- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Exploring gender differences in the Force Concept Inventory using a random effects meta-analysis of international studies

Purwoko Haryadi Santoso1,2, Bayu Setiaji3, Wahyudi1, Johan Syahbrudin1,7, Syamsul Bahri1,4, Fathurrahman1,5, A. Suci Rizky Ananda6, and Yusuf Sodhiqin6

  • 1Department of Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman 55281, Indonesia
  • 2Department of Physics Education, Universitas Sulawesi Barat, Majene 91413, Indonesia
  • 3Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman 55281, Indonesia
  • 4Department of Physics Education, Universitas Musamus, Merauke 99611, Indonesia
  • 5Department of Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Muhammadiyah Sorong, Sorong 98418, Indonesia
  • 6Department of Educational Technology, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman 55281, Indonesia
  • 7Department of Informatics Engineering, Universitas Pamulang, Banten 15310, Indonesia

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010601 – Published 10 April, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010601

Abstract

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ g statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (107)

  1. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  2. T. O. B. Odden, A. Marin, and M. D. Caballero, Thematic analysis of 18 years of physics education research conference proceedings using natural language processing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010142 (2020).
  3. E. Yun, Review of trends in physics education research using topic modeling, J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 19, 388 (2020).
  4. P. H. Santoso, E. Istiyono, Haryanto, and W. Hidayatulloh, Thematic analysis of Indonesian physics education research literature using machine learning, Data (Basel) 7, 147 (2022).
  5. S. B. McKagan, L. E. Strubbe, L. J. Barbato, B. A. Mason, A. M. Madsen, and E. C. Sayre, PhysPort use and growth: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources since 2011, Phys. Teach. 58, 465 (2020).
  6. Learning Assistant Alliance, Learning About STEM Student Outcomes (LASSO)—Instruments, https://lassoeducation.org/instruments/.
  7. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  8. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  9. D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van, Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  10. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2 (2006).
  11. P. Heller and D. Huffman, Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun, Phys. Teach. 33, 503 (1995).
  12. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
  13. P. Eaton and S. Willoughby, Identifying a preinstruction to postinstruction factor model for the Force Concept Inventory within a Multitrait Item Response Theory Framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010106 (2020).
  14. P. Eaton, B. Frank, and S. Willoughby, Detecting the influence of item chaining on student responses to the Force Concept Inventory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020122 (2020).
  15. Y. Shoji, S. Munejiri, and E. Kaga, Validity of Force Concept Inventory evaluated by students’ explanations and confirmation using modified item response curve, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020120 (2021).
  16. J. I. Yasuda, N. Mae, M. M. Hull, and M. A. Taniguchi, Optimizing the length of computerized adaptive testing for the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010115 (2021).
  17. J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  18. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  19. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  20. A. Reinhard, A. Felleson, P. C. Turner, and M. Green, Assessing the impact of metacognitive postreflection exercises on problem-solving skillfulness, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010109 (2022).
  21. A. Traxler, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, A. Papak, and R. Lindell, Gender fairness within the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010103 (2018).
  22. J. Wang and L. Bao, Analyzing Force Concept Inventory with item response theory, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1064 (2010).
  23. J. Stewart, C. Zabriskie, S. Devore, and G. Stewart, Multidimensional item response theory and the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010137 (2018).
  24. C. Fazio and O. R. Battaglia, Conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics through cluster analysis of FCI student answers, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 17, 1497 (2019).
  25. J. Yang, J. Wells, R. Henderson, E. Christman, G. Stewart, and J. Stewart, Extending modified module analysis to include correct responses: Analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010124 (2020).
  26. J. Wells, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, J. Yang, and A. Traxler, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force Concept Inventory with Modified Module Analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020122 (2019).
  27. C. Zabriskie, J. Yang, S. Devore, and J. Stewart, Using machine learning to predict physics course outcomes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020120 (2019).
  28. J. Yang, S. Devore, D. Hewagallage, P. Miller, Q. X. Ryan, and J. Stewart, Using machine learning to identify the most at-risk students in physics classes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020130 (2020).
  29. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995).
  30. D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller, Phys. Teach. 33, 502 (1995).
  31. T. F. Scott, D. Schumayer, and A. R. Gray, Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020105 (2012).
  32. P. Eaton, Evidence of measurement invariance across gender for the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010130 (2021).
  33. R. Henderson, J. Stewart, and A. Traxler, Partitioning the gender gap in physics conceptual inventories: Force Concept Inventory, Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010131 (2019).
  34. M. Mears, Gender differences in the Force Concept Inventory for different educational levels in the United Kingdom, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020135 (2019).
  35. M. Dew, J. Perry, L. Ford, W. Bassichis, and T. Erukhimova, Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106 (2021).
