The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 45 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency
Open accessOverview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This experiment compared worked examples with conventional problem solving for younger and older adults learning a water-jug task. Older adults showed a larger efficiency advantage from worked examples, using less time and lower cognitive load while maintaining comparable performance, but the predicted stronger benefit for far transfer was not found.
Key findings
- Older participants in the worked-examples condition reported lower subjective cognitive load (M = 3.19, SD = 1.71) than those solving conventional problems (M = 4.79, SD = 2.16), and spent less training time per problem (81.24 s vs. 206.58 s). Near-transfer performance was similar (.97 vs. .95), while far-transfer performance was numerically higher (.55 vs. .40), though training format had no significant performance effect.
- The Age Group × Training Format interactions were significant for training efficiency, F(1, 50) = 5.45, p < .05; subjective cognitive load, F(1, 50) = 6.94, p < .05; and training time, F(1, 50) = 15.73, p < .001, indicating that older adults benefited disproportionately from worked examples.
- Younger adults did not benefit from worked examples: their mean training efficiency was lower in the worked-examples condition (0.55) than in the conventional-problems condition (0.86), and their subjective cognitive load was higher (2.77 vs. 2.22), although both efficiencies were positive.
- Hypothesis 2 was not supported: the Age Group × Training Format × Transfer Distance interaction for training efficiency was not significant, F(1, 49) = 0.10, p > .05, although separate Age Group × Training Format interactions were significant for near transfer, F(1, 50) = 6.91, p < .05, and far transfer, F(1, 49) = 8.20, p < .01.
Methods
- The design was a 2 × 2 between-groups experiment with Age Group (young vs. old) and Training Format (conventional problems vs. worked examples), plus a within-groups factor of Transfer Distance (near vs. far). N = 54: 30 psychology students aged 18–30 (median 19.50) and 24 older adults aged 61–76 (median 66.00) recruited from the Maastricht Aging Study pool; participants were randomly assigned to conditions.
- Participants completed a computerized water-jug task on a touch screen. Training consisted of four problems either solved conventionally or studied as worked examples; the transfer test had 23 problems, with 11 classified as near transfer and 12 as far transfer. Measures included a shortened Groningen intelligence test, a computation-span test, a 9-point subjective cognitive-load scale, training time, and proportion of solved problems.
- Training efficiency was calculated using Paas and Van Merriënboer’s z-score procedure combining mental effort and performance. ANOVAs were run on control variables, training time, cognitive load, performance, and efficiency, with transfer distance included for efficiency.
Limitations
- The paper states that worked examples did not significantly improve performance in either age group, contrary to earlier research. It suggests the contrast between conditions may have been too weak, older adults’ far-transfer scores had greater variability, the near-transfer problems may already have been too complex for older participants, and the young may have reached a ceiling on the task.
- The paper also states that Hypothesis 2 was not supported because the older adults’ worked-example advantage did not differ between near and far transfer.
