation with a well-rounded overview and achievable action plan should leave the audience with a sense that they have gained something out of the presentation and have all that they need to take the next steps to overcome their problem or make something happen.

It’s widely accepted that effective communication is a critical skill in business today. On top of this, if you can develop a team of confident presenters, you and they will experience countless opportunities for growth and success.

Once you’ve identified where the skill gaps lie, you can provide targeted training to address it. Whether it’s feeling confident presenting to your leadership team or answering unfielded questions , understanding their strengths and weaknesses in presenting will only boost their presenting skills. This then creates an ideal environment for collaboration and innovation, as each individual is confident to share their ideas. They can also clearly and persuasively share the key messaging of the business on a wider scale – and they and the business will experience dramatic results.

Tailored Training to Fill Your Presentation Skill Gaps

If you’re looking to build the presentation skills of your team through personalised training or coaching that is tailored to your business, we can help. For nearly 20 years we have been Australia’s Business Presentation Skills Experts , training & coaching thousands of people in an A-Z of global blue-chip organisations. All our programs incorporate personalised feedback, advice and guidance to take business presenters further. To find out more, click on one of the buttons below:

• Work Email Address * Please enter your email address and then click ‘download’ below

Written By Belinda Huckle

Co-Founder & Managing Director

Belinda is the Co-Founder and Managing Director of SecondNature International. With a determination to drive a paradigm shift in the delivery of presentation skills training both In-Person and Online, she is a strong advocate of a more personal and sustainable presentation skills training methodology.

Belinda believes that people don’t have to change who they are to be the presenter they want to be. So she developed a coaching approach that harnesses people’s unique personality to build their own authentic presentation style and personal brand.

She has helped to transform the presentation skills of people around the world in an A-Z of organisations including Amazon, BBC, Brother, BT, CocaCola, DHL, EE, ESRI, IpsosMORI, Heineken, MARS Inc., Moody’s, Moonpig, Nationwide, Pfizer, Publicis Groupe, Roche, Savills, Triumph and Walmart – to name just a few.

A total commitment to quality, service, your people and you.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.74(9); 2010 Nov 10

A Standardized Rubric to Evaluate Student Presentations

Michael j. peeters.

a University of Toledo College of Pharmacy

Eric G. Sahloff

Gregory e. stone.

b University of Toledo College of Education

To design, implement, and assess a rubric to evaluate student presentations in a capstone doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) course.

A 20-item rubric was designed and used to evaluate student presentations in a capstone fourth-year course in 2007-2008, and then revised and expanded to 25 items and used to evaluate student presentations for the same course in 2008-2009. Two faculty members evaluated each presentation.

The Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) was used to determine the rubric's reliability, quantify the contribution of evaluator harshness/leniency in scoring, and assess grading validity by comparing the current grading method with a criterion-referenced grading scheme. In 2007-2008, rubric reliability was 0.98, with a separation of 7.1 and 4 rating scale categories. In 2008-2009, MFRM analysis suggested 2 of 98 grades be adjusted to eliminate evaluator leniency, while a further criterion-referenced MFRM analysis suggested 10 of 98 grades should be adjusted.

The evaluation rubric was reliable and evaluator leniency appeared minimal. However, a criterion-referenced re-analysis suggested a need for further revisions to the rubric and evaluation process.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluations are important in the process of teaching and learning. In health professions education, performance-based evaluations are identified as having “an emphasis on testing complex, ‘higher-order’ knowledge and skills in the real-world context in which they are actually used.” 1 Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a common, notable example. 2 On Miller's pyramid, a framework used in medical education for measuring learner outcomes, “knows” is placed at the base of the pyramid, followed by “knows how,” then “shows how,” and finally, “does” is placed at the top. 3 Based on Miller's pyramid, evaluation formats that use multiple-choice testing focus on “knows” while an OSCE focuses on “shows how.” Just as performance evaluations remain highly valued in medical education, 4 authentic task evaluations in pharmacy education may be better indicators of future pharmacist performance. 5 Much attention in medical education has been focused on reducing the unreliability of high-stakes evaluations. 6 Regardless of educational discipline, high-stakes performance-based evaluations should meet educational standards for reliability and validity. 7

PharmD students at University of Toledo College of Pharmacy (UTCP) were required to complete a course on presentations during their final year of pharmacy school and then give a presentation that served as both a capstone experience and a performance-based evaluation for the course. Pharmacists attending the presentations were given Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)-approved continuing education credits. An evaluation rubric for grading the presentations was designed to allow multiple faculty evaluators to objectively score student performances in the domains of presentation delivery and content. Given the pass/fail grading procedure used in advanced pharmacy practice experiences, passing this presentation-based course and subsequently graduating from pharmacy school were contingent upon this high-stakes evaluation. As a result, the reliability and validity of the rubric used and the evaluation process needed to be closely scrutinized.

Each year, about 100 students completed presentations and at least 40 faculty members served as evaluators. With the use of multiple evaluators, a question of evaluator leniency often arose (ie, whether evaluators used the same criteria for evaluating performances or whether some evaluators graded easier or more harshly than others). At UTCP, opinions among some faculty evaluators and many PharmD students implied that evaluator leniency in judging the students' presentations significantly affected specific students' grades and ultimately their graduation from pharmacy school. While it was plausible that evaluator leniency was occurring, the magnitude of the effect was unknown. Thus, this study was initiated partly to address this concern over grading consistency and scoring variability among evaluators.

Because both students' presentation style and content were deemed important, each item of the rubric was weighted the same across delivery and content. However, because there were more categories related to delivery than content, an additional faculty concern was that students feasibly could present poor content but have an effective presentation delivery and pass the course.

The objectives for this investigation were: (1) to describe and optimize the reliability of the evaluation rubric used in this high-stakes evaluation; (2) to identify the contribution and significance of evaluator leniency to evaluation reliability; and (3) to assess the validity of this evaluation rubric within a criterion-referenced grading paradigm focused on both presentation delivery and content.

The University of Toledo's Institutional Review Board approved this investigation. This study investigated performance evaluation data for an oral presentation course for final-year PharmD students from 2 consecutive academic years (2007-2008 and 2008-2009). The course was taken during the fourth year (P4) of the PharmD program and was a high-stakes, performance-based evaluation. The goal of the course was to serve as a capstone experience, enabling students to demonstrate advanced drug literature evaluation and verbal presentations skills through the development and delivery of a 1-hour presentation. These presentations were to be on a current pharmacy practice topic and of sufficient quality for ACPE-approved continuing education. This experience allowed students to demonstrate their competencies in literature searching, literature evaluation, and application of evidence-based medicine, as well as their oral presentation skills. Students worked closely with a faculty advisor to develop their presentation. Each class (2007-2008 and 2008-2009) was randomly divided, with half of the students taking the course and completing their presentation and evaluation in the fall semester and the other half in the spring semester. To accommodate such a large number of students presenting for 1 hour each, it was necessary to use multiple rooms with presentations taking place concurrently over 2.5 days for both the fall and spring sessions of the course. Two faculty members independently evaluated each student presentation using the provided evaluation rubric. The 2007-2008 presentations involved 104 PharmD students and 40 faculty evaluators, while the 2008-2009 presentations involved 98 students and 46 faculty evaluators.

After vetting through the pharmacy practice faculty, the initial rubric used in 2007-2008 focused on describing explicit, specific evaluation criteria such as amounts of eye contact, voice pitch/volume, and descriptions of study methods. The evaluation rubric used in 2008-2009 was similar to the initial rubric, but with 5 items added (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The evaluators rated each item (eg, eye contact) based on their perception of the student's performance. The 25 rubric items had equal weight (ie, 4 points each), but each item received a rating from the evaluator of 1 to 4 points. Thus, only 4 rating categories were included as has been recommended in the literature. 8 However, some evaluators created an additional 3 rating categories by marking lines in between the 4 ratings to signify half points ie, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5. For example, for the “notecards/notes” item in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , a student looked at her notes sporadically during her presentation, but not distractingly nor enough to warrant a score of 3 in the faculty evaluator's opinion, so a 3.5 was given. Thus, a 7-category rating scale (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5. 3, 3.5, and 4) was analyzed. Each independent evaluator's ratings for the 25 items were summed to form a score (0-100%). The 2 evaluators' scores then were averaged and a letter grade was assigned based on the following scale: >90% = A, 80%-89% = B, 70%-79% = C, <70% = F.

Rubric used to evaluate student presentations given in a 2008-2009 capstone PharmD course.

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

Rubric reliability.

To measure rubric reliability, iterative analyses were performed on the evaluations using the Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) following the 2007-2008 data collection period. While Cronbach's alpha is the most commonly reported coefficient of reliability, its single number reporting without supplementary information can provide incomplete information about reliability. 9 - 11 Due to its formula, Cronbach's alpha can be increased by simply adding more repetitive rubric items or having more rating scale categories, even when no further useful information has been added. The MFRM reports separation , which is calculated differently than Cronbach's alpha, is another source of reliability information. Unlike Cronbach's alpha, separation does not appear enhanced by adding further redundant items. From a measurement perspective, a higher separation value is better than a lower one because students are being divided into meaningful groups after measurement error has been accounted for. Separation can be thought of as the number of units on a ruler where the more units the ruler has, the larger the range of performance levels that can be measured among students. For example, a separation of 4.0 suggests 4 graduations such that a grade of A is distinctly different from a grade of B, which in turn is different from a grade of C or of F. In measuring performances, a separation of 9.0 is better than 5.5, just as a separation of 7.0 is better than a 6.5; a higher separation coefficient suggests that student performance potentially could be divided into a larger number of meaningfully separate groups.

The rating scale can have substantial effects on reliability, 8 while description of how a rating scale functions is a unique aspect of the MFRM. With analysis iterations of the 2007-2008 data, the number of rating scale categories were collapsed consecutively until improvements in reliability and/or separation were no longer found. The last positive iteration that led to positive improvements in reliability or separation was deemed an optimal rating scale for this evaluation rubric.

In the 2007-2008 analysis, iterations of the data where run through the MFRM. While only 4 rating scale categories had been included on the rubric, because some faculty members inserted 3 in-between categories, 7 categories had to be included in the analysis. This initial analysis based on a 7-category rubric provided a reliability coefficient (similar to Cronbach's alpha) of 0.98, while the separation coefficient was 6.31. The separation coefficient denoted 6 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Rating scale categories were collapsed, with “in-between” categories included in adjacent full-point categories. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the reliability and separation for the iterations as the rating scale was collapsed. As shown, the optimal evaluation rubric maintained a reliability of 0.98, but separation improved the reliability to 7.10 or 7 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Another distinctly separate group was added through a reduction in the rating scale while no change was seen to Cronbach's alpha, even though the number of rating scale categories was reduced. Table ​ Table1 1 describes the stepwise, sequential pattern across the final 4 rating scale categories analyzed. Informed by the 2007-2008 results, the 2008-2009 evaluation rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) used 4 rating scale categories and reliability remained high.

Evaluation Rubric Reliability and Separation with Iterations While Collapsing Rating Scale Categories.

a Reliability coefficient of variance in rater response that is reproducible (ie, Cronbach's alpha).

b Separation is a coefficient of item standard deviation divided by average measurement error and is an additional reliability coefficient.

c Optimal number of rating scale categories based on the highest reliability (0.98) and separation (7.1) values.

Evaluator Leniency

Described by Fleming and colleagues over half a century ago, 6 harsh raters (ie, hawks) or lenient raters (ie, doves) have also been demonstrated in more recent studies as an issue as well. 12 - 14 Shortly after 2008-2009 data were collected, those evaluations by multiple faculty evaluators were collated and analyzed in the MFRM to identify possible inconsistent scoring. While traditional interrater reliability does not deal with this issue, the MFRM had been used previously to illustrate evaluator leniency on licensing examinations for medical students and medical residents in the United Kingdom. 13 Thus, accounting for evaluator leniency may prove important to grading consistency (and reliability) in a course using multiple evaluators. Along with identifying evaluator leniency, the MFRM also corrected for this variability. For comparison, course grades were calculated by summing the evaluators' actual ratings (as discussed in the Design section) and compared with the MFRM-adjusted grades to quantify the degree of evaluator leniency occurring in this evaluation.

Measures created from the data analysis in the MFRM were converted to percentages using a common linear test-equating procedure involving the mean and standard deviation of the dataset. 15 To these percentages, student letter grades were assigned using the same traditional method used in 2007-2008 (ie, 90% = A, 80% - 89% = B, 70% - 79% = C, <70% = F). Letter grades calculated using the revised rubric and the MFRM then were compared to letter grades calculated using the previous rubric and course grading method.

In the analysis of the 2008-2009 data, the interrater reliability for the letter grades when comparing the 2 independent faculty evaluations for each presentation was 0.98 by Cohen's kappa. However, using the 3-facet MRFM revealed significant variation in grading. The interaction of evaluator leniency on student ability and item difficulty was significant, with a chi-square of p < 0.01. As well, the MFRM showed a reliability of 0.77, with a separation of 1.85 (ie, almost 2 groups of evaluators). The MFRM student ability measures were scaled to letter grades and compared with course letter grades. As a result, 2 B's became A's and so evaluator leniency accounted for a 2% change in letter grades (ie, 2 of 98 grades).

