Mental effort relates to article viewing time linearly; no evidence against the linear model was found¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the reanalysis of Martin et al. (2018) data, the linear model was preferred for the mental effort–viewing time relation, with a significant linear term. → Jimmie Leppink & Patricia Pérez-Fuster 2019

Evidence¶

Jimmie Leppink & Patricia Pérez-Fuster 2019¶

Jimmie Leppink & Patricia Pérez-Fuster. (2019). Mental Effort, Workload, Time on Task, and Certainty: Beyond Linear Models. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-09460-2

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Reanalysis of repeated-measurement data (8 articles per participant, 72 participants) from Martin et al. (2018); both AIC and BIC preferred the linear model, and the linear term was significant: "F1, 572.305 = 12.776, p <0 . 0 0 1 ,B = 2.577".

"In Martin et al. ( 2018), Models 1 –3 have almost the same R2M, and the increase of 0.006 from Model 3 to Model 4 comes with a loss of 5 df (i.e., all nine mental effort values observed, hence 8 df for mental effort in Model 4; Model 3 uses only 3 df for mental effort). Hence, we have no reason to go beyond linear in Martin et al. ( 2018). In Model 1, we find for the linear term: F1, 572.305 = 12.776, p <0 . 0 0 1 ,B = 2.577, and 95% CI = [1.164; 3.989]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mental effort relates to self-rated certainty in a cubic (declining–flat–declining) rather than linear pattern — related
• Mental effort relates to response time in a J-shaped quadratic rather than linear pattern — related
• Evidence on the mental effort–workload relation is mixed: AIC prefers quadratic, BIC prefers linear — related