Indicators for evaluating public speaking in adults: a scoping reviewABSTRACT
Purpose To map the indicators used to observe adults’ public speaking and to identify the forms of measurement.
Research strategies The acronym PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) and combined descriptors were used to search the LILACS (BVS), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate), and Cochrane databases.
Selection criteria Studies on the assessment of adult public speaking, conducted through observation by evaluators/judges, published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, with no restrictions regarding year of publication or methodological design, were included. Studies involving individuals with stuttering or neurological disorders, those employing technological or non-human assessment, those focused on foreign language teaching, or those based solely on self-perception were excluded.
Results A total of 35 studies published between 2002 and 2024 were included, with a concentration in 2016 and a predominance of articles from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Most of the identified indicators were developed by the authors themselves or adapted from existing protocols. They were distributed across major domains: discourse structure, language use, supporting materials, vocal expressiveness, and nonverbal behaviors. The most commonly used measurement scale was the Likert-type scale.
Conclusion The mapping identified recurring indicators in public speaking assessment: discourse structure (introduction, development, organization, clarity, conclusion), supporting resources, language (audience appropriateness, argumentation, pronunciation, fluency), nonverbal behaviors (eye contact, gestures, posture, facial expressiveness), and vocal expressiveness (volume, rhythm, pitch, articulation, modulation). The predominant form of measurement was the Likert-type scale.
Keywords:
Communication; Public Speaking; Verbal Communication; Nonverbal Communication; Voice
RESUMO
Objetivo Mapear os indicadores utilizados para observar a fala em público de adultos e identificar as formas de mensuração.
Estratégia de pesquisa O acrônimo PCC (População, Conceito e Contexto) e descritores combinados foram utilizados para busca nas bases de dados LILACS (BVS), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate) e Cochrane.
Critérios de seleção Foram incluídos estudos sobre a avaliação da fala em público de adultos, conduzida por meio de observação de avaliadores/juízes, publicados em inglês, português ou espanhol, sem restrição quanto ao ano de publicação ou delineamento metodológico. Foram excluídos estudos com indivíduos que gaguejam ou com alterações neurológicas, que utilizassem avaliação tecnológica ou não humana, focados no ensino de língua estrangeira ou baseados apenas na autopercepção.
Análise dos dados Realizou-se triagem e leitura completa dos estudos, gerenciados no Rayyan, com extração de dados (base de dados, título, autores, ano, idioma, objetivo, método de avaliação, indicadores de análise da fala em público, tipo de escala de resposta e evidências de validade), organizados em planilha para análise e síntese.
Resultados Foram incluídos 35 estudos publicados entre 2002 e 2024, com concentração em 2016 e predominância de artigos das bases Scopus e Web of Science. Os indicadores identificados foram, em sua maioria, elaborados pelos próprios autores ou adaptados de protocolos existentes. Eles se distribuíram em grandes domínios: estrutura do discurso, uso da linguagem, material de apoio, expressividade vocal e comportamentos não verbais. A escala de mensuração mais utilizada foi a do tipo Likert.
Conclusão O mapeamento identificou indicadores recorrentes na avaliação da fala em público: estrutura do discurso (introdução, desenvolvimento, organização, clareza, conclusão), recursos de apoio, linguagem (adequação ao público, argumentação, pronúncia, fluência), comportamentos não verbais (contato visual, gestos, postura, expressividade facial) e expressividade vocal (volume, ritmo, tom, articulação, modulação). A forma de mensuração predominante foi a escala do tipo Likert.
Descritores:
Comunicação; Falar em Público; Comunicação Verbal; Comunicação Não Verbal; Voz
INTRODUCTION
Public speaking is defined as the ability to deliver structured and intentional oral communication in front of a group to inform, influence, or entertain the audience(1,2). This challenging skill is fundamental in various professional and academic fields and is considered a differentiator for personal and professional success, meeting the demands of the job market, which seeks qualified and multifunctional professionals(2-4). Due to its importance, many people dedicate themselves to improving it(1,2,4).
Public speaking is known to use verbal resources (including the message, choice of words, and preparation of speech), nonverbal resources (including body language and supporting visual signs), and vocal resources (including vocal dynamics, such as pitch, loudness, intonation, accentuation, modulation, pauses, rhythm, and speech speed)(3,5,6). Other dimensions also influence the effectiveness of the presentation, such as interaction with the audience, the speaker's confidence, and the overall impact of the speech, and are frequently analyzed in evaluations of communicative performance(2,4,5).