Validity and Grading

Explicit criterion-referenced standards for grading are recommended for higher evaluation validity. 3 , 16 - 18 The course coordinator completed 3 additional evaluations of a hypothetical student presentation rating the minimal criteria expected to describe each of an A, B, or C letter grade performance. These evaluations were placed with the other 196 evaluations (2 evaluators × 98 students) from 2008-2009 into the MFRM, with the resulting analysis report giving specific cutoff percentage scores for each letter grade. Unlike the traditional scoring method of assigning all items an equal weight, the MFRM ordered evaluation items from those more difficult for students (given more weight) to those less difficult for students (given less weight). These criterion-referenced letter grades were compared with the grades generated using the traditional grading process.

When the MFRM data were rerun with the criterion-referenced evaluations added into the dataset, a 10% change was seen with letter grades (ie, 10 of 98 grades). When the 10 letter grades were lowered, 1 was below a C, the minimum standard, and suggested a failing performance. Qualitative feedback from faculty evaluators agreed with this suggested criterion-referenced performance failure.

Measurement Model

Within modern test theory, the Rasch Measurement Model maps examinee ability with evaluation item difficulty. Items are not arbitrarily given the same value (ie, 1 point) but vary based on how difficult or easy the items were for examinees. The Rasch measurement model has been used frequently in educational research, 19 by numerous high-stakes testing professional bodies such as the National Board of Medical Examiners, 20 and also by various state-level departments of education for standardized secondary education examinations. 21 The Rasch measurement model itself has rigorous construct validity and reliability. 22 A 3-facet MFRM model allows an evaluator variable to be added to the student ability and item difficulty variables that are routine in other Rasch measurement analyses. Just as multiple regression accounts for additional variables in analysis compared to a simple bivariate regression, the MFRM is a multiple variable variant of the Rasch measurement model and was applied in this study using the Facets software (Linacre, Chicago, IL). The MFRM is ideal for performance-based evaluations with the addition of independent evaluator/judges. 8 , 23 From both yearly cohorts in this investigation, evaluation rubric data were collated and placed into the MFRM for separate though subsequent analyses. Within the MFRM output report, a chi-square for a difference in evaluator leniency was reported with an alpha of 0.05.

The presentation rubric was reliable. Results from the 2007-2008 analysis illustrated that the number of rating scale categories impacted the reliability of this rubric and that use of only 4 rating scale categories appeared best for measurement. While a 10-point Likert-like scale may commonly be used in patient care settings, such as in quantifying pain, most people cannot process more then 7 points or categories reliably. 24 Presumably, when more than 7 categories are used, the categories beyond 7 either are not used or are collapsed by respondents into fewer than 7 categories. Five-point scales commonly are encountered, but use of an odd number of categories can be problematic to interpretation and is not recommended. 25 Responses using the middle category could denote a true perceived average or neutral response or responder indecisiveness or even confusion over the question. Therefore, removing the middle category appears advantageous and is supported by our results.

With 2008-2009 data, the MFRM identified evaluator leniency with some evaluators grading more harshly while others were lenient. Evaluator leniency was indeed found in the dataset but only a couple of changes were suggested based on the MFRM-corrected evaluator leniency and did not appear to play a substantial role in the evaluation of this course at this time.

Performance evaluation instruments are either holistic or analytic rubrics. 26 The evaluation instrument used in this investigation exemplified an analytic rubric, which elicits specific observations and often demonstrates high reliability. However, Norman and colleagues point out a conundrum where drastically increasing the number of evaluation rubric items (creating something similar to a checklist) could augment a reliability coefficient though it appears to dissociate from that evaluation rubric's validity. 27 Validity may be more than the sum of behaviors on evaluation rubric items. 28 Having numerous, highly specific evaluation items appears to undermine the rubric's function. With this investigation's evaluation rubric and its numerous items for both presentation style and presentation content, equal numeric weighting of items can in fact allow student presentations to receive a passing score while falling short of the course objectives, as was shown in the present investigation. As opposed to analytic rubrics, holistic rubrics often demonstrate lower yet acceptable reliability, while offering a higher degree of explicit connection to course objectives. A summative, holistic evaluation of presentations may improve validity by allowing expert evaluators to provide their “gut feeling” as experts on whether a performance is “outstanding,” “sufficient,” “borderline,” or “subpar” for dimensions of presentation delivery and content. A holistic rubric that integrates with criteria of the analytic rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) for evaluators to reflect on but maintains a summary, overall evaluation for each dimension (delivery/content) of the performance, may allow for benefits of each type of rubric to be used advantageously. This finding has been demonstrated with OSCEs in medical education where checklists for completed items (ie, yes/no) at an OSCE station have been successfully replaced with a few reliable global impression rating scales. 29 - 31

Alternatively, and because the MFRM model was used in the current study, an items-weighting approach could be used with the analytic rubric. That is, item weighting based on the difficulty of each rubric item could suggest how many points should be given for that rubric items, eg, some items would be worth 0.25 points, while others would be worth 0.5 points or 1 point (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). As could be expected, the more complex the rubric scoring becomes, the less feasible the rubric is to use. This was the main reason why this revision approach was not chosen by the course coordinator following this study. As well, it does not address the conundrum that the performance may be more than the summation of behavior items in the Figure ​ Figure1 1 rubric. This current study cannot suggest which approach would be better as each would have its merits and pitfalls.

Rubric Item Weightings Suggested in the 2008-2009 Data Many-Facet Rasch Measurement Analysis

Regardless of which approach is used, alignment of the evaluation rubric with the course objectives is imperative. Objectivity has been described as a general striving for value-free measurement (ie, free of the evaluator's interests, opinions, preferences, sentiments). 27 This is a laudable goal pursued through educational research. Strategies to reduce measurement error, termed objectification , may not necessarily lead to increased objectivity. 27 The current investigation suggested that a rubric could become too explicit if all the possible areas of an oral presentation that could be assessed (ie, objectification) were included. This appeared to dilute the effect of important items and lose validity. A holistic rubric that is more straightforward and easier to score quickly may be less likely to lose validity (ie, “lose the forest for the trees”), though operationalizing a revised rubric would need to be investigated further. Similarly, weighting items in an analytic rubric based on their importance and difficulty for students may alleviate this issue; however, adding up individual items might prove arduous. While the rubric in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , which has evolved over the years, is the subject of ongoing revisions, it appears a reliable rubric on which to build.

The major limitation of this study involves the observational method that was employed. Although the 2 cohorts were from a single institution, investigators did use a completely separate class of PharmD students to verify initial instrument revisions. Optimizing the rubric's rating scale involved collapsing data from misuse of a 4-category rating scale (expanded by evaluators to 7 categories) by a few of the evaluators into 4 independent categories without middle ratings. As a result of the study findings, no actual grading adjustments were made for students in the 2008-2009 presentation course; however, adjustment using the MFRM have been suggested by Roberts and colleagues. 13 Since 2008-2009, the course coordinator has made further small revisions to the rubric based on feedback from evaluators, but these have not yet been re-analyzed with the MFRM.

The evaluation rubric used in this study for student performance evaluations showed high reliability and the data analysis agreed with using 4 rating scale categories to optimize the rubric's reliability. While lenient and harsh faculty evaluators were found, variability in evaluator scoring affected grading in this course only minimally. Aside from reliability, issues of validity were raised using criterion-referenced grading. Future revisions to this evaluation rubric should reflect these criterion-referenced concerns. The rubric analyzed herein appears a suitable starting point for reliable evaluation of PharmD oral presentations, though it has limitations that could be addressed with further attention and revisions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Author contributions— MJP and EGS conceptualized the study, while MJP and GES designed it. MJP, EGS, and GES gave educational content foci for the rubric. As the study statistician, MJP analyzed and interpreted the study data. MJP reviewed the literature and drafted a manuscript. EGS and GES critically reviewed this manuscript and approved the final version for submission. MJP accepts overall responsibility for the accuracy of the data, its analysis, and this report.

Advertisement

Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education

• Development Article
• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2021
• Volume 69 , pages 2663–2682, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rob J. Nadolski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-0888 1 ,
• Hans G. K. Hummel 1 ,
• Ellen Rusman 1 &
• Kevin Ackermans 1  

10k Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Acquiring complex oral presentation skills is cognitively demanding for students and demands intensive teacher guidance. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to identify and apply design guidelines in developing an effective formative assessment method for oral presentation skills during classroom practice, and (b) to develop and compare two analytic rubric formats as part of that assessment method. Participants were first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands ( n  = 158) that acquired oral presentation skills with the support of either a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics offered through a dedicated online tool (experimental groups), or a method using more conventional (rating scales) rubrics (control group). One experimental group was provided text-based and the other was provided video-enhanced rubrics. No prior research is known about analytic video-enhanced rubrics, but, based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, we expected this format to best capture the (non-verbal aspects of) oral presentation performance. Significant positive differences on oral presentation performance were found between the experimental groups and the control group. However, no significant differences were found between both experimental groups. This study shows that a well-designed formative assessment method, using analytic rubric formats, outperforms formative assessment using more conventional rubric formats. It also shows that higher costs of developing video-enhanced analytic rubrics cannot be justified by significant more performance gains. Future studies should address the generalizability of such formative assessment methods for other contexts, and for complex skills other than oral presentation, and should lead to more profound understanding of video-enhanced rubrics.

Similar content being viewed by others

Viewbrics: A Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Method to Mirror and Master Complex Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics and Peer Feedback in Secondary Education

Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Usability and Usefulness of the First Viewbrics-Prototype: A Methodology and Online Tool to Formatively Assess Complex Generic Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics (VER) in Dutch Secondary Education

The Dilemmas of Formulating Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for a Video Enhanced Rubric

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Both practitioners and scholars agree that students should be able to present orally (e.g., Morreale & Pearson, 2008 ; Smith & Sodano, 2011 ). Oral presentation involves the development and delivery of messages to the public with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals, and with the aim to inform, self-express, relate to and persuade listeners (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ; De Grez et al., 2009a ; Quianthy, 1990 ). The current study is restricted to informative presentations (as opposed to persuasive presentations), as these are most common in secondary education. Oral presentation skills are complex generic skills of increasing importance for both society and education (Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ). However, secondary education seems to be in lack of instructional design guidelines for supporting oral presentation skills acquisition. Many secondary schools in the Netherlands are struggling with how to teach and assess students’ oral presentation skills, lack clear performance criteria for oral presentations, and fall short in offering adequate formative assessment methods that support the effective acquisition of oral presentation skills (Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ).

Many researchers agree that the acquisition and assessment of presentation skills should depart from a socio-cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1986 ) with emphasis on observation, practice, and feedback. Students practice new presentation skills by observing other presentations as modeling examples, then practice their own presentation, after which the feedback is addressed by adjusting their presentations towards the required levels. Evidently, delivering effective oral presentations requires much preparation, rehearsal, and practice, interspersed with good feedback, preferably from oral presentation experts. However, large class sizes in secondary schools of the Netherlands offer only limited opportunities for teacher-student interaction, and offer even fewer practice opportunities. Based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, it can be expected that video-enhanced analytic rubric formats best capture and guide oral presentation performance, since much non-verbal behavior cannot be captured in text (Van Gog et al., 2014 ; Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ).

Formative assessment of complex skills

To support complex skills acquisition under limited teacher guidance, we will need more effective formative assessment methods (Boud & Molloy, 2013 ) based on proven instructional design guidelines. During skills acquisition students will perceive specific feedback as more adequate than non-specific feedback (Shute, 2008 ). Adequate feedback should inform students about (i) their task-performance, (ii) their progress towards intended learning goals, and (iii) what they should do to further progress towards those goals (Hattie & Timperly, 2007 ; Narciss, 2008 ). Students receiving specific feedback on criteria and performance levels will become equipped to improve oral presentation skills (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Ritchie, 2016 ). Analytic rubrics are therefore promising formats to provide specific feedback on oral presentations, because they can demonstrate the relations between subskills and explain the open-endedness of ideal presentations (through textual descriptions and their graphical design).

Ritchie ( 2016 ) showed that adding structure and self-assessment to peer- and teacher-assessments resulted in better oral presentation performance. Students were required to use analytic rubrics for self-assessment when following their (project-based) classroom education. In this way, they had ample opportunity for observing and reflecting on (good) oral presentations attributes, which was shown to foster acquisition of their oral presentation skills.

Analytic rubrics incorporate performance criteria to inform teachers and students when preparing oral presentation. Such rubrics support mental model formation, and enable adequate feedback provision by teachers, peers, and self (Brookhart & Chen, 2015 ; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ). Such research is inconclusive about what are most effective formats and delivery media, but most studies dealt with analytic text-based rubrics delivered on paper. However, digital video-enhanced analytic rubrics are expected to be more effective for acquiring oral presentation skills, since many behavioral aspects refer to non-verbal actions and processes that can only be captured on video (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation).

This study is situated within the Viewbrics project where video-modelling examples are integrated with analytic text-based rubrics (Ackermans et al., 2019a ). Video-modelling examples contain question prompts that illustrate behavior associated with (sub)skills performance levels in context, and are presented by young actors the target group can identify with. The question prompts require students to link behavior to performance levels, and build a coherent picture of the (sub)skills and levels. To the best of authors’ knowledge, there exist no previous studies on such video-enhanced analytic rubrics. The Viewbrics tool has been incrementally developed and validated with teachers and students to structure the formative assessment method in classroom settings (Rusman et al., 2019 ).

The purpose of our study is twofold. On the one hand, it investigates whether the application of evidence-based design guidelines results in a more effective formative assessment method in classroom. On the other hand, it investigates (within that method) whether video-enhanced analytic rubrics are more effective than text-based analytic rubrics.

