Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load

Abstract

According to cognitive load theory, learning can only be successful when instructional materials and procedures are designed in accordance with human cognitive architecture. In this context, one of the biggest challenges is the accurate measurement of the different cognitive load types as these are associated with various activities during learning. Building on psychometric limitations of currently available questionnaires, a new instrument for measuring the three types of cognitive load—intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load—is developed and validated relying on a set of five empirical studies. In Study 1, a principal component analysis revealed a three-component model which was subsequently confirmed using a confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2). Finally, across three experiments (Studies 3–5), the questionnaire was shown to be sensitive to changes in cognitive load supporting its predictive validity. The quality of the cognitive load questionnaire was underlined by satisfactory internal consistencies across all studies. In sum, the proposed questionnaire can be used in experimental settings to measure the different types of cognitive load in a valid and reliable manner. The construction and validation process of the questionnaire has also shown that the construct germane cognitive load remains controversial concerning its measurement and theoretical embedding in cognitive load theory.

Previewing test items prior to learning and receiving decorative pictures during testing: Impact on listening comprehension for English as a Foreign Language students

“…Nevertheless, given that the distraction scale consisted of only one item and we did not measure overall cognitive load, these findings should be interpreted as tentative evidence. We decided not to include a cognitive load measure because such a measure is frequently applied during the acquisition of novel and complex information (Krieglstein et al, 2023), primarily within the learning phase. In the present investigation, however, the research inquiry specifically focused on the testing phase.…”

The richer, the better? Effects of combining seductive and interpretational visuals in computer‐based learning

“…This contrast might be due to the wording of the intrinsic cognitive load items employed in the first study. As pointed out by Krieglstein et al (2022Krieglstein et al ( , 2023, it would be difficult for learners to differentiate between the complexity and design of the learning intervention when confronted with the learning content that is very complex.…”

Do a pedagogical agent’s clothing and an animated video’s setting affect learning?

“…However, since it was not the aim of our study to investigate whether cognitive load influenced the usage of heuristics for evaluating the expertise of a pedagogical agent, we did not measure cognitive load specifically, but decided to use the item by Paas (1992) to gain insights on the effects of mental effort. Since cognitive load and mental effort are distinct concepts that affect learning outcomes in different ways (see Schnaubert and Schneider, 2022 ), the question whether heuristics play an increased role under high cognitive load cannot be answered with this experiment and should therefore be addressed in further research that measures cognitive load using more nuanced instruments that assess different facets of cognitive load ( Klepsch et al, 2017 ; Krieglstein et al, 2023 ).…”