ArticleBMC medical education2025
Turkish validity and reliability study of the simulation self-report cognitive load measurement tool 2.0.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07598500 (The Effect of Three Different Instructional Strategies on Learning Outcomes and Knowledge Retention in Nursing Education), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The Effect of Three Different Instructional Strategies on Learning Outcomes and Knowledge Retention in Nursing Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring simulations, a student's effort to perform the multiple tasks expected of them and the emotional burden arising from the nature of the simulation can create an excessive cognitive load for the student, negatively affecting learning results. Understanding and managing this cognitive load is crucial because it affects how well students can process information and achieve learning objectives.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to collect evidence of the validity and reliability of the use of the Turkish-adapted Simulation Self-Report Cognitive Load Measurement Tool 2.0, which measures three aspects of cognitive load in nursing students during simulation-based experiences. DESIGN AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional methodological study of instrument translation and validation. The sample of the study consisted of 101 students in the second year of a nursing undergraduate program at a foundation university. The Turkish-adapted version of the tool was used for data collection. It measures intrinsic cognitive load (five items), extraneous cognitive load (five items), germane cognitive load (five items), and overall cognitive load (one item). Language validity was ascertained via ISPOR's ten-step translation and cultural adaptation guide. Expert opinion was obtained for content validity, and a confirmatory factor analysis for construct validity was performed. Cronbach's alpha coefficient, the split-half method, and item analysis were used to assess the reliability of the tool, and Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate relationships between items. Significance was accepted at p < 0.05.
resultsThe tool measures a three-factor structure-intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load-and consists of 16 items. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all the factor loadings were greater than 0.30. The fit indices for the model were calculated as χ2/df = 1.423, with a root mean square error of approximation of 0.0643; the comparative fit index was 0.950; and the standardized root mean square residual was 0.084. The Cronbach's alpha for the tool was 0.822.
conclusionThe analysis provided evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the Turkish-adapted version of the tool for use with a Turkish sample. The use of this tool can aid in developing and enhancing strategies to achieve learning objectives in the design and implementation of clinical simulations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.