BACKGROUND: Cognitive load theory (CLT) provides a rich framework to inform instructional design. Despite the applicability of CLT to simulation-based medical training, findings from multimedia learning have not been consistently replicated in this context. This lack of transferability may be related to issues in measuring cognitive load (CL) during simulation. The authors conducted a review of CLT studies across simulation training contexts to assess the validity evidence for different CL measures. METHOD: PRISMA standards were followed. For 48 studies selected from a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and ERIC databases, information was extracted about study aims, methods, validity evidence of measures, and findings. Studies were categorized on the basis of findings and prevalence of validity evidence collected, and statistical comparisons between measurement types and research domains were pursued. RESULTS: CL during simulation training has been measured in diverse populations including medical trainees, pilots, and university students. Most studies (71%; 34) used self-report measures; others included secondary task performance, physiological indices, and observer ratings. Correlations between CL and learning varied from positive to negative. Overall validity evidence for CL measures was low (mean score 1.55/5). Studies reporting greater validity evidence were more likely to report that high CL impaired learning. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found evidence that inconsistent correlations between CL and learning may be related to issues of validity in CL measures. Further research would benefit from rigorous documentation of validity and from triangulating measures of CL. This can better inform CLT instructional design for simulation-based medical training.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive load theory (CLT) provides a rich framework to inform instructional design. Despite the applicability of CLT to simulation-based medical training, findings from multimedia learning have not been consistently replicated in this context. This lack of transferability may be related to issues in measuring cognitive load (CL) during simulation. The authors conducted a review of CLT studies across simulation training contexts to assess the validity evidence for different CL measures. METHOD: PRISMA standards were followed. For 48 studies selected from a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and ERIC databases, information was extracted about study aims, methods, validity evidence of measures, and findings. Studies were categorized on the basis of findings and prevalence of validity evidence collected, and statistical comparisons between measurement types and research domains were pursued. RESULTS: CL during simulation training has been measured in diverse populations including medical trainees, pilots, and university students. Most studies (71%; 34) used self-report measures; others included secondary task performance, physiological indices, and observer ratings. Correlations between CL and learning varied from positive to negative. Overall validity evidence for CL measures was low (mean score 1.55/5). Studies reporting greater validity evidence were more likely to report that high CL impaired learning. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found evidence that inconsistent correlations between CL and learning may be related to issues of validity in CL measures. Further research would benefit from rigorous documentation of validity and from triangulating measures of CL. This can better inform CLT instructional design for simulation-based medical training.
Authors: Ann L Young; Cara B Doughty; Kaitlin C Williamson; Sharon K Won; Marideth C Rus; Nadia N Villarreal; Elizabeth A Camp; Daniel S Lemke Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2020-12-02
Authors: John Q Young; Christy K Boscardin; Savannah M van Dijk; Ruqayyah Abdullah; David M Irby; Justin L Sewell; Olle Ten Cate; Patricia S O'Sullivan Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2016-12-14
Authors: Melike Kahya; Kelly E Lyons; Rajesh Pahwa; Abiodun E Akinwuntan; Jianghua He; Hannes Devos Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Aaron J Ruberto; Dirk Rodenburg; Kyle Ross; Pritam Sarkar; Paul C Hungler; Ali Etemad; Daniel Howes; Daniel Clarke; James McLellan; Daryl Wilson; Adam Szulewski Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-07-01
Authors: Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen; Peter Trier Mikkelsen; Lars Konge; Per Cayé-Thomasen; Mads Sølvsten Sørensen Journal: Adv Simul (Lond) Date: 2016-06-07