An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 MCST warning that the sorting rule needs to change does not ensure participants can change or ascertain the new rule.
“The MCST includes a warning that the sorting rule needs to be changed, however this does not ensure the participants can do so or ascertain the new sorting rule [28].”
From The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism (2009) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 72 · Cited by 728
- Authors
- Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D., & Rapus, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zelazo, Philip David
- ORCID
- Zelazo, Philip David
- Venue
- Cognitive Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-63
- ISSN
- 0885-2014 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056941131
- Cited by
- 728
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 15.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognitive Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Keywords
- rule knowledge, rule use, dimensional change, card sorting, preschool children, age differences, cognitive control, reflection, rule integration
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
