Industrial hygienists use direct-reading instruments for a variety of purposes, including emergency response, time-weighted average personal exposure monitoring, and measurement of long-term hazardous exposures. While the use of such devices has rapidly increased over the last several years, IHs and related professionals continue to face difficulty in gathering all the information necessary to determine the most appropriate equipment for their work environments. Selection of a direct-reading instrument often comes down to pros and cons, and IHs must choose an instrument based on their prioritized needs and available information about the instrument. But even when our needs are simple, comparing instruments based on manufacturers’ varying and limited specifications can be challenging. Manufacturers provide literature citing the numerous benefits and capabilities of their instruments, but in some cases the information IHs need to make purchasing decisions may not be readily available. And in cases where this information is disclosed, it may be based upon definitions unique to the manufacturer or not defined at all. For example, some manufacturers provide an instrument “TWA” result, but the calculation of this value can vary. Hygienists should obtain from the manufacturer the calculation method before relying upon the TWA result value for determining over-exposure. Other examples of terms with varying definitions among manufacturers include sensor recovery time, T₉₀ (response time), T₅₀ (response time), peak reading, instantaneous reading, accuracy, precision, linearity, drift, and many others. It’s not uncommon for direct-reading toxic gas sensors to have false positive interference gases, but sometimes this information can be found only in a small table at the end of a large user manual. It’s easy to imagine that users who get many false alarms may begin to ignore all alarm events, even ones that are real and dangerous. There have been cases of fires that occurred after a catalytic bead combustible gas sensor (percent LEL) measurement was zero percent LEL. The user may have failed to understand that the LEL sensor requires a certain concentration of oxygen and responds very slowly or not at all to certain large-molecule hydrocarbons. Also, it’s good to know the normal operating temperature and humidity range, and how the instrument will respond when operating outside those ranges. Knowing the instrument’s capabilities based on consistently defined specifications should make purchasing decisions easier and may help avoid serious incidents due to instrument misuse. Recognizing the need for organized research in this area, NIOSH created the Direct Reading Exposure Assessment Methods (DREAM) initiative in 2008. The need for standardized equipment specifications for direct-reading instruments was one among many identified by researchers in the agency’s DREAM program. Participants from academia, labor, management, governmental agencies, research, and industry, as well as manufacturers and developers, met in November 2008 in Arlington, Va., at the DREAM Workshop to discuss needs in the area of direct-reading methods for assessing occupational exposures. During that meeting, which was co-sponsored by AIHA and 11 other organizations, attendees addressed direct-reading exposure assessment methods for a variety of occupational hazards, including aerosols, gases, vapors, ergonomics, noise, radiation, and surface sampling and biomonitoring. The workshop was intended to help participants describe the important information related to the art and science of real-time assessment of worker exposure, determine whether direct-reading methods are available for exposures of interest, identify gaps in technology for real-time exposure methods, and specify agendas for research of direct-reading methods for different classes of occupational hazards.