Studies on oral communication training frequently select indicators for judges to evaluate communicative aspects before and after intervention or mentoring(3,7,8). However, there is no consensus in the scientific literature regarding the selection of these observable indicators, whether in validated instruments or in protocols without formal validation. Authors point out that the lack of uniformity highlights the diversity of criteria adopted by researchers and reinforces the need for greater efforts in constructing common parameters that favor practice and comparability between studies, contributing to the consolidation of the field(2,8,9).
Given this gap and considering exclusively evaluators/judges’ observation assessment, it is relevant to identify the indicators and measurement methods they use, aiming to offer an updated overview that supports evaluation and enables the analysis of communicative skills in public speaking.
In this context, scoping reviews play a fundamental role in mapping the available evidence, identifying research gaps, and guiding new studies and practices(10,11). This approach makes it possible to recognize the most convergent indicators among studies for evaluating the skills that need improvement in speakers in future public speaking assessments(2,12).
Hence, this study aimed to map the indicators used to observe adults' public speaking and to identify the measurement methods.
METHODS
Research strategy
This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews(11), as described in the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The protocol for this scoping review was registered in the Open Science Framework (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7VKR4).
The study was designed with the acronym PCC (P – population, C – concept, and C – context), as follows: P – adults; C – public speaking assessment by speech-language-hearing pathologists and communication instructors; and C – public speaking and studies conducted in clinical or training settings. The research question was, “What indicators are used to observe the public speaking of adults, how are they measured, and what convergences stand out among them?”.
Search
The search was conducted electronically on the LILACS (BVS), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate), and Cochrane databases. The search strategies were developed based on uniterms indexed on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS), and free terms related to PCC. They were adapted for each database, using varied combinations and the Boolean operators AND and OR to obtain the final strategies. Table 1 presents the initial search strategy used in the databases.
Selection criteria
Two reviewers conducted the data search, selection, and extraction stages independently; a third reviewer was responsible for resolving any disagreements. The searches were carried out between July and September 2024. They were restricted to indexed journals and did not include gray literature, such as theses, dissertations, papers presented at events, and institutional documents.
The review included studies on evaluators/judges’ observation assessment of public speaking in adults, published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, without restriction as to the year of publication or methodological design. The language restriction aimed to ensure feasible analysis and the team’s accurate interpretation of the findings.
Studies involving individuals with stuttering or neurological disorders, using technological or non-human assessment, focusing on foreign language teaching, or based solely on self-perception were excluded. The latter was intentional, as this scoping review aimed to map indicators observed and judged by evaluators/judges.
Data analysis
Studies were selected in two stages. The article titles, abstracts, and keywords were initially analyzed for inclusion; then, the full texts were read to apply the exclusion criteria. This process took place between August and September 2024, using the online platform Rayyan QCRI(13) for reference management and removal of duplicate studies.
The extracted data encompassed the studies’ specific details of the PCC and the main findings on the parameters used in assessing public speaking in adults. They included database, title, authors, year of publication, language, study objective, evaluation method (author-developed or validated questionnaire, with instrument identification), indicators used in public speaking analysis, response scale (Likert-type scale, numerical ordinal, or descriptive ordinal; qualitative or quantitative), and validity evidence. The extracted results were organized in a previously prepared Excel spreadsheet to facilitate data analysis and synthesis.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 3,606 articles, identified in different databases, notably Scopus and Web of Science, in addition to manual searches. After applying the eligibility criteria, 26 studies were selected for analysis. There was no disagreement between the two reviewers responsible for the screening, thus eliminating the need for a third reviewer. Nine studies identified through manual searches of references of the selected articles were also included, totaling 35 studies in this review (Figure 1). The final articles were published between 2002 and 2024, with the highest concentration in 2016, when five studies were published.
Among the indicators identified, the majority (26; 74.3%) were developed by the authors, while nine (25.7%) corresponded to validated protocols.
