View in EDS PDF Full Text

Measuring Physician Cognitive Load: Validity Evidence for a Physiologic and a Psychometric Tool

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Measuring Physician Cognitive Load: Validity Evidence for a Physiologic and a Psychometric Tool
Language: English
Authors: Szulewski, Adam, Gegenfurtner, Andreas, Howes, Daniel W., Sivilotti, Marco L. A., van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.
Source: Advances in Health Sciences Education. Oct 2017 22(4):951-968.
Availability: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Physicians, Cognitive Processes, Difficulty Level, Physiology, Psychometrics, Cognitive Tests, Comparative Analysis, Medicine, Expertise, Work Experience, Multiple Choice Tests, Arithmetic, Correlation, Eye Movements, Test Validity
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-016-9725-2
ISSN: 1382-4996
Abstract: In general, researchers attempt to quantify cognitive load using physiologic and psychometric measures. Although the construct measured by both of these metrics is thought to represent overall cognitive load, there is a paucity of studies that compares these techniques to one another. The authors compared data obtained from one physiologic tool (pupillometry) to one psychometric tool (Paas scale) to explore whether they actually measured the construct of cognitive load as purported. Thirty-two participants with a range of resuscitation medicine experience and expertise completed resuscitation-medicine based multiple-choice-questions as well as arithmetic questions. Cognitive load, as measured by both tools, was found to be higher for the more difficult questions as well as for questions that were answered incorrectly (p < 0.001). The group with the least medical experience had higher cognitive load than both the intermediate and experienced groups when answering domain-specific questions (p = 0.023 and p = 0.003 respectively for the physiologic tool; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001 respectively for the psychometric tool). There was a strong positive correlation (Spearman's ? = 0.827, p < 0.001 for arithmetic questions; Spearman's ? = 0.606, p < 0.001 for medical questions) between the two cognitive load measurement tools. These findings support the validity argument that both physiologic and psychometric metrics measure the construct of cognitive load.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 37
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1153015
Database: ERIC
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGqSAN7PMQafJ7h2wtGD7dvAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDySMtYJy2b33L3EuQIBEICBmstJV4Ot7slz6i0aAexSgaGNpfgL-kMVNX8OrG8zRi64T8jUqGPQVPGWpDnCRA8MF-na57JeIseUe6oXYPEY5PL1MnV27HI7t-JXITUprlfgB-3Rs8aX1F954I4kSA-tiLiMfrf-fM3mRwI31V206bog0IBNsLfrBTAeh7j2fI3skjDMrp11RNXZewC7vZ_4jP9mB2D0gQOfGxw=
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1153015
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Measuring Physician Cognitive Load: Validity Evidence for a Physiologic and a Psychometric Tool
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Szulewski%2C+Adam%22&quot;&gt;Szulewski, Adam&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Gegenfurtner%2C+Andreas%22&quot;&gt;Gegenfurtner, Andreas&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Howes%2C+Daniel+W%2E%22&quot;&gt;Howes, Daniel W.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Sivilotti%2C+Marco+L%2E+A%2E%22&quot;&gt;Sivilotti, Marco L. A.&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22van+Merri&#235;nboer%2C+Jeroen+J%2E+G%2E%22&quot;&gt;van Merri&#235;nboer, Jeroen J. G.&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Advances+in+Health+Sciences+Education%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Advances in Health Sciences Education&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. Oct 2017 22(4):951-968.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Physicians%22&quot;&gt;Physicians&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Processes%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Processes&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Difficulty+Level%22&quot;&gt;Difficulty Level&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Physiology%22&quot;&gt;Physiology&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Psychometrics%22&quot;&gt;Psychometrics&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Cognitive+Tests%22&quot;&gt;Cognitive Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Comparative+Analysis%22&quot;&gt;Comparative Analysis&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Medicine%22&quot;&gt;Medicine&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Expertise%22&quot;&gt;Expertise&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Work+Experience%22&quot;&gt;Work Experience&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Multiple+Choice+Tests%22&quot;&gt;Multiple Choice Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Arithmetic%22&quot;&gt;Arithmetic&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Eye+Movements%22&quot;&gt;Eye Movements&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Test+Validity%22&quot;&gt;Test Validity&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10459-016-9725-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1382-4996
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In general, researchers attempt to quantify cognitive load using physiologic and psychometric measures. Although the construct measured by both of these metrics is thought to represent overall cognitive load, there is a paucity of studies that compares these techniques to one another. The authors compared data obtained from one physiologic tool (pupillometry) to one psychometric tool (Paas scale) to explore whether they actually measured the construct of cognitive load as purported. Thirty-two participants with a range of resuscitation medicine experience and expertise completed resuscitation-medicine based multiple-choice-questions as well as arithmetic questions. Cognitive load, as measured by both tools, was found to be higher for the more difficult questions as well as for questions that were answered incorrectly (p &lt; 0.001). The group with the least medical experience had higher cognitive load than both the intermediate and experienced groups when answering domain-specific questions (p = 0.023 and p = 0.003 respectively for the physiologic tool; p = 0.006 and p &lt; 0.001 respectively for the psychometric tool). There was a strong positive correlation (Spearman&#39;s ? = 0.827, p &lt; 0.001 for arithmetic questions; Spearman&#39;s ? = 0.606, p &lt; 0.001 for medical questions) between the two cognitive load measurement tools. These findings support the validity argument that both physiologic and psychometric metrics measure the construct of cognitive load.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 37
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1153015
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1153015
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10459-016-9725-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 951
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physicians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Difficulty Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physiology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognitive Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medicine
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multiple Choice Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arithmetic
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Measuring Physician Cognitive Load: Validity Evidence for a Physiologic and a Psychometric Tool
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Szulewski, Adam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gegenfurtner, Andreas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Howes, Daniel W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sivilotti, Marco L. A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1382-4996
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Advances in Health Sciences Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1