Need for Cognition (NFC) is an individual difference in the “tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking” (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982, p. 116). NFC, as a concept, has been studied by psychologists for many years [see, e.g., Maslow (1943) and Cohen et al. (1955)]. The definition has though changed from the need to understand and make reasonable the experiential world (Cohen et al., 1955) to the need to engage in and enjoy cognitively demanding activities (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982). In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in NFC. It is expected that individuals who receive high NFC-scores evaluate and elaborate on information to a higher degree, and they also find this process more enjoyable when compared to those with low scores on the NFC-scale (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982; Cacioppo et al., 1996). NFC is not considered to be a proxy for intelligence as it indexes motivation to engage but is most likely moderately associated with intellectual ability (Cacioppo et al., 1996; Hill et al., 2013; Preckel, 2014). NFC is also a personality characteristic that is suggested to be stable over time (however, possible to mature) and found to be important for, and positively related to individuals’ performance in an educational context (Richardson et al., 2012; Meier et al., 2014; Stenlund et al., 2016). For example, Meier et al. (2014) showed that NFC best predicted attendance of special classes over and above cognitive ability, academic achievement, sex, and parental level of education. NFC was also found to be the third strongest non-intellectual (such as personality traits, motivational factors, and self-regulated learning strategies) predictor for tertiary GPA in a recent meta-analysis (Richardson et al., 2012). Further, Stenlund et al. (2016) showed that individuals with high NFC-scores benefit more in participating in structured groups discussions and did in relation to information processing also remembered more on a subsequent recall task. This result confirmed previous studies on NFC and information processing [see Cacioppo et al. (1996) for a review]. Verplanken et al. (1992) did in addition discover that individuals with high NFC-scores were more prone to search for new information. The significance of NFC as a moderator of information processing was also shown in a study of information search and interactive web pages (Sicilia et al., 2005).

Cacioppo and Petty (1982) developed a scale to measure NFC, which has been explored in relation to a variety of individual differences, such as intelligence, personality, and academic achievement [see, e.g., Cacioppo et al. (1996), Fleischhauer et al. (2010), and Preckel (2014)]. The original and short version of the NFC-scale is, according to Cacioppo et al. (1996), reasonable, reliable, and valid. Over the years the NFC-scale has been adopted and translated into several other languages [see, e.g., Dornic et al. (1991), Bless et al. (1994), and Curseu (2011)]. The Swedish adaption of the NFC, the Mental Effort Tolerance Questionnaire (METQ) was made in 1991 and has not been psychometrically evaluated since (Dornic et al., 1991). In the Dornic et al. (1991) study, a short version of the METQ also was suggested; however, it was neither further examined nor evaluated. Further, this study only involved 70 participants with a mean age of 30 years, and according to Preckel (2014) NFC has predominantly been studied in adult groups. Hence, there is a lack of empirical evidence for the Swedish NFC-scale, and more research is needed to establish whether the Swedish adaption of the NFC-scale can portray valid and reliable results in a younger population, and as such be useful in an educational context. The main purpose of this study was to examine the quality of the results from the short version of the METQ in a relatively large group of young students.

