Cited by 1,066Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load

Open access
Leppink, Jimmie, Paas, Fred, Van der Vleuten, Cees P. M., Van Gog, Tamara, Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.·2013·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

According to cognitive load theory, instructions can impose three types of cognitive load on the learner: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. Proper measurement of the different types of cognitive load can help us understand why the effectiveness and efficiency of learning environments may differ as a function of instructional formats and learner characteristics. In this article, we present a ten-item instrument for the measurement of the three types of cognitive load. Principal component analysis on data from a lecture in statistics for PhD students (n = 56) in psychology and health sciences revealed a three-component solution, consistent with the types of load that the different items were intended to measure. This solution was confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis of data from three lectures in statistics for different cohorts of bachelor students in the social and health sciences (ns = 171, 136, and 148), and received further support from a randomized experiment with university freshmen in the health sciences (n = 58).

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 · 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • If the sum of extraneous, intrinsic, and germane load exceeds the student's available resources, cognitive overload occurs, hindering the processing of new information.

    “Thus, if the sum of these factors exceeds the student's available resources, cognitive overload occurs, hindering the processing of new information (Leppink et al., 2013).”

    From Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Neurodidactic Spaced Learning Strategies in Long-Term Memory (2026) · cites this paper as Leppink et al., 2013

    The paper’s Abstract identifies intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load and says extraneous load should be minimized to allow learning-related activity. It does not state that the sum of the three loads crossing a resource threshold causes cognitive overload or hinders processing of new information. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Leppink et al. found the three factors of their cognitive load questionnaire to be robust even when items were adopted to fit different domains.

    “Even if they had to adopt the items to fit the different domains, they found the three factors to be robust.”
  • The Leppink et al. (2013) questionnaire was not tested in separate experiments to verify whether it could explicitly differentiate between types of cognitive load.

    “However, no separate experiments were performed to verify whether the questionnaire could explicitly differentiate between types of cognitive load, which would be an important criterion for assessing validity.”
  • The GCL scale in Leppink et al. had problems, specifically a lack of correlation with learning performance.

    “However, because of problems with the GCL scale (lack of correlation with learning performance), one GCL-related item was added in a further study to explicitly capture the effort required to cope with cognitive load.”
  • PCA is less stringent in terms of assumptions than EFA.

    “a principal component analysis (PCA) was preferred over an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as it is less stringent in terms of assumptions (e.g., Leppink et al., 2013).”

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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Leppink, Jimmie
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2013-04-10
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
1058-1072
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W1993729533
Cited by
1,066
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 168 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 130 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 5
FWCI
42.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
cognitive load, intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous load, germane load, instructional design, statistics instruction, university students, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Behavioral Research, Young Adult

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