Beyond Correctness: Using the Certainty Response Index to Screen Primary Geometry Misconceptions
Keywords:
certainty response index; diagnostic assessment; geometry misconceptions; primary mathematics; response confidence; two-dimensional and three-dimensional shapesAbstract
Conventional achievement scores do not distinguish a confidently held error from uncertainty or a correct response from an unstable selection. This descriptive pilot examined whether the Certainty Response Index (CRI) could improve the interpretation of responses to two-dimensional and three-dimensional geometry tasks among 30 purposively selected Year Two pupils in one Malaysian primary school. For every item, pupils selected an answer and reported their confidence. Accuracy and confidence were cross-classified into four operational profiles: correct-high confidence, correct-low confidence, incorrect-low confidence, and incorrect-high confidence. The analysis showed that confidence differentiated responses receiving the same correctness score. Correct-low confidence responses indicated a need to confirm reasoning or transfer, whereas incorrect-high confidence responses identified cases that warranted immediate conceptual probing. Because the instrument did not contain a separate reason tier, the latter profile was interpreted as a screening flag for a possible misconception rather than definitive evidence of its cognitive source. CRI therefore adds practical diagnostic resolution to early geometry assessment, but should be combined with explanations, interviews, or multi-tier items. The study extends confidence-based diagnostic assessment to lower-primary mathematics and offers a cautious, instructionally useful framework for selecting follow-up responses.
References
1. Caleon, I. S., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Do students know what they know and what they do not know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students’ alternative conceptions. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9122-4
2. Fujita, T., Kondo, Y., Kumakura, H., & Kunimune, S. (2017). Students’ geometric thinking with cube representations: Assessment framework and empirical evidence. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.003
3. Gilligan-Lee, K. A., Hawes, Z. C. K., & Mix, K. S. (2022). Spatial thinking as the missing piece in mathematics curricula. npj Science of Learning, 7, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00128-9
4. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/5/304
5. 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, 11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
6. Ng, O.-L., Shi, L., & Ting, F. (2020). Exploring differences in primary students’ geometry learning outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments: Dynamic geometry and 3D printing. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00244-1
7. Oughton, R., Nichols, K., Bolden, D. S., Dixon-Jones, S., Fearn, S., Darwin, S., Mistry, M., Peyerimhoff, N., & Townsend, A. (2024). Developing “deep mathematical thinking” in geometry with 3- and 4-year-olds: A collaborative study between early years teachers and university-based mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 26(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2022.2119497
8. Pesman, H., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002
9. Sinclair, N., & Moss, J. (2012). The more it changes, the more it becomes the same: The development of the routine of shape identification in a dynamic geometry environment. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.009
10. Tam, Y. P., & Chan, W. W. L. (2022). The differential relations between sub-domains of spatial abilities and mathematical performance in children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 71, 102101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102101
11. Yang, D.-C. (2022). Investigating the differences between confidence ratings in the answer and reason tiers in fourth graders via an online four-tier test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101127
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (JAMS) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated. Authors retain copyright of their work and grant JAMS the right of first publication.