Table 2 shows that the most used protocol in four studies was the eight-item Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form (CSSEF), with a descriptive ordinal response scale and one open-ended question. The holistic version of the CSSEF has two items with both ordinal and descriptive response scales and was used in three studies. The Public Speaking Competency Instrument (PSCI) has 20 items, a Likert-type response scale, and was used in two studies. The Public Speaking Competence Rubric (PSCR) has 11 items, a Likert-type response scale, and was used in two studies. The Escala de Evaluación de la Competencia Oral Componente No Verbal (ECO-CNV; Spanish for Oral Competence Assessment Scale – Nonverbal Component) was found in one study in this review, has five items, and its measurement is done using a numerical ordinal scale. The protocols present a diversity of indicators, some grouped by major domains, others evaluated in isolation. Most instruments assess the discourse structure, considering the introduction, body, organization, and conclusion, with specific subdivisions that include clarity and objectivity. The instruments often assess supporting resources, although with different nomenclatures. Only one instrument did not include this indicator.
The instruments assess language with at least one indicator, encompassing aspects such as careful word choice, adaptation to the audience, argumentation (such as persuasion or credibility), good pronunciation, and fluency of speech (such as pauses and interjections).
All instruments include nonverbal behaviors, such as gestures, eye contact, body posture, body expressiveness, and facial expressions.
Most instruments analyzed include indicators related to vocal expressiveness, especially word articulation, speech rate, volume, tone of voice, vocal plasticity, and speech rhythm.
In two instruments, the evaluator can record a qualitative observation at the end of the evaluation, while only one includes a quantitative judgment of overall competence.
Table 3 shows a description of the indicators from the 26 studies that used non-validated instruments, with their respective response categories. Indicators focused recurrently on structural aspects of discourse, such as introduction (n = 3; 11.5%), organization (n = 10; 38.5%), clarity of ideas (n = 4; 15.4%), and conclusion (n = 1; 3.8%). Regarding nonverbal behaviors, eye contact (n = 17; 65.4%), gestures (n = 14; 53.8%), body posture (n = 11; 42.3%), and facial expressions (n = 8; 30.8%) stood out. In the language domain, six studies addressed language appropriateness to the audience (n = 6; 23.1%). In the domain of vocal expressiveness, the most frequent indicators were volume (n = 14; 53.8%), rhythm (n = 4; 15.4%), tone (n = 8; 30.8%), and articulation (n = 8; 30.8%). Other observed aspects included the quality of the theme (n = 1; 3.8%) and the use of supporting materials (n = 5; 19.2%). The instruments use different response scale formats (Table 4), including Likert-type scales (n = 11; 42.3%), numerical scales (n = 8; 30.8%), descriptive ordinal scales (n = 5; 19.2%), yes/no scales (n = 5; 19.2%), and visual analog scales (n = 2; 7.7%), with simple scores or weighted averages. Some instruments allow raters to record qualitative (n = 7; 26.9%) and quantitative (n = 2; 7.7%) observations at the end of the assessment.
Description of the response categories and analysis methods of the validated and non-validated instruments identified in the studies
DISCUSSION
The analysis of the 35 studies included in this scoping review revealed a diversity of indicators. They are mostly proposed by the authors or adapted from existing protocols, with a proportionally smaller number of previously validated tools(4,14-21). This finding points to an important methodological gap that reinforces the importance of standardizing assessment indicators(15,44).
The predominance of assessment indicators developed by the researchers can be attributed to two factors: the need to adapt the indicators to cultural specificities and the intention to broaden the evaluative scope, including more assessment dimensions. Public speaking involves various skills, and encompassing them in a single instrument is a challenging task, which hinders its systematization and makes its reproducibility in other scientific studies more complex(2,4,16,44).
Despite the heterogeneous terminology, the studies used common evaluative indicators, regardless of whether they were author-developed or from validated instruments. They converge around four main domains: discourse structure, nonverbal behaviors, vocal expressiveness, and language, also considering supporting resources and presentation time. Discourse structure recurrently includes indicators such as introduction, organization of ideas, clarity, and conclusion, demonstrating concern for coherence and logical organization in public speaking(7,19-21,29). An effective introduction is responsible for capturing the audience's attention, arousing interest, establishing the speaker's credibility, and clearly presenting the communicative purpose of the discourse(7,19,21,29). The organization of ideas refers to the logical structure of the content, which facilitates the understanding of the progression of thought and contributes to the cohesion of the discourse through clear transitions between its parts(3,20-23). Clarity is associated with the use of accessible language, making the message understandable to the target audience(21,29). Finally, the conclusion reiterates the main points and ends the speech with a memorable final message, helping the audience to retain information(21,29).
