Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts Test (DIRECT)

Developed by Paula Engelhardt and Robert Beichner

Purpose To evaluate students’ understanding of a variety of direct current (DC) resistive electric circuits concepts.
Format Pre/post, Multiple-choice
Duration 30 min
Focus Electricity / Magnetism Content knowledge (DC circuits)
Level Intro college, High school
Login or Register to Download Downloads are restricted to high school and college faculty.

Sample questions from the DIRECT:

DIRECT sample question

DIRECT Implementation and Troubleshooting Guide

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

Login or register to download the implementation guide.

P. Engelhardt and R. Beichner, Students' understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72 (1), 98 (2004).
RESEARCH VALIDATION
Gold Star Validation
This is the highest level of research validation, corresponding to all seven 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

The multiple-choice questions on the DIRECT were developed based on instructional objectives, literature review and expert input. Free-response versions of the questions were given to students, and the responses were used to create the multiple-choice answers. The DIRECT was given to over 1000 students at the high school and university level across the US. Results were used to conduct appropriate statistical analyses of reliability, difficulty, discrimination and internal consistency, and some of these values were found to be above acceptable thresholds. The test was revised in response to the statistical analysis and student interviews. There is a gender-gap in scores on the DIRECT, with men outscoring women at the high school and university levels. The DIRECT has been given several universities to over 1800 students.

References

PhysPort provides translations of assessments as a service to our users, but does not endorse the accuracy or validity of translations. Assessments validated for one language and culture may not be valid for other languages and cultures.

Language Translator(s)  
Finnish Antti-Ville Hurskainen and Pekka E. Hirvonen
Greek Achilleas Kapartzianis
Spanish Luis Pérez, José N. Caraballo, Wilfredo Otaño y Raúl Portuondo

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

Login or register to download the answer key and an excel scoring and analysis tool for this assessment.


Typical Results

Typical results from Engelhardt and Beichner 2004:

Class level and structure (Researcher) DIRECT Version Pre-test Score (%) Post-test Score (%)
High school traditional (Engelhardt) 1.0   41 ± 1
University Traditional (Engelhardt) 1.0   52 ± 1
High school traditional (Engelhardt) 1.1 23 ± 7.6 36 ± 1
University traditional (Engelhardt) 1.1 34 ± 12 44 ± 1
University honors course (Sangam)     63

Coming soon: The PhysPort Assessment Data Explorer

Start learning more from your tests.

  • Get 1-click statistics
  • Compare to students like yours
  • Get practical, personalized recommendations

Learn more!

The latest version of the DIRECT, released in 1997, is version 1.2.  Engelhardt's research was conducted with versions 1.0 and 1.1.  After an initial round of testing with version 1.0, Engelhardt implemented version 1.1 which increased the number of choices for every question to five, as well as redrawing the realistic circuit diagrams to make them more clear.  Her research shows that version 1.1 is slightly more difficult than 1.0, in part because questions which were previously qualitative (e.g., "Which bulb is dimmer?") became qualitative with five available answers (e.g., "How much dimmer is bulb A than bulb B?").  Version 1.2 offers the same questions as 1.1, but with slightly clearer wording.  Version 1.2 is most appropriate for an emphasis on the quantitative aspects of circuits, whereas 1.0 is more suited for a qualitative approach.