original papers by Halloun & Hestenes (1985) and Hestenes et. al. (1992) describe how the FCI (and its precursor the MDT) was developed. These papers also address the issue of reliability and validity. Hake's papers (1998 and 2001) provide additional support for the reliability of the FCI.
I know that the ASU group <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html> has done extensive research on reliability of the FCI after the original papers but I don't know if they have published their results. A revised version of the FCI is available from their homepage (Halloun et. al. 1995; you need to have a password).
The reference list contains some other related articles which may be helpful. In my opinion the FCI seems to be very reliable and valid. However, Steinberg and Sabella (1997) provide an interesting discussion on the limitations of the FCI.
Regards,
Antti Savinainen
Physics teacher
Kuopio Lyseo High School
Finland
REFERENCES:
Hake R 1998 Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses Am. J. Phys. 66 64- 74.
Hake R 2001 Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort,’ submitted on 3/28/01 to Conservation Ecology <http://www.consecol.org/Journal>, a ‘peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research’
Online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
Halloun I and Hestenes D 1985 The initial knowledge state of college physics students Am. J. Phys. 53 1043-1056