Nonverbal behaviors also stood out, with a strong incidence of eye contact, gestures, body posture, and facial expressions, highlighting the importance of nonverbal communication for a good public presentation(5,17,22). Gestures, as an important part of nonverbal communication, are recognized as relevant indicators in the evaluation of public speaking. Studies highlight that their appropriate use helps to convey energy, engagement, and clarity in the message, positively influencing the audience's perception(3,4,24,38).
Another commonly evaluated aspect is body posture, as it reflects attitudes such as confidence, control, and professionalism, while withdrawn postures can signal insecurity or lack of preparation(3,16,21). Evidence also indicates that this element impacts the audience's perception of the speaker's involvement and authority(4,38). Similarly, facial expressions, when appropriate and aligned with the verbal content, are associated with more positive evaluations of communicative performance, as they contribute to the clarity of the message and the speaker's credibility(4,16,21). Conversely, rigid, artificial, or disconnected expressions can negatively interfere with the interpretation of the discourse and compromise its effectiveness(16,21).
Regarding vocal expressiveness, the volume and tone of voice, articulation, and rhythm stood out, reflecting the importance of voice in conveying a message(8,25,40,42). Vocal expressiveness comprises various elements that influence clarity, impact, and audience engagement during an oral presentation. Adequate volume allows the speech to be heard clearly and helps maintain audience interest, especially when associated with variations in intensity throughout the speech(21). Rhythm also plays an important role, reflecting fluency and naturalness in delivery. When used with variation, it provides dynamism and avoids monotony(4). Variation in tone of voice helps to highlight ideas and contributes to audience engagement by avoiding monotonous vocal patterns(21). Clear articulation is essential for speech intelligibility and is considered a marker of communicative competence(19). Although indicators such as volume, tone, articulation, and rhythm were the most frequent, other instruments also observed elements such as pauses, speech rate, intonation, resonance, vocal psychodynamics, melodic curve, vocal projection, emphasis, and fundamental frequency. Although less frequently mentioned, they play a central role in constructing communicative expressiveness and deserve greater attention in future assessment models.
Language proficiency was also widely considered, with indicators related to word choice, content adaptation to the audience, argumentation, and speech fluency – important aspects to ensure that the message is understood, persuasive, and appropriate to the communicative context(2). The appropriate choice of words, vocabulary, and grammar promotes clarity and audience engagement, allowing the message to be understood more easily and with greater impact(21,23,29,31). Furthermore, adapting the content to the audience and the context of the presentation helps to establish a more effective connection between the speaker and listeners, making the speech more meaningful and accessible(14,21,23,29,32). Argumentation, in turn, involves the selection of relevant ideas and their logical organization, using examples and analogies to support the communicative purpose of the speech(16,23,32,43). Speech fluency, characterized by continuity, naturalness, and the absence of excessive interruptions or hesitations, reflects the speaker's preparation and mastery of the content(2,4). When integrated, these elements enhance the persuasive potential of the presentation and ensure that the message is appropriate to the communicative context.
Some indicators identified in the analyzed instruments contribute to a broader understanding of public speaking performance. In turn, the overall evaluation of the speech captures a holistic impression of the performance, integrating multiple subjective dimensions of the discourse(24). Indicators such as the emotion conveyed, spontaneity, and delivery point to authenticity, emotional involvement, and naturalness, connecting with the audience and increasing the impact of the message(3,16). The mention of anxiety in front of an audience reveals the influence of internal emotional aspects on performance, which can interfere with fluency and expressiveness, even in well-prepared speakers(2). These elements, although not grouped into recurring domains, contribute to a broader and more sensitive understanding of communicative competence in real public speaking contexts.
Furthermore, the studies used response scales heterogeneously. The 5-point Likert scale, the most recurrent, has been widely used to assess public speaking because it measures important subjective aspects such as clarity, organization, expressiveness, and engagement(2,4,16,24,26). It is an ordinal scale that captures nuances of performance and perception, being applicable in both self-assessments and assessments by observers(2). Studies have demonstrated its usefulness in structured instruments with multiple domains, enabling more precise analyses of communicative performance(4,16). Furthermore, its standardization favors comparison between groups and experimental conditions, contributing to the reproducibility of findings and the methodological quality of studies in the area(2,24,26).
