Relationships between High Ability (Gifted) and Flow in Music Performers: Pilot Study Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This papers compares the results in the scale Estado de Fluidez para Intérpretes Musicales (EFIM) between a grup os high ability (HA) participants and a grup of non-HA.

Results show statistical differences in the consciousness subscale, but not in the rest of subscales, or on the total scale.

Although this lack of significative differences, the authors discuss appropiately the results. And, given the lack of empirical studies in the field of HA, the paper brings an interesting contribution, and it opens the door to future new research.

The analysis are appropiate, and are correctly conducted. Nevertheless, maybe there is some more information that hasn't been fully exploited.

The age of participants is very heterogeneous (14-65 years old). Have authors tried to find differences in flow results of HA participants depending on age?

Probably, there is also certain heterogeneity in the number of years of experience as music. Have authors tried to find differences in flow results of HA participants depending on this variable?

If these analysis can be conducted (maybe increasing the sample size), the paper would improve its quality.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 provide a comparison of results depending on music style, sex and key situation. These tables include results of all the sample.
Have authors tried to calculate those results with just the HA sample?
Although general population is also interesting, I think that a strength of the paper is to include a sample of HA participants. So, I think that it would be interesting to calculate those results just for HA participants.

Finally, I have some suggestions regarding formal issues.

Line 33. It should be indicated the Ministry of Education os Spain.

Lines 146-153. This information about the instrument must be removed from "introduction" and located at "instrument" section.

Line 259. "This is a relatively 258 small value, but it reflects a relationship between the two variables".
Should "variables" be replaced by "conditions", or "groups"?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for the sent research article. The research objective of your study is very interesting and novel, so from the standpoint of creativity I would like to congratulate you for your research idea. But the research operationalization still holds place for much improvement.

Abstract: It would be advisable to explain in which country your study was executed, because this is important contextual factor for explaining theoretical backgrounds of defining HA individuals.

Keywords: I would suggest replacing "learning" with a key word: musicians or music

Theoretical background: The references use in theoretical backgrounds are quite outdated and I would suggest adding more relavant contemporary studies especially in the research area of experiencing flow in musicians. The main issues that needs improvement is operationalisation of the concept of HA individuals and conceptualization of HA individuals in a frame of giftedness and talent with regard to contextual factors of the country where your study was perfiormed. First, it's important to describe more thorougly the criteria for identification of HA individuals in your country, because some countries allready include criteria of creativity and special talents in recognition of giftedness. What is a selection criteria to be included in three organizations for HA in your country? The other thing is, that eventhough you have many references from giftedness/talent research area, you don't define HA in a frame of that. It's rather confusing, because by my oppinion it's not really clear, what specifically do you mean by HA individuals. I think that theoretical backrounds should be presented more solid, interconnected and coherent.

Methods:

Participants: Was the sample selected mainly on cognitive criteria? The description of HA individuals has to be more specific and needs to include concrete social context. It is also not evident enough what is a musical background of research subjects - you talk about including participants from music schools and music conservatoires, but the age reange is very disperse (from 14 to cca. 65) and there maybe a possibility, that many developmental factors may impact your results. Maybe it would be advisable, that you include in your research analyses just youth individuals (from 14 do 24). Also just 2 years of active musical involvement is by my oppinion too low. The structure of the research sample should be by my oppinion more coherent.

Research instruments: It would be advisable to explain why in your adaptation of FSS-2 there are only 24 items and only six areas of flow were included.

Results: the used statistical methods are ok, but it would be maybe (if the characteristics of the sample are appropriate) advisable to perform step-wise moderated multiple regression, including gender, age, a kind of active musical involvement and style of music as moderating variables.

Discussion: It has a possibility of optimization, especially from the perspective of connecting gained results to more contemporary flow studies that should be added in theoretical background. Maybe it would be advisable to  point out strenghts and limitations and implications of your study.

References: Please add more contemporary references, especially from the research area of flow in musicians, flow & music.

With regard to the use of English language, I would recommend an additional proof-reading from a professional native english speaker. My impression is that some thoughts are not verbally precisely and understandably articulated, but I leave this decission to someone, who is more competent in English grammar. This is just my observation.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, you made all the suggested additions and corrections with great care, clarity and accuracy, which by my opinion adds to the final value of your research work. Thank you for your excellent work.

Kind regards