Research questions

The twofold purpose of this study is stated by two research questions: (1) To what extent do analytic rubrics within formative assessment lead to better oral presentation performance? (the design-based part of this study); and (2) To what extent do video-enhanced analytic rubrics lead to better oral presentation performance (growth) than text-based analytic rubrics? (the experimental part of this study). We hypothesize that all students will improve their oral presentation performance in time, but that students in the experimental groups (receiving analytic rubrics designed according to proven design guidelines) will outperform a control group (receiving conventional rubrics) (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expect the experimental group using video-enhanced rubrics to achieve more performance growth than the experimental group using text-based rubrics (Hypothesis 2).

After this introduction, the second section describes previous research on design guidelines that were applied to develop the analytic rubrics in the present study. The actual design, development and validation of these rubrics is described in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section. “ Method ” section describes the experimental method of this study, whereas “ Results ” section reports its results. Finally, in the concluding “ Conclusions and discussion ” section, main findings and limitations of the study are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics

Analytic rubrics are inextricably linked with assessment, either summative (for final grading of learning products) or formative (for scaffolding learning processes). They provide textual descriptions of skills’ mastery levels with performance indicators that describe concrete behavior for all constituent subskills at each mastery level (Allen & Tanner, 2006 ; Reddy, 2011 ; Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ) (see Figs.  1 and 2 in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section for an example). Such performance indicators specify aspects of variation in the complexity of a (sub)skill (e.g., presenting for a small, homogeneous group as compared to presenting for a large heterogeneous group) and related mastery levels (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Analytic rubrics explicate criteria and expectations, can be used to check students’ progress, monitor learning, and diagnose learning problems, either by teachers, students themselves or by their peers (Rusman & Dirkx, 2017 ).

Subskills for oral presentation assessment

Specification of performance levels for criterium 4

Several motives for deploying analytic rubrics in education are distinguished. A review study by Panadero and Jonsson ( 2013 ) identified following motives: increasing transparency, reducing anxiety, aiding the feedback process, improving student self-efficacy, and supporting student self-regulation. Analytic rubrics also improve reliability among teachers when rating their students (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ). Evidence has shown that analytic rubrics can be utilized to enhance student performance and learning when they were used for formative assessment purposes in combination with metacognitive activities, like reflection and goal-setting, but research shows mixed results about their learning effectiveness (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ).

It remains unclear what is exactly needed to make their feedback effective (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ). Apparently, transparency of assessment criteria and learning goals (i.e., make expectations and criteria explicit) is not enough to establish effectiveness (Wöllenschläger et al., 2016 ). Several researchers stressed the importance of how and which feedback to provide with rubrics (Bower et al., 2011 ; De Grez et al., 2009b ; Kerby & Romine, 2009 ). We now continue this section by reviewing design guidelines for analytic rubrics we encountered in literature, and then specifically address what literature mentions about the added value of video-enhanced rubrics.

Design guidelines for analytic rubrics

Effective formative assessment methods for oral presentation and analytic rubrics should be based on proven instructional design guidelines (Van Ginkel et al., 2015 ). Table 1 presents an overview of (seventeen) guidelines on analytic rubrics we encountered in literature. Guidelines 1–4 inform us how to use rubrics for formative assessment; Guidelines 5–17 inform us how to use rubrics for instruction, with Guidelines 5–9 on a rather generic, meso level and Guidelines 10–17 on a more specific, micro level. We will now shortly describe them in relation to oral presentation skills.

Guideline 1: use analytic rubrics instead of rating scale rubrics if rubrics are meant for learning

Conventional rating-scale rubrics are easy to generate and use as they contain scores for each performance criterium (e.g., by a 5-point Likert scale). However, since each performance level is not clearly described or operationalized, rating can suffer from rater-subjectivity, and rating scales do not provide students with unambiguous feedback (Suskie, 2009 ). Analytic rubrics can address those shortcomings as they contain brief textual performance descriptions on all subskills, criteria, and performance levels of complex skills like presentation, but are harder to develop and score (Bargainnier, 2004 ; Brookhart, 2004 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ).

Guideline 2: use self-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Analytic rubrics can encourage self-assessment and -reflection (Falchikov & Boud, 1989 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ), which appears essential when practicing presentations and reflecting on other presentations (Van Ginkel et al., 2017 ). The usefulness of self-assessment for oral presentation was demonstrated by Ritchie’s study ( 2016 ), but was absent in a study by De Grez et al. ( 2009b ) that used the same rubric.

Guideline 3: use peer-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Peer-feedback is more (readily) available than teacher-feedback, and can be beneficial for students’ confidence and learning (Cho & Cho, 2011 ; Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018 ), also for oral presentation (Topping, 2009 ). Students positively value peer-assessment if the circumstances guarantee serious feedback (De Grez et al., 2010 ; Lim et al., 2013 ). It can be assumed that using analytic rubrics positively influences the quality of peer-assessment.

Guideline 4: provide rubrics for usage by self, peers, and teachers as students appreciate rubrics

Students appreciate analytic rubrics because they support them in their learning, in their planning, in producing higher quality work, in focusing efforts, and in reducing anxiety about assignments (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ), aspects of importance for oral presentation. While students positively perceive the use of peer-grading, the inclusion of teacher-grades is still needed (Mulder et al., 2014 ) and most valued by students (Ritchie, 2016 ).

Guidelines 5–9

Heitink et al. ( 2016 ) carried out a review study identifying five relevant prerequisites for effective classroom instruction on a meso-level when using analytic rubrics (for oral presentations): train teachers and students in using these rubrics, decide on a policy of their use in instruction, while taking school- and classroom contexts into account, and follow a constructivist learning approach. In the next section, it is described how these guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s classroom instruction.

Guidelines 10–17

Van Ginkel et al. ( 2015 ) review study presents a comprehensive overview of effective factors for oral presentation instruction in higher education on a micro-level. Although our research context is within secondary education, the findings from the aforementioned study seem very applicable as they were rooted in firmly researched and well-documented Instructional Design approaches. Their guidelines pertain to (a) instruction, (b) learning, and (c) assessment in the learning environment (Biggs, 2003 ). The next section describes how guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s online Viewbrics tool.

• Video-enhanced rubrics

Early analytic rubrics for oral presentations were all text-based descriptions. This study assumes that such analytic rubrics may fall short when used for learning to give oral presentations, since much of the required performance refers to motoric activities, time-consecutive operations and processes that can hardly be captured in text (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation). Text-based rubrics also have a limited capacity to convey contextualized and more ‘tacit’ behavioral aspects (O’Donnevan et al., 2004 ), since ‘tacit knowledge’ (or ‘knowing how’) is interwoven with practical activities, operations, and behavior in the physical world (Westera, 2011 ). Finally, text leaves more space for personal interpretation (of performance indicators) than video, which negatively influences mental model formation and feedback consistency (Lew et al., 2010 ).

We can therefore expect video-enhanced rubrics to overcome such restrictions, as they can integrate modelling examples with analytic text-based explanations. The video-modelling examples and its embedded question prompts can illustrate behavior associated with performance levels in context, and contain information in different modalities (moving images, sound). Video-enhanced rubrics foster learning from active observation of video-modelling examples (De Grez et al., 2014 ; Rohbanfard & Proteau, 2013 ), especially when combined with textual performance indicators. Looking at effects of video-modelling examples, Van Gog et al. ( 2014 ) found an increased task performance when the video-modelling example of an expert was also shown. De Grez et al. ( 2014 ) found comparable results for learning to give oral presentations. Teachers in training assessing their own performance with video-modelling examples appeared to overrate their performance less than without examples (Baecher et al., 2013 ). Research on mastering complex skills indicates that both modelling examples (in a variety of application contexts) and frequent feedback positively influence the learning process and skills' acquisition (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Video-modelling examples not only capture the ‘know-how’ (procedural knowledge), but also elicit the ‘know-why’ (strategic/decisive knowledge).

Development of analytic rubrics tool

This section describes how design guidelines from previous research were applied in the actual development of the rubrics in the Viewbrics tool for our study, and then presents the subskills and levels for oral presentation skills as were defined.

Application of design guidelines

The previous section already mentioned that analytic rubrics should be restricted to formative assessment (Guidelines 2 and 3), and that there are good reasons to assume that a combination of teacher-, peer-, and self-assessment will improve oral presentations (Guidelines 1 and 4). Teachers and students were trained in rubric-usage (Guidelines 5 and 7), whereas students were motivated for using rubrics (Guideline 7). As participating schools were already using analytic rubrics, one might assume their positive initial attitude. Although the policy towards using analytic rubrics might not have been generally known at the work floor, the participating teachers in our study were knowledgeable (Guideline 6). We carefully considered the school context, as (a representative set of) secondary schools in the Netherlands were part of the Viewbrics team (Guideline 8). The formative assessment method was embedded within project-based education (Guideline 9).

Within this study and on the micro-level of design, the learning objectives for the first presentation were clearly specified by lower performance levels, whereas advice on students' second presentation focused on improving specific subskills, that had been performed with insufficient quality during the first presentation (Guideline 10). Students carried out two consecutive projects of increasing complexity (Project 1, Project 2) with authentic tasks, amongst which the oral presentations (Guideline 11). Students were provided with opportunities to observe peer-models to increase their self-efficacy beliefs and oral presentation competence. In our study, only students that received video-enhanced rubrics could observe videos with peer-models before their first presentation (Guideline 12). Students were allowed enough opportunities to rehearse their oral presentations, to increase their presentation competence, and to decrease their communication apprehension. Within our study, only two oral presentations could be provided feedback, but students could rehearse as often as they wanted outside the classroom (Guideline 13). We ensured that feedback in the rubrics was of high quality, i.e., explicit, contextual, adequately timed, and of suitable intensity for improving students’ oral presentation competence. Both experimental groups in the study used digital analytic rubrics within the Viewbrics tool (both teacher-, peer-, and self-feedback). The control group received feedback by a more conventional rubric (rating scale), and could therefore not use the formative assessment and reflection functions (Guideline 14). The setup of the study implied that all peers play a major role during formative assessment in both experimental groups, because they formatively assessed each oral presentation using the Viewbrics tool (Guideline 15). The control group received feedback from their teacher. Both experimental groups used the Viewbrics tool to facilitate self-assessment (Guideline 16). The control group did not receive analytic progress data to inform their self-assessment. Specific goal-setting within self-assessment has been shown to positively stimulate oral presentation performance, to improve self-efficacy and reduce presentation anxiety (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Luchetti et al., 2003 ), so the Viewbrics tool was developed to support both specific goal-setting and self-reflection (Guideline 17).

Subskills and levels for oral presentation

Reddy and Andrade ( 2010 ) stress that rubrics should be tailored to the specific learning objectives and target groups. Oral presentations in secondary education (our study context) involve generating and delivering informative messages with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals. In this context, message composition and message delivery are considered important (Quianthy, 1990 ). Strong arguments (‘logos’) have to be presented in a credible (‘ethos’) and exciting (‘pathos’) way (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ). Public speaking experts agree that there is not one right way to do an oral presentation (Schneider et al., 2017 ). There is agreement that all presenters need much practice, commitment, and creativity. Effective presenters do not rigorously and obsessively apply communication rules and techniques, as their audience may then perceive the performance as too technical or artificial. But all presentations should demonstrate sufficient mastery of elementary (sub)skills in an integrated manner. Therefore, such skills should also be practiced as a whole (including knowledge and attitudes), making the attainment of a skill performance level more than the sum of its constituent (sub)skills (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). A validated instrument for assessing oral presentation performance is needed to help teachers assess and support students while practicing.

When we started developing rubrics with the Viewbrics tool (late 2016), there were no studies or validated measuring instruments for oral presentation performance in secondary education, although several schools used locally developed, non-validated assessment forms (i.e., conventional rubrics). For instance, Schreiber et al. ( 2012 ) had developed an analytic rubric for public speaking skills assessment in higher education, aimed at faculty members and students across disciplines. They identified eleven (sub)skills of public speaking, that could be subsumed under three factors (‘topic adaptation’, ‘speech presentation’ and ‘nonverbal delivery’, similar to logos-ethos-pathos).

Such previous work holds much value, but still had to be adapted and elaborated in the context of the current study. This study elaborated and evaluated eleven subskills that can be identified within the natural flow of an oral presentation and its distinctive features (See Fig.  1 for an overview of subskills, and Fig.  2 for a specification of performance levels for a specific subskill).

Between brackets are names of subskills as they appear in the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (Fig.  3 ).

Visualization of oral presentation progress and feedback in the Viewbrics tool

The upper part of Fig.  2 shows the scoring levels for first-year secondary school students for criterium 4 of the oral presentation assessment (four values, from more expert (4 points) to more novice (1 point), from right to left), an example of the conventional rating-scale rubrics. The lower part shows the corresponding screenshot from the Viewbrics tool, representing a text-based analytic rubric example. A video-enhanced analytic rubric example for this subskill provides a peer modelling the required behavior on expert level, with question prompts on selecting reliable and interesting materials. Performance levels were inspired by previous research (Ritchie, 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2017 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ), but also based upon current secondary school practices in the Netherlands, and developed and tested with secondary school teachers and their students.

All eleven subskills are to be scored on similar four-point Likert scales, and have similar weights in determining total average scores. Two pilot studies tested the usability, validity and reliability of the assessment tool (Rusman et al., 2019 ). Based on this input, the final rubrics were improved and embedded in a prototype of the online Viewbrics tool, and used for this study. The formative assessment method consisted of six steps: (1) study the rubric; (2) practice and conduct an oral presentation; (3) conduct a self-assessment; (4) consult feedback from teacher and peers; (5) Reflect on feedback; and (6) select personal learning goal(s) for the next oral presentation.

