Reliability and Validity of Cognitive Workload in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive workload (mental effort) is a measure of attention allocation to a task, which can be administered through self-report or physiological measures. Cognitive workload is increasingly recognized as an important determinant of performance in cognitive tests and daily life activities. However, the reliability and validity of these measures have not been established in older adults with a wide range of cognitive ability. The aim of this study was to establish the test-retest reliability of the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and Index of Cognitive Activity (ICA), extracted from pupillary size. The convergent validity of these measures against event-related potentials (ERPs) was also investigated. A total of 38 individuals with scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ranging between 17 and 30 completed a working memory test (n-back) with three levels of difficulty at baseline and two-week follow-up. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) values of the NASA-TLX ranged between 0.71 and 0.81, demonstrating good to excellent reliability. Mean ICA scores showed fair to good reliability, with ICC’s ranging between 0.56 and 0.73. Mean ICA and NASA-TLX scores showed significant and moderate correlations (Pearson r range between 0.30 and 0.33) with P3 ERP at the midline channels. We conclude that ICC and NASA-TLX are reliable measures of cognitive workload in older adults. Further research is needed in dissecting the subjective and objective constructs of cognitive workload.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".