This study has limitations, especially the challenge of grouping similar indicators described differently in the literature. This process may have introduced variations in analysis standardization. On the other hand, it allowed the findings to be structured into clearer and more comparable domains, favoring their systematization. Furthermore, although scoping reviews recommend not restricting languages, the search was limited to English, Portuguese, and Spanish – the languages with the widest academic circulation in the field and in which the team possesses linguistic competence for critical analysis. This choice sought to ensure consistent data selection and interpretation, although it may have reduced the scope of the findings. The search focused on indexed databases, excluding grey literature due to operational constraints, which may have limited the scope of the mapping. Future reviews should include this type of source to obtain more thorough evidence.
CONCLUSION
This scoping review identified recurring indicators in the evaluation of public speaking: discourse structure (introduction, development, organization, clarity, conclusion), use of supporting resources, language (appropriateness to the audience, argumentation, pronunciation, fluency), nonverbal behaviors (eye contact, gestures, posture, facial expressiveness), and vocal expressiveness (volume, rhythm, tone, articulation, modulation). Several forms of measurement were observed, with the predominant use of the Likert-type scale. Furthermore, the indicators lacked terminological standardization, posing a challenge for their systematization.
-
Study conducted at Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Fonoaudiológicas (Doutorado), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG - Belo Horizonte (MG), Brasil.
-
Financial support:
CAPES (88887.899755/2023-00).
-
Data Availability:
The research data is available in the body of the article.
References
-
1 Rifah L, Sabilah F. Augmenting English public speaking skill through peer evaluation: a case study in Toastmaster International Club. J Engl Foreign Lang. 2022;12(1):138-58. http://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v12i1.3113
» http://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v12i1.3113 -
2 Marinho ACF, Medeiros AM, Lima EP, Teixeira LC. Instrumentos de avaliação e autoavaliação da fala em público: uma revisão integrativa da literatura. Audiol Commun Res. 2022;27:e2539. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2021-2539
» http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2021-2539 -
3 Ramos ID, Thorkelson TS. Speech delivery: factors influencing students’ perceptions versus reality in South Korea. MEXTESOL J. 2022;46(3):1-14. http://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n3-1
» http://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v46n3-1 -
4 Liu T, Aryadoust V. Orchestrating teacher, peer, and self-feedback to enhance learners’ cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement and public speaking competence. Behav Sci. 2024;14(8):725. http://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080725 PMid:39199121.
» http://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080725 -
5 Michelson T, Peleg S. Audio-visual evaluation of oratory skills. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision; 2021 Sep 20-22; Laguna Hills, CA. Proceedigs. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2021.http://doi.org/10.1109/TransAI51903.2021.00026
» http://doi.org/10.1109/TransAI51903.2021.00026 - 6 Sacavém A, Kyrillos L, Jung M, Brieu T. Escute, expresse e fale! Domine a comunicação e seja um líder poderoso. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco; 2023. Comunicação é construção; p. 40–41.
-
7 Prosenjak B, Lučev I. The impact of peer assessment on the attainment level of oral presentations skills. Language Value. 2020;12(1):30-55. http://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2020.12.3
» http://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2020.12.3 -
8 Santos TD, Ferreira LP. Expressividade do profissional da voz: processo de construção de um roteiro fonoaudiológico de observação. CoDAS. 2020;32(2):e20190121. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20192019121 PMid:32215472.
» http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20192019121 -
9 Borrego MCM, Behlau M. Mapeamento do eixo condutor da prática fonoaudiológica em expressividade verbal no trabalho de competência comunicativa. CoDAS. 2018;30(6):e20180054. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018054 PMid:30517272.
» http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018054 -
10 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73. http://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 PMid:30178033.