- Evident from the text: the sample was small, especially the older group (n = 24), and one older participant did not reach the far-transfer section, producing unequal degrees of freedom. The study used a single task domain and a single subjective load measure, and the young participants’ task may have been too easy to reveal training-format effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
23 Own result · 20 No full text of the sources · 19 Own interpretation · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As predicted, the results show that -with respect to the elderlythe efficiency of studying worked examples is higher than the efficiency of solving conventional problems in that less training time and cognitive load leads to a comparable level of performance.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > Abstract
plaindirectn = 54- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their mean scores even suggest a slight negative effect of worked examples on training efficiency.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of a significant interaction between age group, training format, and transfer distance with respect to training efficiency is not in line with Hypothesis 2.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, there is a huge performance difference between the age groups.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, computation spans differed significantly between the age groups, F(1, 50)=28.40,MSE=1.45,pϽ0.001.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With regard to the elderly, Subject Cognitive Load is substantially lower in the Worked Examples condition than in the Conventional Problems condition.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the standard deviations of the far-transfer scores were substantially greater for the elderly than for the young (see Table 1).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is remarkable, however, that the mean IQ score of the elderly participants (M=128.67,SD=9.47) was almost 10 points higher than the mean IQ score of the young participants (M=119.47,SD=8.70),F(1, 50)=13.66,MSE=82.60,p=0.001.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also a significant interaction between Age Group and Training Format, F(1, 50)=15.73,pϽ0.001.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.3. Training time
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A rather peculiar finding is that the young did not profit from the worked examples used in this study.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
- It may state two separate claims as one. 30
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The similarity between the interaction patterns of cognitive load and training time furthermore suggests that training time might as well be used as a component in calculating training efficiency (see Pollock, Chandler, & Sweller, 2002).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Pollock, Chandler, & Sweller, 2002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Results and Discussion, the paper reports instruction-time and mental-load results for the same instructional conditions. It calculates instructional efficiency from performance and mental-load ratings, but the available passages do not establish that similar interaction patterns justify using training time in that calculation. (LLM, conf=0.77)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within the age groups and between the training conditions, there were no significant intelligence differences.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In fact, the employed worked examples were not effective enough to evoke a significant performance enhancement in either age group, which is contrary to previous research (Paas, 1992;Paas & Van Merrie ¨nboer, 1994b;Pillay, 1994;Ward & Sweller, 1990).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than that, the interaction between Age Group and Training Format, F(1, 50)=6.94,MSE=2.23,pϽ0.05, suggests a disproportional 'decrease' in SCL for the elderly participants.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis of variance reveals an effect of Age Group, F(1, 50)=36.27,MSE=0.92,pϽ0.001, as well as an interaction between Age Group and Training Format, F(1, 50)=5.45,pϽ0.05, which is in accordance with Hypothesis 1.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, there is an effect of Age Group, F(1, 50)=13.43,p=.001, but no effect of Training Format, F(1, 50)=1.66,pϾ0.05.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is neither an effect of Training Format nor an interaction (see Table 2).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is no interaction between Age Group, Training Format, and Transfer Distance, F(1, 49)=0.10,MSE=0.19,pϾ0.05, which is not in line with Hypothesis 2.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to Computation Span, there were no differences within the age groups and between the training conditions.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in Fig. 4, the efficiencies of both training formats are positive for the young participants and negative for the elderly participants.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This holds for both Near-Transfer Performance, F(1, 50)=10.98,MSE=.00, pϽ0.01, and Far-Transfer Performance, F(1, 49)=44.09,MSE=.05, pϽ0.001.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where the young participants had a mean score of 4.97 (SD=1.33), the elderly scored no more than 3.21 (SD=0.98).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, both worked examples and conventional problems required relatively little cognitive load and led to almost the same performance level, which is reflected by the positive efficiency scores.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, contrary to the young participants, for whom the Worked Examples condition appears to be relatively inefficient, the elderly display a substantial efficiency 'gain' in the Worked Examples condition relative to the Conventional Problems condition, the latter of which remains highly inefficient.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.2. Training efficiency
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Performance was especially poorer in the more complex far-transfer domain, which is a confirmation of earlier research findings (Czaja & Sharit, 1993;Gilinsky & Judd, 1994;Lorsbach & Simpson, 1988).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The old participants were less efficient, performed poorer, and showed higher levels of cognitive load and training time than the young (see Tables 1 and 2).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis of variance reveals main effects for the factors Age Group, F(1, 50)=65.73,MSE=2408.00,pϽ0.001, and Training Format F(1, 50)=28.72,pϽ0.001.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.3. Training time
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Working-memory abilities were assessed with Salthouse and Babcock's (1991) computation-span test, which is a variant of the well-known reading-span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 5.2.2. Computation-span test