In the present study, the reliability, in terms of temporal and internal stability, of the results of the METQ was examined, and further, construct and criteria-related validity. Little attention has been paid to the NFC-scale’s temporal stability, but studies found show high stability, i.e., a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.80 (Sadowski and Gulgoz, 1992; Bertrams and Dickhäuser, 2010; Fleischhauer et al., 2015). Based on these studies we expected high temporal stability (i.e., test–retest reliability) of the METQ. In contrast to temporal stability, the internal stability of NFC has been frequently examined, with most studies showing high internal stability that is above 0.80 [see, e.g., Venkatraman and Price (1990), Cacioppo et al. (1996), Fleischhauer et al. (2010), and Preckel (2014)]. A similar result is expected in the present study. With regards to construct validity, the results of the METQ were expected to be unidimensional, in line with the original NCF-scale (Dornic et al., 1991; Cacioppo et al., 1996). However, studies have shown that more than one factor might be involved [see, e.g., Cacioppo et al. (1984), Tanaka et al. (1988), and Fosterlee and Ho (1999)], suggesting that this is not a clear case. For example, Fosterlee and Ho (1999), who examined the short version of the NFC-scale, found two factors, while Tanaka et al. (1988) found three factors when examining the original 34-item NFC-scale. The latter result was also confirmed by Waters and Zakrajsek (1990). However, previous studies have often argued for a unidimensional structure based on the findings of a dominant factor and the proportion variance explained (Fosterlee and Ho, 1999). In the present study, relationships with other constructs were also examined as regarding construct validity. First, a measure of general fluid intelligence was used to examine conceptual autonomy. The relationship between the METQ and general fluid intelligence was expected to be relatively weak or moderate, but statistically significant, in line with earlier studies (typically the coefficients range between 0.20 and 0.30) and theories about NFC [see, e.g., Cacioppo et al. (1996), Fleischhauer et al. (2010), Hill et al. (2013), and Preckel (2014)]. Second, another measure of cognitive ability, a complex working memory task, was also used to examine the construct validity of the results of the METQ. Earlier studies (Hill et al., 2013, 2016) argue that working memory, because of its strong relation with intelligence, should be associated with NFC. However, the result from these studies have only shown a weak relation (r = 0.12–0.13), and we expect to find a similar result in this study. Third, in the present paper we examined the relationship between the METQ and Grit, which is another non-cognitive personality trait predicting success in an educational context. Grit is defined by Duckworth et al. (2007) as “perseverance and passion for long term-goals” (p. 1,087). A weak to moderate positive relation (r = 0.30) between NFC and personality traits, indicating goal orientation, such as Grit, has been found in earlier studies (Fleischhauer et al., 2010). We expected a similar relation, but, as for general fluid intelligence and working memory, weak enough to show a discrepancy between the two constructs. Finally, to examine criterion validity, the relation between the METQ and educational achievement was analyzed. Cacioppo et al. (1996) argue that the NFC is linked to effortful cognitive processing, and additional studies have also found that NFC-scores seem be related to different areas important to educational achievement, such as comprehension performance (Dai and Wang, 2007; Bråten et al., 2014), and math achievements (Preckel, 2014). Moreover, recent meta-analytic studies, primarily examining college students, have found positive relations (r = 0.19–0.28) between grade point average and NFC (Richardson et al., 2012; von Stumm and Ackerman, 2013). Based on these studies we expected to find a positive relation between the METQ and educational achievement, as measured by grades.

The focus of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity of the results of the short version of the METQ, a Swedish adaptation of the NFC Scale, in a group of young students. Overall, the evaluation showed that the results of the METQ in this group have excellent reliability, good criterion-related validity, and reasonable construct validity, when related to the EFPA’s criteria.

The results of the short version of the METQ seem to be stable over time and exhibit internal stability, which is in accordance with previous studies. For example, Fleischhauer et al. (2015) found a test–retest correlation of 0.83, and studies examining internal stability with Cronbach’s alpha have found that the NFC-scale typically exceeds 0.80 [see, e.g., Venkatraman and Price (1990) and Fleischhauer et al. (2010)]. Further, the result of the METQ had a significant, but rather weak, relationship with general fluid intelligence (r = 0.25) and working memory (r = 0.22). The weak relationship between the METQ and fluid intelligence is in line with earlier studies and theories about NFC [see, e.g., Fleischhauer et al. (2010) and Hill et al. (2013)]. Fleischhauer et al. (2010) reported a correlation of 0.25 between NFC and general fluid intelligence, and Hill et al. (2013) reported an even higher correlation of 0.38. Regarding working memory, the relation found is somewhat stronger than in earlier studies (Hill et al., 2013, 2016). Hill et al. (2016) reported a correlation coefficient of 0.13 between NFC and working memory (O-span). The relationship found between METQ scores and the results of GRIT-S (r = 0.26) also supports construct validity. Thus, these two measures of non-cognitive personality traits, both found to be important for educational success, are somewhat related, but they do not measure the same construct. Fleischhauer et al. (2010) reported r = 0.30 between NFC and the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire dimension Persistence, which is in line with the result in the present study. With respect to grades, the association with the results of the METQ in this study was significant and stronger compared to general fluid intelligence (r = 0.35). Earlier studies have examined the relationship with grades and found that NFC explains, for example, math grades over and above intelligence (Preckel, 2014).