» http://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 -
11 Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, Mcinerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Manual JBI para síntese de evidências. Adelaide: JBI; 2020. http://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
» http://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 -
12 Biancardi B, Chollet M, Clavel C. Introducing the 3MT_French dataset to investigate the timing of public speaking judgements. Lang Resour Eval. 2024;59(1):371-90. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-023-09709-5
» http://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-023-09709-5 -
13 Rayyan. Rayyan: Intelligent Systematic Review [Internet]. Cambridge, MA: Rayyan Systems Inc.; 2024 [citado em 2025 Jul 2]. Disponível em: https://www.rayyan.ai
» https://www.rayyan.ai -
14 Thomson S, Rucker ML. The development of a specialized public speaking competency scale: test of reliability. Commun Res Rep. 2002;19(1):18-28. http://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384828
» http://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384828 -
15 Feng G, Joe J, Kitchen C, Mao L, Roohr KC, Chen L. A proof-of-concept study on scoring oral presentation videos in higher education. ETS Research Report Series. 2019;2019(22):1-18. http://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12256
» http://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12256 -
16 Schreiber LM, Paul GD, Shibley LR. The development and test of the public speaking competence rubric. Commun Educ. 2012;61(3):205-33. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.670709
» http://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.670709 -
17 Roso-Bas F, Pades-Jiménez A, Ferrer-Pérez VA. Competencia comunicativa: validación de una escala para evaluar la comunicación no verbal durante el discurso. Estud Sobre Educ. 2017;32:95-113. http://doi.org/10.15581/004.32.95-113
» http://doi.org/10.15581/004.32.95-113 -
18 Ibrahim AH, Alwi NANM. Public speaking for engineering students in a blended learning environment. In: 2017 IEEE 7th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF); 2017 Nov 13-16; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Proceedings. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2017. http://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF.2017.8466978
» http://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF.2017.8466978 -
19 Kassim H, Osman N, Abdullah A. Creative strategy: a pilot evaluation of a hypothetical learning model through public speaking performance. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2015;171:919-28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.210
» http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.210 -
20 Dunbar NE, Brooks CF, Kubicka-Miller T. Oral communication skills in higher education: using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills. Innovative High Educ. 2006;31(2):115-33. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9012-x
» http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9012-x - 21 Morreale S, Moore M, Surges-Tatum D, Webster L. The competent speaker speech evaluation form. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Communication Association; 2007.
-
22 Chollet M, Scherer S. Assessing public speaking ability from thin slices of behavior. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2017); 2017 May 30-Jun 3; Washington, DC. Proceedings. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2017. p. 310-317. http://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2017.45
» http://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2017.45 -
23 Hayne AN, McDaniel GS. Presentation rubric: improving faculty professional presentations. Nurs Forum. 2013;48(4):289-94. http://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12043 PMid:24188441.
» http://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12043 -
24 Wörtwein T, Chollet M, Schauerte B, Morency L-P, Stiefelhagen R, Scherer S. Multimodal public speaking performance assessment. In: 2015 ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI); 2015 Nov 9-13; Seattle, WA, USA. Proceedings. New York: ACM; 2015. p. 43-50. http://doi.org/10.1145/2818346.2820762
» http://doi.org/10.1145/2818346.2820762 -
25 Neiva TMA, Gama ACC, Teixeira LC. Expressividade vocal e corporal para falar bem no telejornalismo: resultados de treinamento. Rev CEFAC. 2016;18(2):498-507. http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620161829415
» http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620161829415 -
26 Chollet M, Wörtwein T, Morency L-P, Shapiro A, Scherer S. Exploring feedback strategies to improve public speaking: An interactive virtual audience framework. In: 2015 ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI); 2015 Nov 9-13; Seattle, WA, USA. Proceedings. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2015. p. 1143-1154. http://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2806060
» http://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2806060 -
27 Schneider J, Börner D, van Rosmalen P, Specht M. Presentation Trainer: what experts and computers can tell about your nonverbal communication. J Comput Assist Learn. 2017;33(2):1-14. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12175
» http://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12175 - 28 Chollet M, Wörtwein T, Morency L-P, Scherer S. A multimodal corpus for the assessment of public speaking ability and anxiety. In: 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016); 2016 May 23-28; Portorož, Slovenia. Proceedings. Los Angeles, CA: European Language Resources Association; 2016. p. 488-495.