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“That is, a training format is considered efficient if a relatively low mental effort results in a relatively high performance, whereas a training format is considered inefficient if a relatively high mental effort results in a relatively low performance.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 4. Worked examples versus conventional problems
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Paas & Van Merrienboer, 1993 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, CLT-based training formats optimize learning by making an efficient use of the available cognitive capacity, thereby directing the learner to the essentials of the subject matter and stimulating the construction of cognitive schemata.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 3. Implications of CLT for elderly learners
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In a nutshell, CLT claims that an optimal use of working memory requires a maximum number of mental operations that directly contribute to the learning process and a minimum number of operations that do not contribute to the learning process.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Paas and Van Merrie ¨nboer (1993), the ratio between invested mental effort and test performance can be interpreted as the efficiency of a training format.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 4. Worked examples versus conventional problems
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Paas & Van Merrienboer, 1993 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Luch-ins' (1942) classical water-jug problem appeared to meet these requirements.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 5.2.4. Task domain
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Luchins, 1942 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants from both groups were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions (n=15 for the young; n=12 for the elderly).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 5.1. Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“CLT is directly concerned with the limits of working memory.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“To check the intellectual comparability of the experimental groups, a shortened version of the Groningen intelligence test (GIT; Luteijn & Van der Ploeg, 1983;Snijders & Verhage, 1962) was administered.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 5.2.1. Intelligence test
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Luteijn & Van der Ploeg, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Snijders & Verhage, 1962
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A third decline concerns the ability to inhibit irrelevant or distracting information (Allen, Madden, Groth, & Crozier, 1992;Hasher & Zacks, 1988), which is likely to withhold older people from the proper processing of information that is relevant for the task at hand.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“If this process recurs, the result is an accumulation of schemata and a lowering of the perceived task complexity (Van Gerven, Paas, Van Merrie ¨nboer, & Schmidt, 2000).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 3. Implications of CLT for elderly learners
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van Gerven et al., 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“First, due to a reduction of the working-memory capacity (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991;Wingfield, Stine, Lahar, & Aberdeen, 1988), less information elements can be processed, which undermines comprehension and learning of complex material.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For novices, who have not yet acquired extensive cognitive schemata, problem solving turns out to be a rather ineffective means of learning, because it imposes an extremely high extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, 1988), whereas the level of germane cognitive load remains relatively low.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 4. Worked examples versus conventional problems
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sweller, 1988 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A 9-point symmetrical category scale was used as a subjective cognitive-load (SCL) measure (after Paas, Van Merrie ¨nboer, & Adam, 1994).”
- Also stated in: § 5.2.3. Subjective cognitive-load scale · boosted
“Paas and Van Merrie ¨nboer (1994b) evaluated the scale as a highly reliable and sensitive instrument for the assessment of cognitive load (a=.82).”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 5.2.3. Subjective cognitive-load scale
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Paas, Van Merrienboer, & Adam, 1994 source
- Not matchedcites Paas & Van Merrienboer, 1994b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5.2.3. Subjective cognitive-load scale · boosted
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Second, the overall processing speed decreases (Cerella, 1990;Fisk & Warr, 1996;Myerson, Hale, Wagstaff, Poon, & Smith, 1990;Salthouse 1993Salthouse , 1996)), which hinders the simultaneous activation of mutually referring information elements.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With respect to the elderly, a possible explanation for this finding is the frequently observed phenomenon that old adults display far more statistical variance than young adults on various cognitive tasks (Anstey, Stankov, & Lord, 1993), so that subtle differences between conditions tend to get overshadowed.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Anstey, Stankov, & Lord, 1993 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“According to CLT, studying worked examples is a more efficient means of training complex skills than solving conventional problems.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“These results are in accordance with Salthouse and Babcock's (1991) study, in which a gradual age-related decrease of computation-span scores was found.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.1. IQ and computation span
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Salthouse and Babcock's (1991) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interaction pattern, depicted in Fig. 5, suggests that the elderly participants are disproportionally favored when studying worked examples, which supports Hypothesis 1.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 6.3. Training time
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the nearand far-transfer problems reflected different levels of complexity, the complexity of the near-transfer problems could have been already that high that no differential effects were obtained.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that the predicted interaction was not obtained, because the near-transfer problems, which were supposed to be rather simple, were in fact experienced as rather complex by the elderly.”
§ Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency > 7. Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The near-transfer problems were expected to be rather simple.
The authors state this as an assumption.
