Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 220 of the 220 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Meta-analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Subjective Cognitive Load Questionnaires in Experimental Multimedia Learning Research

Krieglstein, Felix, Beege, Maik, Rey, Günter Daniel, Ginns, Paul, Krell, Moritz, Schneider, Sascha·2022·Educational Psychology Review
DOI 10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

For more than three decades, cognitive load theory has been addressing learning from a cognitive perspective. Based on this instructional theory, design recommendations and principles have been derived to manage the load on working memory while learning. The increasing attention paid to cognitive load theory in educational science quickly culminated in the need to measure its types of cognitive load — intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load which additively contribute to the overall load. In this meta-analysis, four frequently used cognitive load questionnaires were examined concerning their reliability (internal consistency) and validity (construct validity and criterion validity). Results revealed that the internal consistency of the subjective cognitive load questionnaires can be considered satisfactory across all four questionnaires. Moreover, moderator analyses showed that reliability estimates of the cognitive load questionnaires did not differ between educational settings, domains of the instructional materials, presentation modes, or number of scale points. Correlations among the cognitive load types partially contradict theory-based assumptions, whereas correlations with learning-related variables support assumptions derived from cognitive load theory. In particular, results seem to support the three-factor model consisting of intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load, and germane cognitive load. Results are discussed in relation to current trends in cognitive load theory and recommendations for the future use of cognitive load questionnaires in experimental research are suggested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4

Cites

220 of 220 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the cognitive load theory
Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the cognitive load theoryCC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Flow diagram of the selection of articles
Fig. 2 Flow diagram of the selection of articlesCC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 220 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Artino, A. R. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience. An abbreviated review for educational practitioners. AACE Journal, 16, 425–439.
  2. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.
  3. *Beege, M., Wirzberger, M., Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Schmidt, N., & Rey, G. D. (2019b). Spatial continuity effect vs. spatial contiguity failure. Revising the effects of spatial proximity between related and unrelated representations. Frontiers in Education, 4, 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019b.00086 · DOI
  4. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Sage Publications.
  5. Leahy, W. (2018). Case studies in cognitive load measurement. In R. Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive load measurement and application: A theoretical framework for meaningful research and practice (pp. 199–223). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  6. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). American Council on Education and Macmillan.
  7. *Schneider, S., Nebel, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018d). The autonomy-enhancing effects of choice on cognitive load, motivation and learning with digital media. Learning and Instruction, 58, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018d.06.006 · DOI
  8. Weidenmann, B. (2002). Multicodierung und Multimodalität im Lernprozess [Multicoding and multimodality in the learning process]. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia (3rd edition, pp. 45–62). Beltz PVU.
  9. Zavgorodniaia, A., Duran, R., Hellas, A., Seppala, O., & Sorva, J. (2020, September). Measuring the cognitive load of learning to program: A replication study. In J. Maguire, & Q. Cutts (Eds.), United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference (pp. 3–9). https://doi.org/10.1145/3416465.34164 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S.
ORCID
Krieglstein, Felix
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05-20
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
2485-2541
ISSN
  • 1040-726X
  • 1573-336X
DOI
10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4
Cited by
118
References
220
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Technische Universität Chemnitz

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.