After the second project (Project 2), that used the same setup and assessment method as for the first project, students in experimental groups could also see their visualized progress in the ‘dashboard’ of the Viewbrics tool (see Fig.  3 , with English translations provided between brackets), by comparing performance on their two project presentations during the second reflection assignment. The dashboard of the tool shows progress (inner circles), with green reflecting improvement on subskills, blue indicating constant subskills, and red indicating declining subskills. Feedback is provided by emoticons with text. Students’ personal learning goals after reflection are shown under ‘Mijn leerdoelen’ [My learning goals].

The previous sections described how design guidelines for analytic rubrics from literature (“ Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics ” section) were applied in a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics (“ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). “ Method ” section describes this study’s research design for comparing rubric formats.

Research design of the study

All classroom scenarios followed the same lesson plan and structure for project-based instruction, and consisted of two projects with specific rubric feedback provided in between. Both experimental groups used the same formative assessment method with validated analytic rubrics, but differed on the analytic rubric format (text-based, video-enhanced). The students of the control group did not use such a formative assessment method, and only received teacher-feedback (via a conventional rating-scale rubric that consisted of a standard form with attention points for presentations, without further instructions) on these presentations. All three scenarios required similar time investments for students. School classes (six) were randomly assigned to conditions (three), so students from the same class were in the same condition. Figure  4 graphically depicts an overview of the research design of the study.

Research design overview

A repeated-measures mixed-ANOVA on oral presentation performance (growth) was carried out to analyze data, with rubric-format (three conditions) as between-groups factor and repeated measures (two moments) as within groups factor. All statistical data analyses were conducted with SPSS version 24.

Participants

Participants were first-year secondary school students (all within the 12–13 years range) from two Dutch schools, with participants equally distributed over schools and conditions ( n  = 166, with 79 girls and 87 boys). Classes were randomly allocated to conditions. Most participants completed both oral presentations ( n  = 158, so an overall response rate of 95%). Data were collected (almost) equally from the video-enhanced rubrics condition ( n  = 51), text-based condition ( n  = 57), and conventional rubrics (control) condition ( n  = 50).

A related study within the same context and participants (Ackermans et al., 2019b ), analyzed the concept maps elicited from participants to reveal that their mental models (indicating mastery levels) for oral presentation across conditions were similar. From that finding we can conclude that students possessed similar mental models for presentation skills before starting the projects. Results from the online questionnaire (“ Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation ” section) reveal that students in experimental groups did not differ in anxiety, preparedness and motivation before their first presentation. Together with the teacher assessments of similarity of classes, we can assume similarity of students across conditions at the start of the experiment.

Materials and procedure

Teachers from both schools worked closely together in guaranteeing similar instruction and difficulty levels for both projects (Project 1, Project 2). Schools agreed to follow a standardized lesson plan for both projects and their oral presentation tasks. Core team members then developed (condition-specific) materials for teacher- and student workshops on how to use rubrics and provide instructions and feedback (Guidelines 5 and 7). This also assured that similar measures were taken for potential problems with anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Teachers received information about (condition-specific) versions of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). The core team consisted of three researchers and three (project) teachers, with one teacher also supervising the others. The teacher workshops were given by the supervising teacher and two researchers before starting recruitment of students.

Teachers estimated similarity of all six classes with respect to students’ prior presentation skills before starting the first project. All classes were informed by an introduction letter from the core team and their teachers. Participation in this study was voluntary. Students and their parents/caretakers were informed about 4 weeks before the start of the first project, and received information on research-specific activities, time-investment and -schedule. Parents/caretakers signed, on behalf of their minors of age, an informed consent form before the study started. All were informed that data would be anonymized for scientific purposes, and that students could withdraw at any time without giving reasons.

School classes were randomly assigned to conditions. Students of experimental groups were informed that the usability of the Viewbrics tool for oral presentation skills acquisition were investigated, but were left unaware of different rubric formats. Students of the control group were informed that their oral presentation skills acquisition was investigated. From all students, concept maps about oral presentation were elicited (reflecting their mental model and mastery level). Students participated in workshops (specific for their condition and provided by their teacher) on how to use rubrics and provide peer-feedback (all materials remained available throughout the study).

Before giving their presentations on Project 1, students filled in the online questionnaire via LimeSurvey. Peers and teachers in experimental groups provided immediate feedback on given presentations, and students immediately had to self-assess their own presentations (step 3 of the assessment method). Subsequently, students could view the feedback and ratings given by their teacher and peers through the tool (step 4), were asked to reflect on this feedback (step 5), and to choose specific goals for their second oral presentation (step 6). In the control group, students directly received teachers’ feedback (verbally) after completing their presentation, but did not receive any reflection assignment. Control group students used a standard textual form with attention points (conventional rating-scale rubrics). After giving their presentations on the second project, students in the experimental groups got access to the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section) to see their progress on subskills. About a week after the classes had ended, some semi-structured interviews were carried out by one of the researchers. Finally, one of the researchers functioned as a hotline for teachers in case of urgent questions during the study, and randomly observed some of the lessons.

Measures and instruments

Oral performance scores on presentations were measured by both teachers and peers. A short online questionnaire (with 6 items) was administered to students just before their first oral presentation at the end of Project 1 (see Fig.  4 ). Interviews were conducted with both teachers and students at the end of the intervention to collect more qualitative data on subjective perceptions.

Oral presentation performance

Students’ oral presentation performance progress was measured via comparison of the oral presentation performance scores on both oral presentations (with three months in between). Both presentations were scored by teachers using the video-enhanced rubric in all groups (half of the score in experimental groups, full score for control group). For participants in both experimental groups, oral presentation performance was also scored by peers and self, using the specific rubric-version (either video-enhanced or text-based) (other half of the score). For each of the (eleven) subskills, between 1 point (novice level) and 4 points (expert level) could be earned, with a maximum of 44 points for total performance score. For participants in the control group, the same scale applied but no scores were given by peers nor self. The inter-rater reliability of assessments between teachers and peers was a Cohen’s Kappa = 0.74 which is acceptable.

Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation

Just before presenting, students answered the short questionnaire with five-point Likert scores (from 0 = totally disagree to 4 = totally agree) as additional control for potential differences in anxiety, preparedness and motivation, since especially these factors might influence oral presentation performance (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ). Notwithstanding this, teachers were the major source to control for similarity of conditions with respect to dealing with presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Two items for anxiety were: “I find it exciting to give a presentation” and “I find it difficult to give a presentation”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory internal reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.90. Three items for preparedness were: “I am well prepared to give my presentation”, “I have often rehearsed my presentation”, and “I think I’ve rehearsed my presentation enough”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.75. The item for motivation was: “I am motivated to give my motivation”. Unfortunately, the online questionnaire was not administered within the control group, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Semi-structured interviews with teachers (six) and students (thirty) were meant to gather qualitative data on the practical usability and usefulness of the Viewbrics tool. Examples of questions are: “Have you encountered any difficulties in using the Viewbrics online tool? If any, could you please mention which one(s)” (both students of experimental groups and teachers); “Did the feedback help you to improve your presentation skills? If not, what feedback do you need to improve your presentation skills?” (just students); “How do you evaluate the usefulness of formative assessment?” (both students and teachers); “Would you like to organize things differently in applying formative assessment as during this study? If so, what would you like to organize different?” (just teachers); “How much time did you spend on providing feedback? Did you need more or less time than before?” (just teachers).

Interviews with teachers and students revealed that the reported rubrics approach was easy to use and useful within the formative assessment method. Project teachers could easily stick to the lessons plans as agreed upon in advance. However, project teachers regarded the classroom scenarios as relatively time-consuming. They expected that for some other schools it might be challenging to follow the Viewbrics approach. None of the project teachers had to consult the hotline during the study, and no deviations from the lesson plans were observed by the researchers.

Most important results on the performance measures and questionnaire are presented and compared between conditions.

A mixed ANOVA, with oral presentation performance as within-subjects factor (two scores) and rubric format as between-subjects factor (three conditions), revealed an overall and significant improvement of oral presentation performance over time, with F (1, 157) = 58.13, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.27. Significant differences over time were also found between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 17.38, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.18. Tests of between-subjects effects showed significant differences between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 118.97, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.59, and both experimental groups outperforming the control group as expected (so we could accept H1). However, only control group students showed significantly progress on performance scores over time (at the 0.01 level). At both measures, no significant differences between experimental groups were found as was expected (so we had to reject H2). For descriptives of group averages (over time) see Table 2 .

A post-hoc analysis, using multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction, confirms that experimental groups significantly (with p  < 0.01 level) outperform the control group at both moments in time, and that both experimental groups not to differ significantly at both measures. Regarding performance progress over time, only the control group shows significant growth (again with p < 0.01). The difference between experimental groups in favour of video-enhanced rubrics did ‘touch upon’ significance ( p  = 0.053), but formally H2 had to be rejected. This finding however is a promising trend to be further explored with larger numbers of participants.

An independent t-test comparing the similarity of participants in both experimental groups before their first presentation for anxiety, preparedness, motivation showed no difference, with t (1,98) = 1.32 and p  = 0.19 for anxiety, t (1,98) = − 0.14 and p  = 0.89 for preparedness, and t (1,98) = − 1.24 and p  = 0.22 for motivation (see Table 3 for group averages).

As mentioned in the previous section (interviews with teachers), it was assessed by teachers that presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation in the control group were no different from both experimental groups. It can therefore be assumed that all groups were similar regarding presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation before presenting, and that these factors did not confound oral presentation results. There are missing questionnaire data from 58 respondents: Video-enhanced (one respondent), Text-based (seven respondents), and Control group (fifty respondents), respectively.

Conclusions and discussion

The first purpose was to study if applying evidence-informed design guidelines in the development of formative assessment with analytic rubrics supports oral presentation performance of first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands. Students that used such validated rubrics indeed outperform students using common rubrics (so H1 could be accepted). This study has demonstrated that the design guidelines can also be effectively applied and used for secondary education, which makes them more generic. The second purpose was to study if video-enhanced rubrics would be more beneficial to oral presentation skills acquisition when compared to text-based rubrics, but we did not find significant differences here (so H2 had to be rejected). However, post-hoc analysis shows that the growth on performance scores over time indeed seems higher when using video-enhanced rubrics, a promising difference that is ‘only marginally’ significant. Preliminary qualitative findings from the interviews point out that the Viewbrics tool can be easily integrated into classroom instruction and appears usable for the target audiences (both teachers and students), although teachers state it is rather time-consuming to conform to all guidelines.

All students had prior experience with oral presentations (from primary schools) and relatively high oral presentation scores at the start of the study, so there remained limited room for improvement between their first and second oral presentation. Participants in the control group scored relatively low on their first presentation, so had more room for improvement during the study. In addition, the somewhat more difficult content of the second project (Guideline 11) might have slightly reduced the quality of the second oral presentation. Also, more intensive training, additional presentations and their assessments might have demonstrated more added value of the analytic rubrics. Learning might have occurred, since adequate mental models of skills are not automatically applied during performance (Ackermans et al., 2019b ).

A first limitation (and strength at the same time) of this study was its contextualization within a specific subject domain and educational sector over a longer period of time, which implies we cannot completely exclude some influence of confounding factors. A second limitation is that the Viewbrics tool has been specifically designed for formative assessment, and not meant for summative assessment purposes. Although our study revealed the inter-rater reliability of our rubrics to be satisfactory (see “ Measures and instruments ” section), it is likely to become lower and less suitable when compared to more traditional summative assessment methods (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Thirdly, just having a reliable rubric bears no evidence for content-validity (representativeness, fidelity of scoring structure to the construct domain) or generalizability to other domains and educational sectors (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Fourth, one might criticize the practice-based research design of our study, as this is less-controlled than laboratory studies. We acknowledge that the application of more unobtrusive and objective measures to better understand the complex relationship between instructional characteristics, student characteristics and cognitive learning processes and strategies could best be achieved in a combination of more laboratory research and more practice-based research. Notwithstanding some of these issues, we have deliberately chosen for design-based research and evidence-informed findings from educational practice.

Future research could examine the Viewbrics approach to formative assessment for oral presentation skills in different contexts (other subject matters and educational sectors). The Viewbrics tool could be extended with functions for self-assessment (e.g., record and replay one's own presentations), for coping with speech anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995 ), and goal-setting (De Grez et al., 2009a ). As this is a first study on video-enhanced rubrics, more fine-grained and fundamental research into beneficial effects on cognitive processes is needed, also to justify the additional development costs. Development of video-enhanced rubrics is more costly when compared to text-based rubrics. Another line of research might be directed to develop multiple measures for objectively determining oral presentation competence, for example using sensor-based data gathering and algorithms for data-gathering, guidance, and meaningful interpretation (Schneider et al., 2017 ), or direct measures of cortisol levels for speaking anxiety (Bartholomay & Houlihan, 2016 ; Merz & Wolf, 2015 ). Other instructional strategies might be considered, for example repeated practice of the same oral presentation might result in performance improvement, as has been suggested by Ritchie ( 2016 ). This also would enable to downsize the importance of presentation content and to put more focus on presentation delivery. The importance of finding good instructional technologies to support complex oral presentation skills will remain of importance throughout the twenty-first century and beyond.

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019a). Solving instructional design dilemmas to develop Video-Enhanced Rubrics with modeling examples to support mental model development of complex skills: The Viewbrics-project use case. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67 (4), 993–1002.