  36. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15 (2019).
  37. J. M. Nissen, Gender differences in self-efficacy states in high school physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 013102 (2019).
  38. M. R. Stoeckel and G. H. Roehrig, Gender differences in classroom experiences impacting self-efficacy in an AP Physics 1 classroom, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020102 (2021).
  39. K. Wilson, D. Low, M. Verdon, and A. Verdon, Differences in gender performance on competitive physics selection tests, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020111 (2016).
  40. M. J. Gladys, J. E. Furst, J. L. Holdsworth, and P. C. Dastoor, Gender bias in first-year multiple-choice physics examinations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020109 (2023).
  41. D. Doucette and C. Singh, Gender equity in physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010102 (2024).
  42. R. R. Hake, Relationship of Individual Student Normalized Learning Gains in Mechanics with Gender, High-School Physics, and Pretest Scores on Mathematics and Spatial Visualization, in Physics Education Research Conference (American Association of Physics Teachers, Boise, Idaho, 2002), https://web.physics.indiana.edu/hake/PERC2002h-Hake.pdf.
  43. L. McCullough, Gender Differences in Student Responses to Physics Conceptual Questions Based on Question Context, in ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda in Education, the Workplace and Society (University of Wisconsin-Stout, Stout, WI, 2011).
  44. S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107 (2007).
  45. L. McCullough, Gender, Math, and the FCI Relations, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, Boise, Idaho (AIP, New York, 2002).
  46. M. A. A. Bahtaji, Examining the physics conceptions, science engagement and misconceptions of undergraduate students in STEM, J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 22, 10 (2023).
  47. E. H. A Razzaq, To What Extent Do Engineering Students Master and Retain an Understanding of Newtonian Mechanics throughout Their University Life (Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus, 2014).
  48. P. Bazelais and T. Doleck, Investigating the impact of blended learning on academic performance in a first semester college physics course, J. Comput. Educ. 5, 67 (2018).
  49. M. H. Doherty, The Effect of Daily Graded Reflective Journaling on Gains in Conceptual Understanding and the Scientific Attitude Toward Conceptual Understanding for High School Students Studying Newtonian Mechanics (University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, 2010).
  50. R. J. Henderson, An Exploration of Diversity and Inclusion in Introductory Physics (West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 2018).
  51. R. Henderson, G. Stewart, J. Stewart, L. Michaluk, and A. Traxler, Exploring the gender gap in the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020114 (2017).
  52. N. I. Karim, Impact of Evidence-Based Active-Engagement Courses on Student Performance and Gender Gap in Introductory Physics (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 2018).
  53. N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010117 (2018).
  54. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  55. T. D. W. Majors, Conceptual physics differences by pedagogy and gender: Questioning the deficit model (Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee, 2015).
  56. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, The impact of stereotype threat on gender gap in introductory physics, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.059.
  57. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Does stereotype threat affect female students’ performance in introductory physics?, AIP Conf. Proc. 2109, 120001 (2019).
  58. L. McCullough, Gender, context, and physics assessment, J. Intl. Womens Stud. 5, 20 (2004), https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1545&context=jiws.
  59. S. E. O. Popp, D. E. Meltzer, and C. M. Romanowiez, Is the force concept inventory biased? investigating differential item functioning on a test of conceptual learning in physics, in Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2011).
  60. M. Normandeau, S. Iyengar, and B. Newling, The presence of gender disparity on the Force Concept Inventory in a sample of Canadian undergraduate students, Can. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 8 (2017).
  61. S. R. Wheeler and M. R. Blanchard, Contextual choices in online physics problems: Promising insights into closing the gender gap, Front. Psychol. 10, 594 (2019).
  62. J. E. Fishwild, Modeling Instruction and the Nature of Science (University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, WI, 2005).
  63. N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Do evidence-based active-engagement courses reduce the gender gap in introductory physics?, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025701 (2018).
  64. R. Henderson and J. Stewart, Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Force Concept Inventory, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.038.
  65. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).
  66. S. Bates, R. Donnelly, C. MacPhee, D. Sands, M. Birch, and N. R. Walet, Gender differences in conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics: A UK cross-institution comparison, Eur. J. Phys. 34, 421 (2012).
  67. J. R. Persson, Gender differences in Norwegian engineering students’understanding of Newtonian mechanics, Uniped 43, 19 (2020).
  68. M. S. Al-Rsa’i, J. M. Khoshman, and A. K. Tayeh, Jordanian pre-service physics teacher’s misconceptions about force and motion, Turkish J. Sci. Educ. 17, 528 (2020), https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/1245.
  69. H. N. Bani-Salameh, M. Nuseirat, and K. A. Alkofahi, Performance gap among male and female college students measured with the Force Concept Inventory, IOSR J. Appl. Phys. 9, 11 (2017), https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue2/Version-2/C0902021113.pdf.
  70. G. W. Fulmer, Validating proposed learning progressions on force and motion using the Force Concept Inventory: Findings from Singapore secondary schools, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 13, 1235 (2015).
  71. N. Koca and N. Sulaiman, Comparing science and engineering students using the Force Concept Inventory in introductory physics courses, Sultan Qaboos Univ. J. Sci. 26, 67 (2021).