These results strengthen the evidence supporting the idea that the short version of the METQ features reliable and valid results. However, the examination of the dimensionality of the results of the METQ does not support the theory of unidimensionality especially well. Even though a dominant factor accounting for about 25% of the total scale variance was found, which is in line with earlier studies of the NFC-scale [see, e.g., Cacioppo et al. (1984), Verplanken et al. (1992), Sadowski and Gulgoz (1992), and Bless et al. (1994)], neither the parallel analysis nor the model comparison supported a unidimensional solution. The parallel analysis extracted five factors (see Table 2 for a description of the different factors), suggesting multidimensionality rather than unidimensionality in the results of the Swedish measure of NFC. Possibly indicating that some caution might be needed when interpreting the results of the METQ, as the METQ might measure something more than the original NFC-scale. Especially, the third factor (characterized by how much you like to calculate in your head and think fast) seems to be a dimension not found in the short version of the original NFC-scale (Cacioppo et al., 1996). This might also be true for the fifth factor only including one item about whether you make better decision when you think things through. When examining the rotated factor solution (Table 1) it also becomes clear that the short version of the METQ might benefit from being even more shortened. For example, some of the items loaded above 0.3 on several factors, only one item loaded above 0.3 at the fifth factor, and some items did not load above 0.3 at any factor. If dropping these seven items, and possibly the three items in the third factor, the dimensional structure (and construct validity) of the METQ might be improved. It would also make the scale more economical, and still capture the essence of NFC.

Still, these findings should be interpreted in the perspective of methodical limitations. First, although the sample size in the present study was above the limit recommended by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (2013), the sample was—from an ethnicity perspective—rather homogenous, and there were somewhat more females (about 55%) than males, which has to be considered when external validity is interpreted. Second, in all studies, it is always a risk that construct–irrelevant variance becomes part of the analyses. For instance, filling in the questionnaire too hastily could reflect respondents’ low motivation. However, when the instrument was distributed, the impression was that the students took their time to fill in the questionnaire, and they did so in a serious manner. Third, Cronbach’s alpha has been criticized as a measure of internal consistency, particularly when instruments utilize many items, when scales exceed 40 items, or when these scales feature highly inter-correlated items (Field, 2013). In the present study, the METQ instrument was based on 30 items that were not highly inter-correlated; therefore, Cronbach’s alpha was considered to be a reasonable estimate of internal consistency. Finally, the psychometric evaluation of the METQ has convincingly shown evidence of discriminant validity, that is the result of METQ is weakly related to cognitive ability, such as fluid intelligence and WMC, and to the personality trait of Grit (or persistence). However, there is a lack of evidence regarding convergent validity of the results of the METQ. Measures of, for example, other motivational traits would have been needed to give some insight in the convergent validity of the METQ. Further, the criterion used as indicator of criterion-related validity (i.e., combined grades from the final (ninth) year in compulsory school) might be questioned as it portrays post-dictive validity rather than concurrent or predictive validity. The grades were attained about a year or two before the students participated in this study. However, post-dictive studies are not unusual according to the EFPA guidelines (European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations, 2013), and given that the combined grades are valid, the relation found between the results of METQ and grades is relevant.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Swedish Central Ethical Review Board with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; the protocol was approved by the Swedish Central Ethical Review Board (2015/328-31Ö).

Both authors, TS and BJ, contributed to the design of the study. They wrote the introduction and discussion in the manuscript together. TS wrote materials and methods and results, and made the statistical analyses and interpretations, with support from the second author (BJ). Both authors also contributed with revising and improving the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. Both authors are accountable for all aspects of the work.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.