Google Scholar  

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019b). Video-or text-based rubrics: What is most effective for mental model growth of complex skills within formative assessment in secondary schools? Computers in Human Behavior, 101 , 248–258.

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5 (3), 197–203.

Baccarini, C., & Bonfanti, A. (2015). Effective public speaking: A conceptual framework in the corporate-communication field. Corporate Communications, 20 (3), 375–390.

Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Jewkes, A. M., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teacher Teaching Education, 36 , 189–197.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.

Bargainnier, S. (2004). Fundamentals of rubrics. In D. Apple (Ed.), Faculty guidebook (pp. 75–78). Pacific Crest.

Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary psychometric data scale validation. Personality Individual Differences, 94 , 211–215.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University . Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (6), 698–712.

Bower, M., Cavanagh, M., Moloney, R., & Dao, M. (2011). Developing communication competence using an online Video Reflection system: Pre-service teachers’ experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (4), 311–326.

Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Assessment theory for college classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 100 , 5–14.

Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67 (3), 343–368.

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39 (5), 629–643.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Berings, M. (2010). Peer assessment of oral presentation skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1776–1780.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009a). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (3), 293–306.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009b). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education, 53 (1), 112–120.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2014). The differential impact of observational learning and practice-bases learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher education. Higher Education Research Development, 33 (2), 256–271.

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59 (4), 395–430.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.

Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17 , 50–62.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2 (2), 130–144.

Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2009). Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85 (3), 172–179.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety . Guilford Press.

Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (2), 135–156.

Lim, B. T., Moriarty, H., Huthwaite, M., Gray, L., Pullon, S., & Gallagher, P. (2013). How well do medical students rate and communicate clinical empathy? Medical Teacher, 35 , 946–951.

Luchetti, A. E., Phipss, G. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2003). Trait anticipatory public speaking anxiety as a function of self-efficacy expectations and self-handicapping strategies. Communication Research Reports, 20 (4), 348–356.

Merz, C. J., & Wolf, O. T. (2015). Examination of cortisol and state anxiety at an academic setting with and without oral presentation. The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 18 (1), 138–142.

Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: Centrality of discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57 , 224–240.

Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15 (2), 157–171.

Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: A comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (1), 138–150.

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Donnevan, B., Price, M., Rust, C., & Donovan, B. O. (2004). Teaching in higher education know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teacher Higher Education, 9 (3), 325–335.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposed revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Quianthy, R. L. (1990). Communication is life: Essential college sophomore speaking and listening competencies . National Communication Association.

Reddy, Y. M. (2011). Design and development of rubrics to improve assessment outcomes. Quality Assurance in Education, 19 (1), 84–104.

Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435–448.

Reitmeier, C. A., & Vrchota, D. A. (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. J. of Food Science Education, 8 (4), 88–92.

Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17 (3), 207–221.

Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2013). Live versus video presentation techniques in the observational learning of motor skills. Trends Neuroscience Education, 2 , 27–32.

Rusman, E., & Dirkx, K. (2017). Developing rubrics to assess complex (generic) skills in the classroom: How to distinguish skills’ mastery Levels? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.7275/xfp0-8228

Article   Google Scholar  

Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., & Ackermans, K. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the usability and usefulness of the first Viewbrics-prototype: A methodology and online tool to formatively assess complex generic skills with video-enhanced rubrics in Dutch secondary education. In S. Draaijer, D. Joosten-ten Brinke, E. Ras (Eds), Technology enhanced assessment. TEA 2018. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 1014, pp. 27–41). Springer, Cham.

Schneider, J., Börner, D., Van Rosmalen, P., & Specht, M. (2017). Presentation trainer: What experts and computers can tell about your nonverbal communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (2), 164–177.

Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the public speaking competence rubric. Communication Education, 61 (3), 205–233.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 153–189.

Sluijsmans, D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2013). Toetsen met leerwaarde [Assessments with value for learning] . The Hague, The Netherlands: NWO. Retrieved from https://sluijsmans.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Toetsen-met-leerwaarde.pdf

Smith, C. M., & Sodano, T. M. (2011). Integrating lecture capture as a teaching strategy to improve student presentation skills through self-assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 , 151–162.

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1), 20–27.

Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14 , 62–80.

Van Ginkel, S., Laurentzen, R., Mulder, M., Mononen, A., Kyttä, J., & Kortelainen, M. J. (2017). Assessing oral presentation performance: Designing a rubric and testing its validity with an expert group. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9 (3), 474–486.

Van Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers and Education, 72 , 323–327.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 , 299–321.

Westera, W. (2011). On the changing nature of learning context: Anticipating the virtual extensions of the world. Educational Technology and Society, 14 , 201–212.

Wöllenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45 , 1–11.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on our paper and all students and teachers that participated in this study as well as the management from the participating schools.

The Viewbrics-project is funded by the practice-oriented research program of the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO), part of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), under Grant Number: 405-15-550.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Rob J. Nadolski, Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman & Kevin Ackermans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob J. Nadolski .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research has been approved by the ethics committee of the author's institution (U2017/05559/HVM).

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nadolski, R.J., Hummel, H.G.K., Rusman, E. et al. Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Education Tech Research Dev 69 , 2663–2682 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 July 2021

Published : 20 July 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital rubrics
• Analytic rubrics
• Oral presentation skills
• Formative assessment method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 26 April 2022

Development and validation of the oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) for nursing students

• Yi-Chien Chiang 1 ,
• Hsiang-Chun Lee 2 ,
• Tsung-Lan Chu 3 ,
• Chia-Ling Wu 2 &
• Ya-Chu Hsiao 4  

BMC Medical Education volume  22 , Article number:  318 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

4573 Accesses

1 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

Oral presentations are an important educational component for nursing students and nursing educators need to provide students with an assessment of presentations as feedback for improving this skill. However, there are no reliable validated tools available for objective evaluations of presentations. We aimed to develop and validate an oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) for nursing students when learning effective oral presentations skills and could be used by students to self-rate their own performance, and potentially in the future for educators to assess student presentations.

The self-report OPES was developed using 28 items generated from a review of the literature about oral presentations and with qualitative face-to-face interviews with university oral presentation tutors and nursing students. Evidence for the internal structure of the 28-item scale was conducted with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively), and internal consistency. Relationships with Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and Self-Perceived Communication Competence to conduct the relationships with other variables evidence.

Nursing students’ ( n  = 325) responses to the scale provided the data for the EFA, which resulted in three factors: accuracy of content, effective communication, and clarity of speech. These factors explained 64.75% of the total variance. Eight items were dropped from the original item pool. The Cronbach’s α value was .94 for the total scale and ranged from .84 to .93 for the three factors. The internal structure evidence was examined with CFA using data from a second group of 325 students, and an additional five items were deleted. Except for the adjusted goodness of fit, fit indices of the model were acceptable, which was below the minimum criteria. The final 15-item OPES was significantly correlated with the students’ scores for the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale ( r  = −.51, p  < .001) and Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale ( r  = .45, p  < .001), indicating excellent evidence of the relationships to other variables with other self-report assessments of communication.

Conclusions

The OPES could be adopted as a self-assessment instrument for nursing students when learning oral presentation skills. Further studies are needed to determine if the OPES is a valid instrument for nursing educators’ objective evaluations of student presentations across nursing programs.

Peer Review reports

Competence in oral presentations is important for medical professionals to communicate an idea to others, including those in the nursing professions. Delivering concise oral presentations is a useful and necessary skill for nurses [ 1 , 2 ]. Strong oral presentation skills not only impact the quality of nurse-client communications and the effectiveness of teamwork among groups of healthcare professionals, but also promotion, leadership, and professional development [ 2 ]. Nurses are also responsible for delivering health-related knowledge to patients and the community. Therefore, one important part of the curriculum for nursing students is the delivery of oral presentations related to healthcare issues. A self-assessment instrument for oral presentations could provide students with insight into what skills need improvement.

Three components have been identified as important for improving communication. First, a presenter’s self-esteem can influence the physio-psychological reaction towards the presentation; presenters with low self-esteem experience greater levels of anxiety during presentations [ 3 ]. Therefore, increasing a student’s self-efficacy can increase confidence in their ability to effectively communicate, which can reduce anxiety [ 3 , 4 ]. Second, Liao (2014) reported improving speaking efficacy can also improve oral communications and collaborative learning among students could improve speech efficacy and decrease speech anxiety [ 5 ]. A study by De Grez et al. provided students with a list of skills to practice, which allowed them to feel more comfortable when a formal presentation was required, increased presentation skills, and improved communication by improving self-regulation [ 6 ]. Third, Carlson and Smith-Howell (1995) determined quality and accuracy of the information presented was also an important aspect of public speaking performances [ 7 ]. Therefore, all three above mentioned components are important skills for effective communication during an oral presentation.

Instruments that provide an assessment of a public speaking performance are critical for helping students’ improve oral presentation skills [ 7 ]. One study found peer evaluations were higher than those of university tutors for student presentations, using a student-developed assessment form [ 8 ]. The assessment criteria included content (40%), presentation (40%), and structure (20%); the maximum percent in each domain was given for “excellence”, which was relative to a minimum “threshold”. Multiple “excellence” and “threshold” benchmarks were described for each domain. For example, benchmarks included the use of clear and appropriate language, enthusiasm, and keeping the audience interested. However, the percentage score did not provide any information about what specific benchmarks were met. Thus, these quantitative scores did not include feedback on specific criteria that could enhance future presentations.

At the other extreme is an assessment that is limited to one aspect of the presentation and is too detailed to evaluate the performance efficiently. An example of this is the 40-item tool developed by Tsang (2018) [ 6 ] to evaluate oral presentation skills, which measured several domains: voice (volume and speed), facial expressions, passion, and control of time. An assessment tool developed by De Grez et al. (2009) includes several domains: three subcategories for content (quality of introduction, structure, and conclusion), five subcategories of expression (eye-contact, vocal delivery, enthusiasm, interaction with audience, and body-language), and a general quality [ 9 ]. Many items overlap, making it hard to distinguish specific qualities. Other evaluation tools include criteria that are difficult to objectively measure, such as body language, eye-contact, and interactions with the audience [ 10 ]. Finally, most of the previous tools were developed without testing the reliability and validity of the instrument.

Nurses have the responsibility of not only providing medical care, but also medical information to other healthcare professionals, patients, and members of the community. Therefore, improving nursing students’ speaking skills is an important part of the curriculum. A self-report instrument for measuring nursing students’ subjective assessment of their presentation skills could help increase competence in oral communication. However, to date, there is a no reliable and valid instrument of evaluating oral presentation performance in nursing education. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a self-assessment instrument for nursing students that could guide them in understanding their strengths and development areas in aspects of oral presentations. Development of a scale that is a valid and reliable instrument for nursing students could then be examined for use as a scale for objective evaluations of oral presentations by peers and nurse educators.

Study design

This study developed and validated an oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) that could be employed as a self-assessment instrument for students when learning skills for effective oral presentations. The instrument was developed in two phases: Phase I (item generation and revision) and Phase II (scale development) [ 11 ]. The phase I was aimed to generate items by a qualitative method and to collect content evidence for the OPES. The phase II focused on scale development which was established internal structure evidence including CFA, EFA, and internal consistency of the scale for the OPES. In addition, the phase II collected the evidence of OPES on relationships with other variables. Because we hope to also use the instrument as an aid for nurse educators in objective evaluations of nursing students’ oral presentations, both students and educators were involved in item generation and revision. Only nursing students participated in Phase II.

Approval was obtained from Chang Gung Medical Foundation institutional review board (ID: 201702148B0) prior to initiation of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. All participants being interviewed for item generation in phase I provided signed informed consent indicating willingness to be audiotaped during the interview. All the study methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Phase I: item generation and item revision

Participants.

A sample of nurse educators ( n  = 8) and nursing students (n  = 11) participated in the interviews for item generation. Nursing students give oral presentations to meet the curriculum requirement, therefore the educators were university tutors experienced in coaching nursing students preparing to give an oral presentation. Nurse educators specializing in various areas of nursing, such as acute care, psychology, and community care were recruited if they had at least 10 years’ experience coaching university students. The mean age of the educators was 52.1 years ( SD  = 4.26), 75% were female, and the mean amount of teaching experience was 22.6 years ( SD  = 4.07). Students were included if they had given at least one oral presentation and were willing to share their experiences of oral presentation. The mean age of the students was 20.7 ( SD  = 1.90), 81.8% were female; 36.3%, four were second year students, three were third students, and four were in their fourth year.

An additional eight educators participated in the evaluation of content evidence of the ORES. All had over 10 years’ experience in coaching students in giving an oral presentation that would be evaluated for a grade.

Item generation

Development of item domains involved deductive evaluations of the about oral presentations [ 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Three domains were determined to be important components of an oral presentation: accuracy of content, effective communication, and clarity of speech. Inductive qualitative data from face-to-face semi-structured interviews with nurse educators and nursing student participants were used to identify domain items [ 11 ]. Details of interview participants are described in the section above. The interviews with nurse educators and students followed an interview guide (Table  1 ) and lasted approximately 30–50 min for educators and 20–30 min for students. Deduction of the literature and induction of the interview data was used to determine categories considered important for the objective evaluation of oral presentations.

Analysis of interview data. Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim at the conclusion of each interview. Interview data were analyzed by the first, second, and corresponding author, all experts in qualitative studies. The first and second authors coded the interview data to identify items educators and student described as being important to the experience of an oral presentation [ 11 ]. The corresponding author grouped the coded items into constructs important for oral presentations. Meetings with the three researchers were conducted to discuss the findings; if there were differences in interpretation, an outside expert in qualitative studies was included in the discussions until consensus was reached among the three researchers.

