The largest and most difficult numerical approximation error to estimate is discretization error. Residual-based discretization error estimation methods are a category of error estimators that use an estimate of the source of discretization error and information about the specific application to estimate the discretization error using only one grid level. The higher-order terms are truncated from the discretized equations and are the local source of discretization error. The accuracy of the resulting discretization error estimate depends solely on the accuracy of the estimated truncation error. Residual-based methods require only one grid level compared to the more commonly used Richardson extrapolation which requires at least two. Reducing the required number of grid levels reduces computational expense and, since only one grid level is required, can be applied to unstructured grids where multiple quality grid levels are difficult to produce. The two residual-based discretization error estimators of interest are defect correction and error transport equations. The focus of this work is the development, improvement, and evaluation of various truncation error estimation methods considering the accuracy of the truncation error estimate and the resulting discretization error estimates. The minimum requirements for accurate truncation error estimation is specified along with proper treatment for several boundary conditions. The methods are evaluated using various Euler and Navier-Stokes applications. The discretization error estimates are compared to Richardson extrapolation. The most accurate truncation error estimation method was found to be the k-exact method where the fine grid with a correction factor was considerably reliable. The single grid methods including the k-exact require that the continuous operator be modified at the boundary to be consistent with the implemented boundary conditions. Defect correction showed to be more accurate for areas of larger discretization error; however, the cost was substantial (although cheaper than the primal problem) compared to the cost of solving the ETEs which was essential free due to the linearization. Both methods showed significantly more accurate estimates compared to Richardson extrapolation especially for smooth problems. Reduced accuracy was apparent with the presence of stronger shocks and some possible modifications to adapt to singularies are proposed for future work.