↓ Skip to main content

Development and Validation of Two Instruments Measuring Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
454 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and Validation of Two Instruments Measuring Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melina Klepsch, Florian Schmitz, Tina Seufert

Abstract

Cognitive Load Theory is one of the most powerful research frameworks in educational research. Beside theoretical discussions about the conceptual parts of cognitive load, the main challenge within this framework is that there is still no measurement instrument for the different aspects of cognitive load, namely intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Hence, the goal of this paper is to develop a differentiated measurement of cognitive load. In Study 1 (N = 97), we developed and analyzed two strategies to measure cognitive load in a differentiated way: (1) Informed rating: We trained learners in differentiating the concepts of cognitive load, so that they could rate them in an informed way. They were asked then to rate 24 different learning situations or learning materials related to either high or low intrinsic, extraneous, or germane load. (2) Naïve rating: For this type of rating of cognitive load we developed a questionnaire with two to three items for each type of load. With this questionnaire, the same learning situations had to be rated. In the second study (N = between 65 and 95 for each task), we improved the instrument for the naïve rating. For each study, we analyzed whether the instruments are reliable and valid, for Study 1, we also checked for comparability of the two measurement strategies. In Study 2, we conducted a simultaneous scenario based factor analysis. The informed rating seems to be a promising strategy to assess the different aspects of cognitive load, but it seems not economic and feasible for larger studies and a standardized training would be necessary. The improved version of the naïve rating turned out to be a useful, feasible, and reliable instrument. Ongoing studies analyze the conceptual validity of this measurement with up to now promising results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 454 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 15%
Student > Master 61 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 7%
Researcher 28 6%
Other 86 19%
Unknown 144 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 13%
Computer Science 47 10%
Social Sciences 38 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 6%
Engineering 25 6%
Other 103 23%
Unknown 156 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2021.
All research outputs
#7,294,061
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,535
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,923
of 294,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#250
of 557 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 557 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.