Analysis of the interview data indicated items involved in preparation, presentation, and post-presentation were important to the three domains of accuracy of content, effective communication, and clarity of speech. Items for accuracy of content involved preparation (being well-prepared before the presentation; preparing materials suitable for the target audience; practicing the presentation in advance) and post-presentation reflection; and discussing the content of the presentation with classmates and teachers. Items for effective communication involved the presentation itself: obtain the attention of the audience; provide materials that are reliable and valuable; express confidence and enthusiasm; interact with the audience; and respond to questions from the audience. The third domain, clarity of speech, involved of items could be, post-presentation, involved a student’s ability to reflect on the content and performance of their presentation and willingness to obtain feedback from peers and teachers.

Item revision: content evidence

Based on themes that emerged during, 28 items were generated. Content evidence of the 28 items of the OPES was established with a panel of eight experts who were educators that had not participated in the face-to-face interviews. The experts were provided with a description of the research purpose, a list of the proposed items, and were asked to rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not representative, 2 = item needs major revision, 3 = representative but needs minor revision, 4 = representative). For item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was determined by the total items rated 3 or 4 divided by the total number of experts; scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) was determined by the total items rated 3 or 4 divided by the total number of items.

Based on the suggestions of the experts, six items of the OPES were reworded for clarity: item 12 was revised from “The presentation is riveting” to “The presenter’s performance is brilliant; it resonates with the audience and arouses their interests”. Two items were deleted because they duplicated other items: “demonstrates confidence” and “presents enthusiasm” were combined and item 22 became, “demonstrates confidence and enthusiasm properly”. The item “the presentation allows for proper timing and sequencing” and “the length of time of the presentation is well controlled” were also combined into item 9, “The content of presentation follows the rules, allowing for the proper timing and sequence”. Thus, a total of 26 items were included in the OPES at this phase. The I-CVI value was .88 ~ 1 and the scale-level CVI/universal agreement was .75, indicating that the OPES was an acceptable instrument for measuring an oral presentation [ 11 ].

Phase II: scale development

Phase II, scale development, aimed to establish the internal structure evidence for OPES. The evidence of relation to other variables was also evaluated as well in this phase. More specifically, the internal structure evidence for OPES was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The evidence of relationships to other variables was determined by examining the relationships between the OPES and the PRCA and SPCC [ 15 ].

A sample of nursing students was recruited purposively from a university in Taiwan. Students were included if they were: (a) full-time students; (b) had declared nursing as their major; and (c) were in their sophomore, junior, or senior year. First-year university students (freshman) were excluded. A bulletin about the survey study was posted outside of classrooms; 707 students attend these classes. The bulletin included a description of the inclusion criteria and instructions to appear at the classroom on a given day and time if students were interested in participating in the study. Students who appeared at the classroom on the scheduled day ( N  = 650) were given a packet containing a demographic questionnaire (age, gender, year in school), a consent form, the OPES instrument, and two scales for measuring aspects of communication, the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA) and the Self-Perceived Communication Competence (SPCC); the documents were labeled with an identification number to anonymize the data. The 650 students were divided into two groups, based on the demographic data using the SPSS random case selection procedure, (Version 23.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The selection procedure was performed repeatedly until the homogeneity of the baseline characteristics was established between the two groups ( p  > .05). The mean age of the participants was 20.5 years ( SD  = 0.98) and 87.1% were female ( n  = 566). Participants were comprised of third-year students (40.6%, n  = 274), fourth year (37.9%, n  = 246) and second year (21.5%, n  = 93). The survey data for half the group (calibration sample, n  = 325) was used for EFA; the survey data from the other half (the validation sample, n  = 325) was used for CFA. Scores from the PRCA and SPCC instruments were used for evaluating the evidence of relationships to other variables.

The aims of phase II were to collect the scale of internal structure evidence, which identify the items that nursing students perceived as important during an oral presentation and to determine the domains that fit a set of items. The 325 nursing students for EFA (described above) were completed the data collection. We used EFA to evaluate the internal structure of the scale. The items were presented in random order and were not nested according to constructs. Internal consistency of the scale was determined by calculating Cronbach’s alpha.

Then, the next step involved determining if the newly developed OPES was a reliable and valid self-report scale for subjective assessments of nursing students’ previous oral presentations. Participants (the second group of 325 students) were asked, “How often do you incorporate each item into your oral presentations?”. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = never to 5 = always; higher scores indicated a better performance. The latent structure of the scale was examined with CFA.

Finally, the evidence of relationships with other variables of the OPES was determined by examining the relationships between the OPES and the PRCA and SPCC, described below.

The 24-item PRCA scale

The PRCA scale is a self-report instrument for measuring communication apprehension, which is an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with a person or persons [ 12 ]. The 24 scale items are comprised of statements concerning feelings about communicating with others. Four subscales are used for different situations: group discussions, interpersonal communications, meetings, and public speaking. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); scores range from 24 to 120, with higher scores indicating greater communication anxiety. The PRCA has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid scale across a wide range of related studies [ 5 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .90 [ 18 ]. We received permission from the owner of the copyright to translate the scale into Chinese. Translation of the scale into Chinese by a member of the research team who was fluent in English was followed by back-translation from a differed bi-lingual member of the team to ensure semantic validity of the translated PRCA scale. The Cronbach’s alpha value in the present study was .93.

The 12-item SPCC scale

The SPCC scale evaluates a persons’ self-perceived competence in a variety of communication contexts and with a variety of types of receivers. Each item is a situation which requires communication, such as “Present a talk to a group of strangers”, or “Talk with a friend”. Participants respond to each situation by ranking their level of competence from 0 (completely incompetent) to 100 (completely competent). The Cronbach’s alpha for reliability of the scale is .85. The SPCC has been used in similar studies [ 13 , 19 ]. We received permission owner of the copyright to translate the scale into Chinese. Translation of the SPCC scale into Chinese by a member of the research team who was fluent in English was followed by back-translation from a differed bi-lingual member of the team to ensure semantic validity of the translated scale. The Cronbach’s alpha value in the present study was .941.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data from the 325 students designated for EFA was used to determine the internal structure evidence of the OPES. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity demonstrated factor analysis was appropriate [ 20 ]. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the 26 items to extract the major contributing factors; varimax rotation determined relationships between the items and contributing factors. Factors with an eigenvalue > 1 were further inspected. A factor loading greater than .50 was regarded as significantly relevant [ 21 ].

All item deletions were incorporated one by one, and the EFA model was respecified after each deletion, which reduced the number of items in accordance with a priori criteria. In the EFA phase, the internal consistency of each construct was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of .70 or higher considered acceptable [ 22 ].

Data from the 325 students designated for CFA was used to validate the factor structure of the OPES. In this phase, items with a factor loading less than .50 were deleted [ 21 ]. The goodness of the model fit was assessed using the following: absolute fit indices, including goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); relative fit indices, normed and non-normed fit index (NFI and NNFI, respectively), and comparative fit index (CFI); and the parsimony NFI, CFI, and likelihood ratio ( x 2 /df ) [ 23 ].

In addition to the validity testing, a research team, which included a statistician, determined the appropriateness of either deleting or retaining each item. The convergent validity (internal quality of the items and factor structures), was further verified using standardized factor loading, with values of .50 or higher considered acceptable, and average variance extraction (AVE), with values of .5 or higher considered acceptable [ 21 ]. Convergent reliability (CR) was assessed using the construct reliability from the CFA, with values of .7 or higher considered acceptable [ 24 ]. The AVE and correlation matrices among the latent constructs were used to establish discriminant validity of the instrument. The square root of the AVE of each construct was required to reach a value that was larger than the correlation coefficient between itself and the other constructs [ 24 ].

The evidence of relationships with other variables was determined by examining the relationship of nursing students’ scores ( N  = 650) on the newly developed OPES with scores for constructs of communication of the translated scales for PRCA and SPCC. The hypotheses between OPES to PRCA and SPCC individually indicated the strong self-reported presentation competence were associated with lower communication anxiety and greater communication competence.

Development of the OPES: internal structure evidence

EFA was performed sequentially six times until there were no items with a loading factor < .50 or that were cross-loaded, and six items were deleted (Table  2 ). EFA resulted in 20 items with a three factors solution, which represented 64.75% of the variance of the OPES. The Cronbach’s alpha estimates for the total scale was .94. indicating the scale had sound internal reliability (Table 2 ). The three factors were labeled in accordance with the item content via a panel discussion and had Cronbach’s alpha values of .93, .89, and .84 for factors 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Factor 1, Accuracy of Content, was comprised of 11 items and explained 30.03% of the variance. Items in Accuracy of Content evaluated agreement between the topic (theme) and content of the presentation, use of presentation aids to highlight the key points of the presentation, and adherence to time limitations. These items included statements such as: “The content of the presentation matches the theme” (item 7), “Presentation aids, such as PowerPoint and posters, highlight key points of the report” (item 14), and “The organization of the presentation is structured to provide the necessary information, while also adhering to time limitations” (item 9). Factor 2, “Effective Communication”, was comprised of five items, which explained 21.72% of the total variance. Effective Communication evaluated the attitude and expression of the presenter. Statements included “Demonstrates confidence and an appropriate level of enthusiasm” (item 22), “Uses body language in a manner that increases the audience’s interest in learning” (item 21), and “Interacts with the audience using eye contact and a question and answer session” (item 24). Factor 3, “Clarity of Speech” was comprised of four items, which explained 13.00% of the total variance. Factor 3 evaluated the presenter’s pronunciation with statements such as “The words and phrases of the presenter are smooth and fluent” (item 19).

The factor structure of the 20-items of the EFA were examined with CFA. We sequentially removed items 1, 4, 20, 15, and 16, based on modification indices. The resultant 15-item scale had acceptable fit indices for the 3-factor model of the OPES for chi-square ( x 2 /df  = 2.851), RMSEA (.076), NNFI (.933), and CFI = .945. However, the AGFI, which was .876, was below the acceptable criteria of .9. A panel discussion with the researchers determined that items 4, 15, and 16 were similar in meaning to item 14; item 1 was similar in meaning to item 7. Therefore, the panel accepted the results of the modified CFA model of the OPES with 15 items and 3-factors.

As illustrated in Table  3 and Fig.  1 , all standardized factor loadings exceeded the threshold of .50, and the AVE for each construct ranged from .517 to .676, indicating acceptable convergent validity. In addition, the CR was greater than .70 for the three constructs (range = .862 to .901), providing further evidence for the reliability of the instrument [ 25 ]. As shown in Table  4 , all square roots of the AVE for each construct (values in the diagonal elements) were greater than the corresponding inter-construct correlations (values below the diagonal) [ 24 , 25 ]. These findings provide further support for the validity of the OPES.

The standardized estimates of CFA model for validation sample

Development of the OPES: relationships with other variables

Relationships with other variable evidence was examined with correlation coefficients for the total score and subscale scores of the OPES with the total score and subscale scores of the PRCA and SPCC (Table  5 ) from all nursing students who participated in the study and complete all three scales ( N  = 650). Correlation coefficients for the total score of the OPES with total scores for the PRCA and SPCC were − .51 and .45, respectively (both p  < .001). Correlation coefficients for subscale scores of the OPES with the subscale scores of the PRCA and SPCC were all significant ( p  < .001), indicating strong valid evidence of the scale as a self-assessment for effective communication.

The 15-item OPES was found to be a reliable and valid instrument for nursing students’ self-assessments of their performance during previous oral presentations. The strength of this study is that the initial items were developed using both literature review and interviews with nurse educators, who were university tutors in oral presentation skills, as well as nursing students at different stages of the educational process. Another strength of this study is the multiple methods used to establish the validity and reliability of the OPES, including internal structure evidence (both EFA and CFA) and relationships with other variables [ 15 , 26 ].

Similar to previous to other oral presentation instruments, content analysis of items of the OPES generated from the interviews with educators and students indicated accuracy of the content of a presentation and effective communication were important factors for a good performance [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]. Other studies have also included self-esteem as a factor that can influence the impact of an oral presentation [ 3 ], however, the subscale of effective communication included the item “Demonstrates confidence and an appropriate level of enthusiasm”, which a quality of self-esteem. The third domain was identified as clarity of speech, which is unique to our study.

Constructs that focus on a person’s ability to deliver accurate content are important components for evaluations of classroom speaking because they have been shown to be fundamental elements of public speaking ([ 7 ]). Accuracy of content as it applies to oral presentation for nurses is important not only for communicating information involving healthcare education for patients, but also for communicating with team members providing medical care in a clinical setting.

The two other factors identified in the OPES, effective communication and clarity of speech, are similar to constructs for delivery of a presentation, which include interacting with the audience through body-language, eye-contact, and question and answer sessions. These behaviors indicate the presenter is confident and enthusiastic, which engages and captures the attention of an audience. It seems logical that the voice, pronunciation, and fluency of speech were not independent factors because the presenter’s voice qualities all are keys to effectively delivering a presentation. A clear and correct pronunciation, appropriate tone and volume of a presentation assists audiences in more easily receiving and understanding the content.

