Cited by 130Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Timing and Frequency of Mental Effort Measurement: Evidence in Favour of Repeated Measures

Open access
van Gog, Tamara, Kirschner, Femke, Kester, Liesbeth, Paas, Fred·2012·Applied Cognitive Psychology

Abstract

Summary: Subjective mental effort rating scales are widely used in research on learning, instruction and training. However, the timing and frequency of application of those rating scales differ between studies. Some apply a rating scale repeatedly after every task in a learning or test phase, whereas others do so only once at the end of a phase. Four experiments are presented that investigated how timing and frequency of mental effort measurements affect the results obtained. The findings from Experiment 1 (between‐subjects) and 2 (within‐subjects), using different arrangements of simple and complex tasks, showed that a single rating after a series of tasks resulted in a higher mental effort score than the average of ratings provided immediately after every task. A similar result was obtained in Experiment 3 with series of complex tasks, but not with simple tasks. Experiment 4 showed that knowing beforehand that mental effort rating will be required after completing all tasks results in lower scores, but average retrospective ratings per task still differed from a single retrospective rating. Taken together, these experiments suggest that timing and frequency of effort ratings do affect the results obtained and that repeatedly measuring mental effort after each task in the series seems to be preferable. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.2883

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The one measure after the instruction or test phase was always higher than the average of multiple measurements during the learning or test phase.

    “Results showed that the one measure after the instruction or test phase was always higher than the average of multiple measurements during the learning or test phase.”

    From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Gog et al. (2012) and Schmeck et al. (2015)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Paas, F.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Psychology Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies Open University of The Netherlands Heerlen The Netherlands
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
833-839
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
OpenAlex
W2147218516
Cited by
130
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
cognitive effort, repeated measures, task complexity, cognitive load, learning and training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review