Cargando…

Measuring cognitive load: mixed results from a handover simulation for medical students

INTRODUCTION: The application of cognitive load theory to workplace-based activities such as patient handovers is hindered by the absence of a measure of the different load types. This exploratory study tests a method for measuring cognitive load during handovers. METHODS: The authors developed the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, John Q., Irby, David M., Barilla-LaBarca, Maria-Louise, ten Cate, Olle, O’Sullivan, Patricia S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26759306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0240-6
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The application of cognitive load theory to workplace-based activities such as patient handovers is hindered by the absence of a measure of the different load types. This exploratory study tests a method for measuring cognitive load during handovers. METHODS: The authors developed the Cognitive Load Inventory for Handoffs (CLI4H) with items for intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Medical students completed the measure after participating in a simulated handover. Exploratory factor and correlation analyses were performed to collect evidence for validity. RESULTS: Results yielded a two-factor solution for intrinsic and germane load that explained 50 % of the variance. The extraneous load items performed poorly and were removed from the model. The score for intrinsic load correlated with the Paas Cognitive Load scale (r = 0.31, p = 0.004) and was lower for students with more prior handover training (p = 0.036). Intrinsic load did not, however, correlate with performance. Germane load did not correlate with the Paas Cognitive Load scale but did correlate as expected with performance (r = 0.30, p = 0.005) and was lower for those students with more prior handover training (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The CLI4H yielded mixed results with some evidence for validity of the score from the intrinsic load items. The extraneous load items performed poorly and the use of only a single item for germane load limits conclusions. The instrument requires further development and testing. Study results and limitations provide guidance to future efforts to measure cognitive load during workplace-based activities, such as handovers.