Our 15-item OPES scale evaluated the performance based on outcome. The original scale was composed of 26 items that were derived from qualitative interviews with nursing students and university tutors in oral presentations. These items were the result of asking about important qualities at three timepoints of a presentation: before, during, and after. However, most of the items that were deleted were those about the period before the presentation (1 to 6); two items (25 and 26) were about the period after the presentation. Analysis did not reflect the qualitative interview data expressed by educators and students regarding the importance of preparing with practice and rehearsal, and the importance of peer and teacher evaluations. Other studies have suggested that preparation and self-reflection is important for a good presentation, which includes awareness of the audience receiving the presentation, meeting the needs of the audience, defining the purpose of the presentation, use of appropriate technology to augment information, and repeated practices to reduce anxiety [ 2 , 5 , 27 ]. However, these items were deleted in the scale validation stage, possibly because it is not possible to objectively evaluate how much time and effort the presenter has devoted to the oral presentation.

The deletion of item 20, “The clothing worn by the presenter is appropriate” was also not surprising. During the interviews, educators and students expressed different opinions about the importance of clothing for a presentation. Many of the educators believed the presenter should be dressed formally; students believed the presenter should be neatly dressed. These two perspectives might reflect generational differences. However, these results are reminders assessments should be based on a structured and objective scale, rather than one’s personal attitude and stereotype of what should be important about an oral presentation.

The application of the OPES may be useful not only for educators but also for students. The OPES could be used a checklist to help students determine how well their presentation matches the 15 items, which could draw attention to deficiencies in their speech before the presentation is given. Once the presentation has been given, the OPES could be used as a self-evaluation form, which could help them make modifications to improve the next the next presentation. Educators could use the OPES to evaluate a performance during tutoring sessions with students, which could help identify specific areas needing improvement prior to the oral presentation. Although, analysis of the scale was based on data from nursing students, additional assessments with other populations of healthcare students should be conducted to determine if the OPES is applicable for evaluating oral presentations for students in general.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Participants were selected by non-random sampling, therefore, additional studies with nursing students from other nursing schools would strengthen the validity and reliability of the scale. In addition, the OPES was developed using empirical data, rather than basing it on a theoretical framework, such as anxiety and public speaking. Therefore, the validity of the OPES for use in other types of student populations or cultures that differ significantly from our sample population should be established in future studies. Finally, the OPES was in the study was examined as a self-assessment instrument for nursing students who rated themselves based on their perceived abilities previous oral presentations rather than from peer or nurse educator evaluations. Therefore, applicability of the scale as an assessment instrument for educators providing an objective score of nursing students’ real-life oral presentations needs to be validated in future studies.

This newly developed 15-item OPES is the first report of a valid self-assessment instrument for providing nursing students with feedback about whether necessary targets for a successful oral presentation are reached. Therefore, it could be adopted as a self-assessment instrument for nursing students when learning what oral presentation require skills require strengthening. However, further studies are needed to determine if the OPES is a valid instrument for use by student peers or nursing educators evaluating student presentations across nursing programs.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets and materials of this study are available to the corresponding author on request.

Hadfield-Law L. Presentation skills. Presentation skills for nurses: how to prepare more effectively. Br J Nurs. 2001;10(18):1208–11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Longo A, Tierney C. Presentation skills for the nurse educator. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2012;28(1):16–23.

Elfering A, Grebner S. Getting used to academic public speaking: global self-esteem predicts habituation in blood pressure response to repeated thesis presentations. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2012;37(2):109–20.

Turner K, Roberts L, Heal C, Wright L. Oral presentation as a form of summative assessment in a master’s level PGCE module: the student perspective. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38(6):662–73.

Liao H-A. Examining the role of collaborative learning in a public speaking course. Coll Teach. 2014;62(2):47–54.

Tsang A. Positive effects of a programme on oral presentation skills: high- and low-proficient learners' self-evaluations and perspectives. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018;43(5):760–71.

Carlson RE, Smith-Howell D. Classroom public speaking assessment: reliability and validity of selected evaluation instruments. Commun Educ. 1995;44:87–97.

Langan AM, Wheater CP, Shaw EM, Haines BJ, Cullen WR, Boyle JC, et al. Peer assessment of oral presentations: effects of student gender, university affiliation and participation in the development of assessment criteria. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005;30(1):21–34.

De Grez L, Valcke M, Roozen I. The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Comput Educ. 2009;53(1):112–20.

Murillo-Zamorano LR, Montanero M. Oral presentations in higher education: a comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assess Eval High Educ. 2018;43(1):138–50.

Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

McCroskey CJ. Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent theory and research. Hum Commun Res. 1977;4(1):78–96.

Dupagne M, Stacks DW, Giroux VM. Effects of video streaming technology on public speaking Students' communication apprehension and competence. J Educ Technol Syst. 2007;35(4):479–90.

Kim JY. The effect of personality, situational factors, and communication apprehension on a blended communication course. Indian J Sci Technol. 2015;8(S1):528–34.

Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166 e7–16.

Pearson JC, Child JT, DeGreeff BL, Semlak JL, Burnett A. The influence of biological sex, self-esteem, and communication apprehension on unwillingness to communicate. Atl J Commun. 2011;19(4):216–27.

Degner RK. Prevalence of communication apprehension at a community college. Int J Interdiscip Soc Sci. 2010;5(6):183–91.

Google Scholar  

McCroskey JC. An introduction to rhetorical communication, vol. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1982.

Hancock AB, Stone MD, Brundage SB, Zeigler MT. Public speaking attitudes: does curriculum make a difference? J Voice. 2010;24(3):302–7.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2006.

DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003.

Bentler PM. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(3):400–4.

Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective vol. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.

Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830–7.

Foulkes M. Presentation skills for nurses. Nurs Stand. 2015;29(25):52–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants for their kind cooperation and contribution to the study.

This study was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan (MOST 107–2511-H-255-007), Ministry of Education (PSR1090283), and the Chang Gung Medical Research Fund (CMRPF3K0021, BMRP704, BMRPA63).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China

Yi-Chien Chiang

Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China

Hsiang-Chun Lee & Chia-Ling Wu

Administration Center of Quality Management Department, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China

Tsung-Lan Chu

Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology; Administration Center of Quality Management Department, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No.261, Wenhua 1st Rd., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan City, 333 03, Taiwan, Republic of China

Ya-Chu Hsiao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceptualized and designed the study. Data were collected by Y-CH and H-CL. Data analysis was conducted by Y-CH and Y-CC. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Y-CH, Y-CC, and all authors contributed to subsequent revisions. All authors read and approved the final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ya-Chu Hsiao .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All the study methods and materials have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsink. The study protocol and the procedures of the study were approved by Chang Gung Medical Foundation institutional review board (number: 201702148B0) for the protection of participants’ confidentiality. All of the participants received oral and written explanations of the study and its procedures, as well as informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chiang, YC., Lee, HC., Chu, TL. et al. Development and validation of the oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) for nursing students. BMC Med Educ 22 , 318 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03376-w

Download citation

Received : 25 February 2021

Accepted : 14 April 2022

Published : 26 April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03376-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nurse educators
• Nursing students
• Oral presentation
• Scale development

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Presentation Skills Assessment Scale

The presentation skills assessment scale is a tool used to measure an individual's proficiency in giving presentations. the scores are then used to give an overall rating of the speaker's presentation skills. .

2 minutes to complete

Eligibility

General eligibility to complete the Presentation Skills Assessment Scale is being at least 18 years of age, being able to understand and communicate in English, having basic computer skills, and possessing the capability to complete the assessment.

Questions for Presentation Skills Assessment Scale

I have a clear idea of how to plan a presentation

I develop professionally engaging slides

I manage nervousness before hand

I build rapport with the audience

I deliver well paced presentation (e.g pace of speech, amount of information)

I deliver with well-modulated voice

I practice presentation beforehand

I present spontaneously rather than read or memorized

I master the use of technology during presentation

I deal with questions arised during presentation

Forms Similar to Presentation Skills Assessment Scale

• Presentation Skills Evaluation Form
• Presentation Skills Self-Assessment Form
• Presentation Skills Assessment Checklist
• Presentation Skills Questionnaire
• Presentation Skills Rating Scale

Here are some FAQs and additional information on Presentation Skills Assessment Scale

What is the presentation skills assessment scale, the presentation skills assessment scale is an assessment tool that provides feedback on an individual's presentation skills. it is designed to measure an individual's self-awareness of their presentation abilities, as well as their ability to communicate effectively in a professional setting., how is the presentation skills assessment scale scored, the score for the presentation skills assessment scale is based on an individual's performance. the overall score is then calculated by taking into account the weighted scores of each questions, what is the difference between the presentation skills assessment scale and other forms of presentation assessment, the presentation skills assessment scale is unique in that it takes into account an individual's self-awareness and ability to communicate effectively in a professional setting. other forms of assessment often focus only on the technical aspects of presentation, want to use this template, loved by people at home and at work.

What's next? Try out templates like Presentation Skills Assessment Scale

1000+ templates, 50+ categories.

Want to create secure online forms and surveys?

Join blocksurvey..

Rubrics for Oral Presentations

Introduction.

Many instructors require students to give oral presentations, which they evaluate and count in students’ grades. It is important that instructors clarify their goals for these presentations as well as the student learning objectives to which they are related. Embedding the assignment in course goals and learning objectives allows instructors to be clear with students about their expectations and to develop a rubric for evaluating the presentations.

A rubric is a scoring guide that articulates and assesses specific components and expectations for an assignment. Rubrics identify the various criteria relevant to an assignment and then explicitly state the possible levels of achievement along a continuum, so that an effective rubric accurately reflects the expectations of an assignment. Using a rubric to evaluate student performance has advantages for both instructors and students.  Creating Rubrics

Rubrics can be either analytic or holistic. An analytic rubric comprises a set of specific criteria, with each one evaluated separately and receiving a separate score. The template resembles a grid with the criteria listed in the left column and levels of performance listed across the top row, using numbers and/or descriptors. The cells within the center of the rubric contain descriptions of what expected performance looks like for each level of performance.

A holistic rubric consists of a set of descriptors that generate a single, global score for the entire work. The single score is based on raters’ overall perception of the quality of the performance. Often, sentence- or paragraph-length descriptions of different levels of competencies are provided.

When applied to an oral presentation, rubrics should reflect the elements of the presentation that will be evaluated as well as their relative importance. Thus, the instructor must decide whether to include dimensions relevant to both form and content and, if so, which one. Additionally, the instructor must decide how to weight each of the dimensions – are they all equally important, or are some more important than others? Additionally, if the presentation represents a group project, the instructor must decide how to balance grading individual and group contributions.  Evaluating Group Projects

Creating Rubrics

The steps for creating an analytic rubric include the following:

1. Clarify the purpose of the assignment. What learning objectives are associated with the assignment?

2. Look for existing rubrics that can be adopted or adapted for the specific assignment

3. Define the criteria to be evaluated

4. Choose the rating scale to measure levels of performance

5. Write descriptions for each criterion for each performance level of the rating scale

6. Test and revise the rubric

Examples of criteria that have been included in rubrics for evaluation oral presentations include:

• Knowledge of content
• Organization of content
• Presentation of ideas
• Research/sources
• Visual aids/handouts
• Language clarity
• Grammatical correctness
• Time management
• Volume of speech
• Rate/pacing of Speech
• Mannerisms/gestures
• ​​​​​​​Eye contact/audience engagement

Examples of scales/ratings that have been used to rate student performance include:

• Strong, Satisfactory, Weak
• Beginning, Intermediate, High
• Exemplary, Competent, Developing
• Excellent, Competent, Needs Work
• Exceeds Standard, Meets Standard, Approaching Standard, Below Standard
• Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Marginal, Unacceptable
• Advanced, Intermediate High, Intermediate, Developing
• Exceptional, Above Average, Sufficient, Minimal, Poor
• Master, Distinguished, Proficient, Intermediate, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Poor, Unacceptable
• Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never
• Exemplary, Accomplished, Acceptable, Minimally Acceptable, Emerging, Unacceptable

Grading and Performance Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Creating and Using Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Using Rubrics Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation

Rubrics DePaul University Teaching Commons

Building a Rubric University of Texas/Austin Faculty Innovation Center

Building a Rubric Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning

Rubric Development University of West Florida Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

Creating and Using Rubrics Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning

Designing Grading Rubrics ​​​​​​​ Brown University Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Examples of Oral Presentation Rubrics

Oral Presentation Rubric Pomona College Teaching and Learning Center

Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubric University of Michigan

Oral Presentation Rubric Roanoke College

Oral Presentation: Scoring Guide Fresno State University Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Presentation Skills Rubric State University of New York/New Paltz School of Business

Oral Presentation Rubric Oregon State University Center for Teaching and Learning

Oral Presentation Rubric Purdue University College of Science

Group Class Presentation Sample Rubric Pepperdine University Graziadio Business School

Blog > Effective Feedback for Presentations - digital with PowerPoint or with printable sheets

Effective Feedback for Presentations - digital with PowerPoint or with printable sheets

10.26.20   •  #powerpoint #feedback #presentation.

Do you know whether you are a good presenter or not? If you do, chances are it's because people have told you so - they've given you feedback. Getting other's opinions about your performance is something that's important for most aspects in life, especially professionally. However, today we're focusing on a specific aspect, which is (as you may have guessed from the title): presentations.

The importance of feedback

Take a minute to think about the first presentation you've given: what was it like? Was it perfect? Probably not. Practise makes perfect, and nobody does everything right in the beginning. Even if you're a natural at speaking and presenting, there is usually something to improve and to work on. And this is where feedback comes in - because how are you going to know what it is that you should improve? You can and should of course assess yourself after each and every presentation you give, as that is an important part of learning and improvement. The problem is that you yourself are not aware of all the things that you do well (or wrong) during your presentation. But your audience is! And that's why you should get audience feedback.

