Currently available multidimensional cognitive load questionnaires show psychometric limitations, including missing manipulation-check experiments and too few items per factor¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues that established questionnaires (Leppink et al., 2013; Klepsch et al., 2017; Dönmez et al., 2022) lack separate experiments verifying differentiation between load types and, in the Klepsch instrument, use too few items per factor. → Krieglstein 2023

Evidence¶

Krieglstein 2023¶

Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Sanchez-Stockhammer, C., & Schneider, S. (2023). Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09738-0

q1 · i? · design · r3

The authors' narrative review of existing instruments in the psychometric limitations section. They state "no separate experiments were performed to verify whether the questionnaire could explicitly dif- ferentiate between types of cognitive load" for the Leppink et al. (2013) scale, and note Klepsch et al. (2017) measures load types with two or three items.

"However, no separate experiments were performed to verify whether the questionnaire could explicitly dif- ferentiate between types of cognitive load, which would be an important criterion for assessing validity."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Germane load measurement is problematic: GCL-outcome correlations and item understanding show weaknesses across instruments — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Subjective cognitive load questionnaires show satisfactory internal consistency across the four most frequently used instruments in experimental multimedia learning research — reports the opposite
• Across three experiments (Studies 3–5), the questionnaire was shown to be sensitive to changes in cognitive load, supporting its predictive validity — related