Tino Endres, Lisa Bender, Stoo Sepp, Shirong Zhang, Louise David, Melanie Trypke, Dwayne Lieck, Juliette C. Désiron, Johanna Bohm, Sophia Weissgerber, Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso, Fred Paas
{"title":"Developing the Mental Effort and Load–Translingual Scale (MEL-TS) as a Foundation for Translingual Research in Self-Regulated Learning","authors":"Tino Endres, Lisa Bender, Stoo Sepp, Shirong Zhang, Louise David, Melanie Trypke, Dwayne Lieck, Juliette C. Désiron, Johanna Bohm, Sophia Weissgerber, Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso, Fred Paas","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09978-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Assessing cognitive demand is crucial for research on self-regulated learning; however, discrepancies in translating essential concepts across languages can hinder the comparison of research findings. Different languages often emphasize various components and interpret certain constructs differently. This paper aims to develop a translingual set of items distinguishing between intentionally invested mental effort and passively perceived mental load as key differentiations of cognitive demand in a broad range of learning situations, as they occur in self-regulated learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we evaluated the content, criterion, convergent, and incremental validity of this scale in different languages. To establish content validity, we conducted qualitative interviews with bilingual participants who discussed their understanding of mental effort and load. These participants translated and back-translated established and new items from the cognitive-demand literature into English, Dutch, Spanish, German, Chinese, and French. To establish criterion validity, we conducted preregistered experiments using the English, Chinese, and German versions of the scale. Within those experiments, we validated the translated items using established demand manipulations from the cognitive load literature with first-language participants. In a within-subjects design with eight measurements (<i>N</i> = 131), we demonstrated the scale’s criterion validity by showing sensitivity to differences in task complexity, extraneous load manipulation, and motivation for complex tasks. We found evidence for convergent and incremental validity shown by medium-size correlations with established cognitive load measures. We offer a set of translated and validated items as a common foundation for translingual research. As best practice, we recommend four items within a reference point evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"33 9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09978-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Assessing cognitive demand is crucial for research on self-regulated learning; however, discrepancies in translating essential concepts across languages can hinder the comparison of research findings. Different languages often emphasize various components and interpret certain constructs differently. This paper aims to develop a translingual set of items distinguishing between intentionally invested mental effort and passively perceived mental load as key differentiations of cognitive demand in a broad range of learning situations, as they occur in self-regulated learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we evaluated the content, criterion, convergent, and incremental validity of this scale in different languages. To establish content validity, we conducted qualitative interviews with bilingual participants who discussed their understanding of mental effort and load. These participants translated and back-translated established and new items from the cognitive-demand literature into English, Dutch, Spanish, German, Chinese, and French. To establish criterion validity, we conducted preregistered experiments using the English, Chinese, and German versions of the scale. Within those experiments, we validated the translated items using established demand manipulations from the cognitive load literature with first-language participants. In a within-subjects design with eight measurements (N = 131), we demonstrated the scale’s criterion validity by showing sensitivity to differences in task complexity, extraneous load manipulation, and motivation for complex tasks. We found evidence for convergent and incremental validity shown by medium-size correlations with established cognitive load measures. We offer a set of translated and validated items as a common foundation for translingual research. As best practice, we recommend four items within a reference point evaluation.
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.