Qualities of good Feedback

Before we get into the different ways of how you can get feedback from your audience, let's briefly discuss what makes good feedback. P.S.: These do not just apply for presentations, but for any kind of feedback.

• Good feedback is constructive, not destructive. The person receiving feedback should feel empowered and inspired to work on their skills, not discouraged. You can of course criticize on an objective level, but mean and insulting comments have to be kept to yourself.
• Good feedback involves saying bot what has to be improved (if there is anything) and what is already good (there is almost always something!)
• After receiving good feedback, the recipient is aware of the steps he can and should take in order to improve.

Ways of receiving / giving Feedback after a Presentation

1. print a feedback form.

Let's start with a classic: the feedback / evaluation sheet. It contains several questions, these can be either open (aka "What did you like about the presentation?") or answered on a scale (e.g. from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"). The second question format makes a lot of sense if you have a large audience, and it also makes it easy to get an overview of the results. That's why in our feedback forms (which you can download at the end of this post), you'll find mainly statements with scales. This has been a proven way for getting and giving valuable feedback efficiently for years. We do like the feedback form a lot, though you have to be aware that you'll need to invest some time to prepare, count up and analyse.

• ask specifically what you want to ask
• good overview of the results
• anonymous (people are likely to be more honest)
• easy to access: you can just download a feedback sheet online (ours, for example, which you'll find at the end of this blog post!)
• analysing the results can be time-consuming
• you have to print out the sheets, it takes preparation

2. Online: Get digital Feedback

In the year 2020, there's got to be a better way of giving feedback, right? There is, and you should definitely try it out! SlideLizard is a free PowerPoint extension that allows you to get your audience's feedback in the quickest and easiest way possible. You can of course customize the feedback question form to your specific needs and make sure you get exactly the kind of feedback you need. Click here to download SlideLizard right now, or scroll down to read some more about the tool.

• quick and easy to access
• easy and fast export, analysis and overview of feedback
• save feedback directly on your computer
• Participants need a working Internet connection (but that usually isn't a problem nowadays)

3. Verbal Feedback

"So, how did you like the presentation?", asks the lecturer. A few people in the audience nod friendly, one or two might even say something about how the slides were nice and the content interesting. Getting verbal feedback is hard, especially in big groups. If you really want to analyse and improve your presentation habits and skills, we recommend using one of the other methods. However, if you have no internet connection and forgot to bring your feedback sheets, asking for verbal feedback is still better than nothing.

• no prerequisites
• open format
• okay for small audiences
• not anonymous (people might not be honest)
• time consuming
• no detailed evaluation
• no way to save the feedback (except for your memory)
• not suitable for big audiences

Feedback to yourself - Self Assessment

I've mentioned before that it is incredibly important to not only let others tell you what went well and what didn't in your presentation. Your own impressions are of huge value, too. After each presentation you give, ask yourself the following questions (or better yet, write your answers down!):

• What went wrong (in my opinion)? What can I do in order to avoid this from happening next time?
• What went well? What was well received by the audience? What should I do more of?
• How was I feeling during this presentation? (Nervous? Confident? ...)

Tip: If you really want to actively work on your presentation skills, filming yourself while presenting and analysing the video after is a great way to go. You'll get a different view on the way you talk, move, and come across.

Digital Feedback with SlideLizard

Were you intrigued by the idea of easy Online-feedback? With SlideLizard your attendees can easily give you feedback directly with their Smartphone. After the presentation you can analyze the result in detail.

• type in your own feedback questions
• choose your rating scale: 1-5 points, 1-6 points, 1-5 stars or 1-6 stars;
• show your attendees an open text field and let them enter any text they want

Note: SlideLizard is amazing for giving and receiving feedback, but it's definitely not the only thing it's great for. Once you download the extension, you get access to the most amazing tools - most importantly, live polls and quizzes, live Q&A sessions, attendee note taking, content and slide sharing, and presentation analytics. And the best thing about all this? You can get it for free, and it is really easy to use, as it is directly integrated in PowerPoint! Click here to discover more about SlideLizard.

Free Download: Printable Feedback Sheets for Business or School Presentations

If you'd rather stick with the good old paper-and-pen method, that's okay, too. You can choose between one of our two feedback sheet templates: there is one tailored to business presentations and seminars, and one that is created specifically for teachers assessing their students. Both forms can be downloaded as a Word, Excel, or pdf file. A lot of thought has gone into both of the forms, so you can benefit as much as possible; however, if you feel like you need to change some questions in order to better suit your needs, feel free to do so!

Feedback form for business

Template as PDF, Word & Excel - perfect for seminars, trainings,...

Feedback form for teachers (school or university)

Template as PDF, Word & Excel - perfect for school or university,...

Where can I find a free feedback form for presentations?

There are many templates available online. We designed two exclusive, free-to-download feedback sheets, which you can get in our blog article

What's the best way to get feedback for presentations?

You can get feedback on your presentations by using feedback sheets, asking for feedback verbally, or, the easiest and fastest option: get digital feedback with an online tool

Related articles

About the author.

Pia Lehner-Mittermaier

Pia works in Marketing as a graphic designer and writer at SlideLizard. She uses her vivid imagination and creativity to produce good content.

Get 1 Month for free!

Do you want to make your presentations more interactive.

With SlideLizard you can engage your audience with live polls, questions and feedback . Directly within your PowerPoint Presentation. Learn more

Top blog articles More posts

How to create a PowerPoint Template

4 easy ways to create a WordCloud for PowerPoint

Get started with Live Polls, Q&A and slides

for your PowerPoint Presentations

The big SlideLizard presentation glossary

.pot file extension.

They are used to create more PowerPoint files with the same formatting and later got replaced by .potx files.

Community Events

Community events are about bringing people together, creating positive change and making new friends.

Informative Presentations

An information presentation is created when no solution is currently available. Facts, data and figures or study results are presented and current processes are described.

Eulogy Speech

A eulogy speech is given at a funeral. It is given by familiy members or friends of the deceased. The aim is to say goodbye and pay tribute to the person who has passed away.

Be the first to know!

The latest SlideLizard news, articles, and resources, sent straight to your inbox.

- or follow us on -

We use cookies to personalize content and analyze traffic to our website. You can choose to accept only cookies that are necessary for the website to function or to also allow tracking cookies. For more information, please see our privacy policy .

Cookie Settings

Necessary cookies are required for the proper functioning of the website. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information about the number of visitors, etc.

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, what is the difference between assessment and grading.

Assessment and grading are not the same.

Generally, the goal of grading is to evaluate individual students’ learning and performance. Although grades are sometimes treated as a proxy for student learning, they are not always a reliable measure. Moreover, they may incorporate criteria – such as attendance, participation, and effort – that are not direct measures of learning.

The goal of assessment is to improve student learning. Although grading can play a role in assessment, assessment also involves many ungraded measures of student learning (such as concept maps and CATS ). Moreover, assessment goes beyond grading by systematically examining patterns of student learning across courses and programs and using this information to improve educational practices.

• Faculty Support
• Graduate Student Support
• Canvas @ Carnegie Mellon
• Quick Links

15 Common Rating Scales Explained

Variety in question types can be both a blessing and a curse.

Having many ways to ask questions provides better options to the researcher to assess the opinion of the respondent.

But the wrong type of question can fail to capture what’s intended, confuse respondents, or even lead to incorrect decisions.

In surveys, questions can be broadly classified as open-ended (free responses) or closed-ended. Closed-ended questions themselves can be classified into multiple choice questions or rating scales.

Multiple choice questions (e.g. age, education level, or electronic devices owned) are usually more straightforward for researchers with little survey experience. When properly written, they’re also straightforward to the respondents as they usually involve concrete selections.

Rating scales however usually involve asking participants to rate abstract concepts, such as satisfaction, ease, or likelihood to recommend. The item selection can have a big impact on both the responses and interpretation.

There are different ways of classifying rating scales and slight variations can result in different looking rating scales, even though they’re variations on the same scale. For example, our MUIQ platform offers over 30 question types but I’ve identified 15 distinct ones.

I’ve adapted a classification scheme based on our experience at MeasuringU and from the classic text on survey research by Alreck and Settle . Here are 15 scales, in roughly the order of most to least commonly used.

1. Linear Numeric Scale

In a linear numeric scale, participants provide some numeric response to a question or statement. This can include things like satisfaction , ease, brand favorability , feature importance, or likelihood to recommend. The Single Ease Question (SEQ) and likelihood to recommend item used in the NPS are examples of linear numeric scales. Linear numeric scales usually have at least the endpoints labeled. (Labeling, neutral points, and number of response options are the topics of other articles.)

The classic Likert scale has participants agree or disagree (or approve/disapprove) to multiple statements. When numbers are associated with each response option, the Likert item can be seen as a special case of the linear numeric scale. The classic Likert item uses a 5-point response scale, but you can use 7, 9, or other points, too. (Although someone will have a strong opinion about the “right” number of steps. ) Because the response scale is about agreement, be sure items are phrases participants can agree or disagree to. The System Usability Scale (SUS) , SUPR-Q , and UMUX-Lite use a Likert scale with numbered values .

3. Multiple Rating Matrix

The matrix question is a compact way of presenting multiple linear numeric items and is the typical method for displaying Likert items, too. It’s probably not technically different from a linear numeric scale but I’ve separated it out because they’re so popular for online surveys. For example, when having participants rate their brand attitude, it’s common to use a matrix similar to the following one.

4. Frequency Scales

Understanding how often people perform (or think they perform) actions helps when product planning as in the example below. When listing the frequency of actions, consider both specific number of times (e.g. every day) as well as more general timeframes (sometimes, always, never—referred to as a verbal frequency scale). Also, be sure the frequencies are sequentially ordered and well understood. For example, is occasional more frequent than sometimes?

When we measure users’ attitudes toward the ease of use of websites or software using the SUS or UMUX-Lite, we ask how frequently participants use the software with a verbal frequency scale similar to the one below. ( Frequency of use often predicts attitudes. )

5. Forced Ranking Scale

Forced ranking scales are good for prioritizing product features. Having participants rate their interest on a linear numeric scale may result in the problem of every feature being important because there’s no disincentive for rating everything high.

I recommend keeping the number of items to fewer than 10 when possible and randomize their presentation order. With each option, respondents have to review the list to make a decision on ranking. To rank 20 items, for example, participants need to make 19 passes through the continually shrinking list. This process is easier with a drag-and-drop interface as in the MUIQ item below, but forcing people to rank items they have little opinion on may lead to drop out or error. It gets quite laborious to rank many items. If your list is long, consider a “pick some” question type (see #6).

6. Pick Some (a.k.a Top Task)

When you have a long list for participants to prioritize (e.g. more than 10 and especially more than 20) but don’t want them to have to rank all of the items, have participants select a fixed subset, such as 3 or 5. This is what we do for a top-tasks analysis . Again, it’s important to randomize the order to avoid items near the top being favored. Surprisingly, we’ve found that this crude technique takes a fraction of the time as forced ranking and yields very similar results.

7. Paired Comparison Scale

When you want to force a choice between two alternatives (sort of a mini-rank) such as a preference for a website, brand, or design, use a paired comparison scale.

Items don’t have to be just text. You can present pictures (like alternate designs) or videos for respondents to select their preference.

8. Comparative Scale/Comparative Intensity

You can have participants rate their preference and strength of preference all in one item using a comparative scale. The scale below asks participants to rate their preference and intensity for two rental car companies on four website attributes.

9. Semantic Differential Scale

When you want to assess where participants fall on a continuum of adjectives or attributes, use a semantic differential scale. You need to provide clear polar opposite terms (like hot to cold)—which can be easy in principle but hard in practice. For this reason, we don’t use these as often and prefer the next two options.

The semantic differential scale below asks participants to rate their experience with Netflix on two items.

10. Adjective Checklist

When assessing brand attitude, the adjective checklist is a staple. It’s also the technique used in the Microsoft Desirability Toolkit.  Instead of aligning opposite adjectives, you can list them (usually a mix of positive and negative) for participants to select. Again, randomize the presentation order.

11. Semantic Distance Scale

A way to avoid the problem of having to find polar opposites on the semantic differential scale but still have participants rate each adjective is to have respondents rate an adjective, term, or phrase and provide some level of intensity. It’s sort of a cross between the adjective scale and semantic differential scale.

12. Fixed Sum

When you need responses to add up to a fixed amount, such as 100% or an amount spent (e.g. $100), a fixed sum approach might work. It can be another way to force respondents to decide which features are more important than others and is a popular technique for assessing the importance of new features, or even how participants allocate their budget (like the example below).

13. Compound Matrix

You can really cram a lot of things into one question by using drop-down lists or text fields instead of radio buttons or checkboxes. The compound matrix has participants rate two dimensions at the same time; for example, the importance of features by device type for online banking.

14. Pictorial/Graphic Scales

Instead of picking a number, participants can respond to pictures, such as stars as done on Amazon and Netflix. The stars represent a quantity that can be averaged similar to linear numeric scales.

The Wong-Baker faces pain scale is a common scale used to assess patient discomfort.

Pictorial scales can be particularly helpful when participants might not speak the target language well or even have trouble communicating (hence its widespread use in medical settings).

15. Visual Analog/Slider Scale

Imagine a linear numeric scale that didn’t have discrete points (e.g. 1 through 7) but instead allowed participants to select any value in between. This is the idea behind the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), often just called a slider scale. The analog is the continuum the slider represents; for example, from extremely difficult to extremely easy in the example below.

You might also be interested in