Cited by 91Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measuring Cognitive Load: Are There More Valid Alternatives to Likert Rating Scales?

Open access
Ouwehand, Kim, Kroef, Avalon van der, Wong, Jacqueline, Paas, Fred·2021·Frontiers in Education

Abstract

Cognitive load researchers have used varying subjective techniques based on rating scales to quantify experienced cognitive load. Although it is generally assumed that subjects can introspect on their cognitive processes and have no difficulty in assigning numerical values to the imposed cognitive load, little is known about how visual characteristics of the rating scales influence the validity of the cognitive load measure. In this study we look at validity of four subjective rating scales (within groups) differing in visual appearance by participants rating perceived difficulty and invested mental effort in response to working on simple and complex weekday problems. We used two numerical scales (the nine-point Likert scale most often used in Cognitive load theory research and a Visual Analogue Scale ranging between 0–100%) and two pictorial scales (a scale consisting of emoticons ranging from a relaxed blue-colored face to a stressed red-colored face and an “embodied” scale picturing nine depicted weights from 1–9 kg). Results suggest that numerical scales better reflect cognitive processes underlying complex problem solving while pictorial scales Underlying simple problem solving. This study adds to the discussion on the challenges to quantify cognitive load through various measurement methods and whether subtleties in measurements could influence research findings.

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 · 10.3389/feduc.2021.702616

Cites

41 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ouwehand, K., Kroef, A. V. D., Wong, J., & Paas, F.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Ouwehand, Kim
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Published
2021-09-20
Volume
6
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199729108
Cited by
90
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8
FWCI
8.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
cognitive load, subjective rating scales, Likert scale, visual analogue scale, pictorial scale, scale validity, perceived difficulty, cognitive effort, problem complexity, cognitive load assessment

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