Justin L Sewell1, Christy K Boscardin1, John Q Young2, Olle Ten Cate1,3, Patricia S O'Sullivan1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York, USA. 3. Center for Research and Development of Education, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have investigated cognitive factors affecting learning of procedural skills in medical education. Cognitive load theory, which focuses on working memory, is highly relevant, but methods for measuring cognitive load during procedural training are not well understood. Using colonoscopy as an exemplar, we used cognitive load theory to develop a self-report instrument to measure three types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous and germane load) and to provide evidence for instrument validity. METHODS: We developed the instrument (the Cognitive Load Inventory for Colonoscopy [CLIC]) using a multi-step process. It included 19 items measuring three types of cognitive load, three global rating items and demographics. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey that was administered electronically to 1061 gastroenterology trainees in the USA. Participants completed the CLIC following a colonoscopy. The two study phases (exploratory and confirmatory) each lasted for 10 weeks during the 2014-2015 academic year. Exploratory factor analysis determined the most parsimonious factor structure; confirmatory factor analysis assessed model fit. Composite measures of intrinsic, extraneous and germane load were compared across years of training and with global rating items. RESULTS: A total of 477 (45.0%) invitees participated (116 in the exploratory study and 361 in the confirmatory study) in 154 (95.1%) training programmes. Demographics were similar to national data from the USA. The most parsimonious factor structure included three factors reflecting the three types of cognitive load. Confirmatory factor analysis verified that a three-factor model was the best fit. Intrinsic, extraneous and germane load items had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.90, 0.87 and 0.96, respectively) and correlated as expected with year in training and global assessment of cognitive load. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIC measures three types of cognitive load during colonoscopy training. Evidence of validity is provided. Although CLIC items relate to colonoscopy, the development process we detail can be used to adapt the instrument for use in other learning settings in medical education.
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have investigated cognitive factors affecting learning of procedural skills in medical education. Cognitive load theory, which focuses on working memory, is highly relevant, but methods for measuring cognitive load during procedural training are not well understood. Using colonoscopy as an exemplar, we used cognitive load theory to develop a self-report instrument to measure three types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous and germane load) and to provide evidence for instrument validity. METHODS: We developed the instrument (the Cognitive Load Inventory for Colonoscopy [CLIC]) using a multi-step process. It included 19 items measuring three types of cognitive load, three global rating items and demographics. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey that was administered electronically to 1061 gastroenterology trainees in the USA. Participants completed the CLIC following a colonoscopy. The two study phases (exploratory and confirmatory) each lasted for 10 weeks during the 2014-2015 academic year. Exploratory factor analysis determined the most parsimonious factor structure; confirmatory factor analysis assessed model fit. Composite measures of intrinsic, extraneous and germane load were compared across years of training and with global rating items. RESULTS: A total of 477 (45.0%) invitees participated (116 in the exploratory study and 361 in the confirmatory study) in 154 (95.1%) training programmes. Demographics were similar to national data from the USA. The most parsimonious factor structure included three factors reflecting the three types of cognitive load. Confirmatory factor analysis verified that a three-factor model was the best fit. Intrinsic, extraneous and germane load items had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.90, 0.87 and 0.96, respectively) and correlated as expected with year in training and global assessment of cognitive load. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIC measures three types of cognitive load during colonoscopy training. Evidence of validity is provided. Although CLIC items relate to colonoscopy, the development process we detail can be used to adapt the instrument for use in other learning settings in medical education.
Authors: Grant A Pignatiello; Barbara Daly; Heath Demaree; Shirley Moore; Ronald L Hickman Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.257
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