-
29 Regnell SE. Numerical ratings and content labeling of speeches in an educational public speaking program. Eur J Educ Res. 2023;12(2):825-35. http://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.825
» http://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.825 -
30 Pfister T, Robinson P. Speech emotion classification and public speaking skill assessment. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2010;6219:151-62. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14715-9_15
» http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14715-9_15 -
31 Mehta NKK. Evaluation of engineers’ public speaking using work sampling technique. In: IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE); 2017 Dec 12-14; Hong Kong, China. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2017. http://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013952
» http://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013952 -
32 Calle M, Soto JD, Torres L, García L, de Castro A, Candelo JE. Assessment of oral communication in senior engineering students. In: 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON); 2019 Apr 8-11; Dubai, UAE. Proceedings. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2019. p. 430-4345. http://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725239
» http://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725239 -
33 Chen L, Feng G, Joe J, Leong CW, Kitchen C, Lee CM. Towards automated assessment of public speaking skills using multimodal cues. In: 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI’14); 2014 Nov 12-16; Istanbul, Turkey. Proceedings. New York: ACM; 2014. p. 200-203. http://doi.org/10.1145/2663204.2663265
» http://doi.org/10.1145/2663204.2663265 -
34 Angélico AP, Bauth MF, Andrade AK. Estudo experimental do falar em público com e sem plateia em universitários. Psico-USF. 2018;23(2):347-59. http://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712018230213
» http://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712018230213 -
35 Rodríguez-Cáceres MI, Acedo-Valenzuela MI, Mora-Díez N, Palomino-Vasco M, Rodríguez-Gómez D, Albarrán Velo J, et al. Pilot project for the development of public speaking skills in students of 4th year for the degree in chemistry. In: 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies; 2016 July 4-6; Barcelona, Spain. Proceedings. Barcelona: International Academy of Technology, Education and Development; 2016. p. 6757-6766. http://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0463
» http://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0463 -
36 Sautter EP, Zúñiga MA. The video cover letter: embedded assessment of oral communication skills. Qual Assur Educ. 2018;26(4):423-9. http://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2018-0034
» http://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2018-0034 -
37 Celeste LC, Lima AM, Seixas JMA, Silva MA, Silva EM. Treinamento da performance comunicativa em universitários da área da saúde. Audiol Commun Res. 2018;23(0):e1879. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2017-1879
» http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2017-1879 -
38 Batrinca L, Stratou G, Shapiro A, Morency LP, Scherer S. Cicero - Towards a multimodal virtual audience platform for public speaking training. In: Intelligent Virtual Agents; 2013 Aug 29-31; Edinburgh, UK. Proceedings. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 116-128. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_10
» http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40415-3_10 -
39 Osma J, Álvarez C, Barrada JR, Castilla D, Castro A, Jiménez-Muro A, et al. Training, practice, and assessment of student’s public speaking competence in the General Health Psychology Master. In: EDULEARN17 Conference; 2017 Jul 3-5; Barcelona, Spain. Proceedings. Barcelona: International Academy of Technology, Education and Development; 2017. p. 3061-65. http://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.1646
» http://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.1646 - 40 Ferreira LP, Arruda AF, Serrano Marquezin DMS. Expressividade oral de professoras: análise de recursos vocais. Distúrb Comun. 2012;24(2):223-37.
- 41 Romano CC, Alves LA, Secco IAO, Ricz LNA, Robazzi MLCC. A expressividade do docente universitário durante sua atuação na sala de aula: análise dos recursos verbais utilizados e suas implicações para a enfermagem. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011;19(5):1-9. PMid:22030584.
-
42 Marquezin DMSS, Viola I, Ghirardi ACAM, Madureira S, Ferreira LP. Expressividade da fala de executivos: análise de aspectos perceptivos e acústicos da dinâmica vocal. CoDAS. 2015;27(2):160-9. http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014188 PMid:26107082.
» http://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014188 -
43 Schneider J, Börner D, van Rosmalen P, Specht M. Enhancing public speaking skills: an evaluation of the presentation trainer in the Wild. In: Verbert K, Sharples M, Klobučar T, editors. Lecture notes in computer science. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 263–76. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_20
» http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_20 -
44 Nadolski RJ, Hummel HGK, Rusman E, Ackermans K. Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2021;69(5):2663-82. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7
» http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7
Edited by
-
Editor:
Aline Mansueto Mourão.
The research data is available in the body of the article.
Caption: n = number of studies