Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence

This study evaluates a 12-item instrument for subjective measurement of mental load (ML) and mental effort (ME) by analysing different sources of validity evidence. The findings of an expert judgement (N = 8) provide evidence based on test content that the formulation of the items corresponds to the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Moritz Krell
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2017-01-01
Series:Cogent Education
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256
id doaj-02cac56f61dd4d62b882f2749658f5d8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-02cac56f61dd4d62b882f2749658f5d82021-07-15T13:10:34ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCogent Education2331-186X2017-01-014110.1080/2331186X.2017.12802561280256Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidenceMoritz Krell0Freie Universität BerlinThis study evaluates a 12-item instrument for subjective measurement of mental load (ML) and mental effort (ME) by analysing different sources of validity evidence. The findings of an expert judgement (N = 8) provide evidence based on test content that the formulation of the items corresponds to the meaning of ML and ME. An empirical study was conducted in which secondary school students (N = 602) worked on multiple choice (mc)-tasks and thereafter using the developed instrument to self-report ML and ME. The findings show that the instrument reliably measures the two positively correlated constructs ML and ME (evidence based on internal structure). Students working on mc-tasks with high complexity self-reported higher amounts of ML and ME than students working on mc-tasks with low complexity, and there is a negative relation between test performance and ML (evidence based in relation to other variables). Implications for educational assessment and limitations of the study are discussed.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256cognitive loadmental loadmental effortvalidation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Moritz Krell
spellingShingle Moritz Krell
Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
Cogent Education
cognitive load
mental load
mental effort
validation
author_facet Moritz Krell
author_sort Moritz Krell
title Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
title_short Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
title_full Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
title_fullStr Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
title_sort evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Cogent Education
issn 2331-186X
publishDate 2017-01-01
description This study evaluates a 12-item instrument for subjective measurement of mental load (ML) and mental effort (ME) by analysing different sources of validity evidence. The findings of an expert judgement (N = 8) provide evidence based on test content that the formulation of the items corresponds to the meaning of ML and ME. An empirical study was conducted in which secondary school students (N = 602) worked on multiple choice (mc)-tasks and thereafter using the developed instrument to self-report ML and ME. The findings show that the instrument reliably measures the two positively correlated constructs ML and ME (evidence based on internal structure). Students working on mc-tasks with high complexity self-reported higher amounts of ML and ME than students working on mc-tasks with low complexity, and there is a negative relation between test performance and ML (evidence based in relation to other variables). Implications for educational assessment and limitations of the study are discussed.
topic cognitive load
mental load
mental effort
validation
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256
work_keys_str_mv AT moritzkrell evaluatinganinstrumenttomeasurementalloadandmentaleffortconsideringdifferentsourcesofvalidityevidence
_version_ 1721300869143592960