PhysPort Assessments: Survey of Physics Reasoning on Uncertainty Concepts in Experiments

Assessments »Survey of Physics Reasoning on Uncertainty Concepts in Experiments

Survey of Physics Reasoning on Uncertainty Concepts in Experiments (SPRUCE)

Developed by Michael Vignal, Gayle Geschwind, Marcos D. Caballero, Heather Lewandowski

Purpose	To determine how students handle measurement uncertainty across ten different areas of this subject in intro to upper-level undergraduate physics laboratory courses.
Format	Pre/post, Multiple-choice, Multiple-response, Short answer
Duration	N/A min
Focus	Lab skills (Measurement Uncertainty)
Level	Upper-level, Intermediate, Intro college

Get it

Get This Assessment

To use the assessment, please fill out the course instructor survey found at (https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_86e8eBvDZxs4mb4). More information can be found on our website (https://jila.colorado.edu/lewandowski/research/spruce-instructors-0)

Examples
Resources
Scoring
Research
Translations
Versions

Examples

Example question from the SPRUCE:

Resources

SPRUCE Implementation and Troubleshooting Guide

Everything you need to know about implementing the SPRUCE in your class.

SPRUCE: Developer's website

M. Vignal, G. Geschwind, B. Pollard, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Survey of physics reasoning on uncertainty concepts in experiments: An assessment of measurement uncertainty for introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19 (2) 020139 (2023).

Research

RESEARCH VALIDATION
more details

Silver Validation
This is the second highest level of research validation, corresponding to at least 5 of the validation categories below.

Research Validation Summary

Based on Research Into:

Student thinking

Studied Using:

Student interviews
Expert review
Appropriate statistical analysis

Research Conducted:

At multiple institutions
By multiple research groups
Peer-reviewed publication

SPRUCE was developed in a multi-stage process. First, instructor interviews were conducted to determine the areas of measurement uncertainty important to them. Next, the assessment was created and went through several rounds of iterations with beta testing and student interviews. Finally, a novel scoring scheme was developed. Research has detailed student understanding of comparing measurements with uncertainty, showing a difference in how they respond to two isomorphic questions with different representations.

References

G. Geschwind, M. Vignal, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Using a research-based assessment instrument to explore undergraduate students’ proficiencies around measurement uncertainty in physics lab contexts, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 (2) 020105 (2024).
G. Geschwind, M. Vignal, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Evidence for validity and reliability of a research-based assessment instrument on measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 (2) 020125 (2024).
G. Geschwind, M. Vignal, and H. Lewandowski, Representational differences in how students compare measurements, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2023, Sacramento, CA, 2023.
B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, R. Henderson, M. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Introductory physics lab instructors’ perspectives on measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17 (1), 010133 (2021).
M. Vignal, G. Geschwind, B. Pollard, R. Henderson, M. D. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Survey of physics reasoning on uncertainty concepts in experiments: An assessment of measurement uncertainty for introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19 (2) 020139 (2023).
M. Vignal, K. Rainey, B. Wilcox, M. Caballero, and H. Lewandowski, Affordances of Articulating Assessment Objectives in Research-based Assessment Development, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 2022.

Translations

We don't have any translations of this assessment yet.

If you know of a translation that we don't have yet, or if you would like to translate this assessment, please contact us!

Scoring

Typical Results
Typical scores are about 50% overall, with varying distributions for scores within each assessment objective. Typical scores from Geschwind et al. 2024: Pretest (blue) and post-test (orange) overall scores on SPRUCE normalized to 100. In aggregate, students improve from pretest to post-test, as can be seen by the clear shift in the histogram. The distributions themselves are considered normal, with skewness and kurtosis levels for both pre- and post-test distributions well within the limits of normality and Anderson-Darling tests showing that both distributions are normal to a significance level of 1.0%. The ranges of scores show that SPRUCE does not suffer from ceiling or floor effects in the overall score.

Typical Results

Typical scores are about 50% overall, with varying distributions for scores within each assessment objective. Typical scores from Geschwind et al. 2024:

Pretest (blue) and post-test (orange) overall scores on SPRUCE normalized to 100. In aggregate, students improve from pretest to post-test, as can be seen by the clear shift in the histogram. The distributions themselves are considered normal, with skewness and kurtosis levels for both pre- and post-test distributions well within the limits of normality and Anderson-Darling tests showing that both distributions are normal to a significance level of 1.0%. The ranges of scores show that SPRUCE does not suffer from ceiling or floor effects in the overall score.

Versions

The latest version of the SPRUCE, released in 2023, is version 1. Several pilot versions were tested in 2022.

Related Expert Recommendations

Which laboratory skills research-based assessment should I use in my class? Administering research-based assessments online How are research-based assessment instruments developed and validated?

Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources