Cited by 2,454Historical and Modern Theater StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychological Testing and Assessment

A Modified Card Sorting Test Sensitive to Frontal Lobe Defects

Open access
Nelson, Hazel E.·1976·Cortex

Abstract

Milner's (1963) report of impaired performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) in a group of patients with frontal lobe lesions suggested that this test might be a useful one in the investigation of individual patients with suspected brain lesions. However, for many of our older hospital population the WCST was found to be too difficult and distressing, and also the inherent ambiguities associated with certain responses limited the test's usefulness for research purposes. Therefore, a simpler and less ambiguous modification was devised (MCS) and a new method of measuring perseverative errors proposed. In a group of 53 patients with unilateral cerebral lesions, those with frontal lobe lesions performed less well with the MCST and made a higher proportion of perseverative errors than those with lesions elsewhere: there were no laterality effects in either frontal or non-frontal groups. The usefulness of the MCST for detecting frontal lobe lesions in individual patients was established, and the use of cut-off scores briefly discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0010-9452(76)80035-4

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The MWCST has traditionally been considered a measure of perseverative tendencies.

    “Traditionally of course, the MWCST has been considered a measure of perseverative tendencies (e.g., Milner, 1963; Nelson, 1976).”

    From The ecological validity of tests of executive function (1998) · cites this paper as Nelson, 1976

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. ETTLINGER, G., TEUBER, H., and MILNER, B. (1975) The seventeenth International Symposium of Neuropsychology, "Neuropsychologia," 13, 131.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nelson, H. E.
Affiliations
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
Corresponding author
Nelson, Hazel E.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1976-12
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
313-324
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2091893882
Cited by
2,454
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 104 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 72
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, frontal lobe lesions, perseverative errors, neuropsychological assessment, hemispheric lateralization, test sensitivity, cut-off values
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Brain Diseases, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Middle Aged, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review