  72. M. Negishi, A cross-cultural, multilevel study of inquiry-based instruction effects on conceptual understanding and motivation in physics (United States, Japan), Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Mississippi State University, Mississippi, 2007).
  73. N. S. Rahim and S. K. Ayop, Performance Of Diploma Of Science Students At Upsi In Force Concept Inventory, in International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Sciences (ICRIEMS) (Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman, Special District of Yogyakarta, 2014), pp. 129–136.
  74. V. Seyranian, A. Madva, N. Duong, N. Abramzon, Y. Tibbetts, and J. M. Harackiewicz, The longitudinal effects of stem identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college physics, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 40 (2018).
  75. D. Temizkan, The effect of gender on different categories of students’ misconceptions about force and motion, thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2003.
  76. R. D. N. P. Chandrasena, Students’ conceptual understanding and misconceptions on force and motion through different instruments combined with certainty response index (CRI), thesis, University of Peradeniya, 2014.
  77. U. Malik, Effect of multiple choice question format on student performance, in Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (University of Sydney, Sydney, 2020).
  78. E. Carleschi, A. Chrysostomou, A. S. Cornell, and W. Naylor, Probing the effect on student conceptual understanding due to a forced mid-semester transition to online teaching, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 035702 (2022).
  79. A. Chrysostomou, A. S. Cornell, and W. Naylor, A three-year comparative study of dominant misconceptions among first-year physics students at a South African university, Phys. Educ. 59, 015036 (2024).
  80. A. Iraji Zad, F. Roshani, and D. Izadi, Improving the status of Iranian women in physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 060024 (2015).
  81. M. Mohsen, H. Hosni, H. Mohamed, A. Gadalla, H. Kahil, and H. Hashem, Egyptian women in physics: Progress and challenges, AIP Conf. Proc. 1697, 060015 (2015).
  82. S. Moshfeghyeganeh and Z. Hazari, Effect of culture on women physicists’ career choice: A comparison of muslim majority countries and the west, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17 (2021).
  83. E. Chan, D. Di, and E. H. Ecklund, Scientists explain the underrepresentation of women in physics compared to biology in four national contexts, Gend. Work Organ. 31, 399 (2023).
  84. H. Ayalon and I. Livneh, Educational standardization and gender differences in mathematics achievement: A comparative study, Soc. Sci. Res. 42, 432 (2013).
  85. N. Mikolajewicz and S. V. Komarova, Meta-analytic methodology for basic research: A practical guide, Front. Physiol. 10, 344709 (2019).
  86. S. Khan, Meta-Analysis (Springer, Singapore, 2020).
  87. M. Borenstein, L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein, A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis, Res. Synth. Methods 1, 97 (2010).
  88. R. D. Riley, J. P. T. Higgins, and J. J. Deeks, Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses, Brit. Med. J. 342, 964 (2011).
  89. M. Harrer, P. Cuijpers, T. A. Furukawa, and D. D. Ebert, Doing Meta-Analysis With R: A Hands-On Guide (Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2021).
  90. M. Gusenbauer and N. R. Haddaway, Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources, Res. Synth. Methods 11, 181 (2020).
  91. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 1988).
  92. M. Borenstein, L. V Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, and H. R. Rothstein, Introduction to Meta-Analysis (Wiley, New York, 2009).
  93. W. Viechtbauer, Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor, J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1 (2010).
  94. O. M. Dekkers, Meta-analysis: Key features, potentials and misunderstandings, Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost 2, 658 (2018).
  95. M. Richardson, P. Garner, and S. Donegan, Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial, Clin. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 7, 192 (2019).
  96. L. M. Spineli and N. Pandis, Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Subgroup analysis. Part 1, Am. J. Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics 158, 302 (2020).
  97. R. Rosenthal, The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results, Psychol. Bull. 86, 638 (1979).
  98. N. A. Card, Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science (Guilford Press, New York, 2012).
  99. H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, and J. C. Valentine, The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 3rd Ed. (Russel Sage Foundations, New York, 2019).
  100. F. Siddiq and R. Scherer, Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students’ ICT literacy, Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 205 (2019).
  101. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Why female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors do not identify with physics: They do not think others see them that way, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020148 (2019).
  102. R. M. Lock and Z. Hazari, Discussing underrepresentation as a means to facilitating female students’ physics identity development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020101 (2016).
  103. K. P. Dabney and R. H. Tai, Comparative analysis of female physicists in the physical sciences: Motivation and background variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010104 (2014).
  104. E. M. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  105. Z. Hazari, G. Potvin, R. M. Lock, F. Lung, G. Sonnert, and P. M. Sadler, Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020115 (2013).
  106. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020119 (2018).
  107. F. Drasgow, C. D. Nye, S. Stark, and O. S. Chernyshenko, Differential Item and Test Functioning, in The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing: A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development, edited by P. Irwing, T. Booth, and D. J. Hughes (Wiley Blackwell, New York, 2018), pp. 885–899.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010601– Published 10 April, 2024
  • Received 17 February 2023
  • Revised 11 February 2024
  • Accepted 11 March 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation