The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science
Open accessAbstract
Different diagnostic tools have been developed and used by researchers to identify students' conceptions. The present study aimed to provide an overview of the common diagnostic instruments in science to assess students' misconceptions. Also the study provides a brief comparison of these common diagnostic instruments with their strengths and weaknesses. A total of 273 articles published (from the year 1980 to 2014) in main journals were investigated thoroughly through document analysis method. The study reveals interviews (53%), open-ended tests (34%), multiple-choice tests (32%) and multiple tier tests (13%) as the most commonly used diagnostic tools. However, each tool has some advantages as well as disadvantages over the others that should be kept in mind in their usages. A careful user of a diagnostic instrument such as a classroom teacher or a researcher would be aware of the diagnostic instruments and selects the most effective one for his/her purposes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990) · Cited by 14,529
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235
Measurement and evaluation in teaching
Gronlund, N. E. (1965) · Cited by 1,425
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267808559857 · Cited by 1,056
Learning in science : the implications of children's science
Freyberg, P. S., & Osborne, R. J. (1985) · Heinemann eBooks · Cited by 1,004
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9780203761342 · Cited by 894
Teaching More by Lecturing Less
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005) · Cell Biology Education · doi:10.1187/05-06-0082 · Cited by 873
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18863 · Cited by 799
Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., Hieggelke, C. J., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1371296 · Cited by 677
Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs
Beichner, R. J. (1994) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.17449 · Cited by 624
Cited by
Anggoro, S., Widodo, A., Suhandi, A., & Treagust, D. F. (2019) · EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education · doi:10.29333/ejmste/105275 · Cited by 35
Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2021) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-019-09881-1 · Cited by 24
Parker, M. J., & Zavala-Cerna, M. G. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-13902-8
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaltakci Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C.
- Venue
- EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
- Publisher
- Modestum Publishing Ltd
- Published
- 2015-10-29
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 1305-8215 (ISSN-L)
- 1305-8223
- OpenAlex
- W2472851532
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 59.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
- The paper
- Kaltakci Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