To optimize the acquisition of complex material in elderly people, information should be presented in a highly efficient manner.
“this brings us to the assumption that to optimize the acquisition of complex material in elderly people information should be presented in a highly efficient manner.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
CLT-based training accommodates the cognitive abilities of elderly persons particularly well.
“Since these limits are especially evident in elderly persons, it is assumed that CLT-based training accommodates the cognitive abilities of this group particularly well.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The cognitive capacity of elderly people is smaller than the cognitive capacity of young people.
“The framework assumes that the cognitive capacity of elderly people is smaller than the cognitive capacity of young people, so that any gain in cognitive capacity caused by a lowering of extraneous load is proportionally larger for the elderly than for the young.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Any gain in cognitive capacity caused by a lowering of extraneous load is proportionally larger for the elderly than for the young.
“The framework assumes that the cognitive capacity of elderly people is smaller than the cognitive capacity of young people, so that any gain in cognitive capacity caused by a lowering of extraneous load is proportionally larger for the elderly than for the young.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Any increase of germane cognitive load is proportionally larger for the elderly than for the young.
“The same holds for any increase of germane cognitive load.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Compared to young people, the elderly have a much richer and more integrated body of general and specific knowledge at their disposal.
“It is true that, compared to young people, the elderly have a much richer and more integrated body of general and, depending on their professional background, specific knowledge at their disposal.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The near-transfer problems were expected to be rather simple.
“the near-transfer problems, which were supposed to be rather simple, were in fact experienced as rather complex by the elderly”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, many experiments supported the counterintuitive prediction that studying worked-out examples facilitates schema construction and transfer performance more than actually solving the equivalent problems does (van Gerven, Paas, van Merriënboer, & Schmidt, 2002; also see Sweller et al., 1998, for an overview).”
From Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning (2003) · cites this paper as van Gerven, Paas, van Merriënboer, & Schmidt, 2002
In the citing paper
“When studies like the one conducted by Denessen et al. (2008) would also incorporate cognitive load measures (e.g., the unidimensional nine-point symmetrical mental effort rating scale [Paas 1992], heart-rate variability [Paas and Van Merriënboer 1994], taskevoked pupillary responses [Van Gerven et al. 2002], or responses to secondary tasks [Marcus et al. 1996]), it would become possible to”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Van Gerven et al. 2002
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 50) = 13.43reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 50)=13.43,p = .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory
(2010) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-62209-1 · Cited by 6,035
Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1022193728205 · Cited by 6,023
Self-citationThe processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition
Salthouse, T. A. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 · Cited by 5,902 · cited 2×
“Second, the overall processing speed decreases (Cerella, 1990; Fisk & Warr, 1996; Myerson, Hale, Wagstaff, Poon, & Smith, 1990; Salthouse 1993, 1996), which hinders the simultaneous activation of mutually referring information elements.”
BackgroundMethodBaddeley, A. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736359 · Cited by 5,258
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design
Sweller, J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 · Cited by 3,801 · cited 1×
“Schemata enable a person to categorize and solve problems in a specific domain (Sweller, 1994).”
BackgroundWorking memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60041-9 · Cited by 3,456
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Jolles, J., Houx, P. J., Van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Ponds, R. W. H. M. (Eds.). (1995). The Maastricht aging study: determinants of cognitive aging. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Neuropsych Publishers.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–204 of 204
Gesturing at Encoding Enhances Episodic Memory Recall for Older Adults.
Simhairi, V. S. (2021) · doi:10.7916/d8-0qqr-pp98
Bolton, A. E. (2006) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research
Krieglstein, F., Schmitz, M., Wesenberg, L., Spitzer, M., & Rey, G. D. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4598970/v1
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G.
- Affiliations
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Learning and Instruction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-105
- ISSN
- 0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121561709
- Semantic Scholar
- a5c43574830e349c8eb1306745e37fe29e9ed976
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 11.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- cognitive load theory, worked examples, cognitive aging, older adults, working memory, training efficiency, skill acquisition, practice questions, training duration, cognitive resources
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
