Utility of the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in neuropsychological assessment
Abstract
Nelson's (1976) Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (MCST) was evaluated and the utility of the conventional criterion and new threshold scores for identifying patients with frontal lobe disorder assessed. Measures of perseveration and other indices of performance on the MCST were not found to discriminate between patients with frontal and non‐frontal lobe lesions, using either the conventional criterion or new threshold scores. In addition there were no significant differences between left‐ and right‐sided lesioned patients. However, the task was found to have high specificity (98.7 per cent) and good sensitivity (45.6 per cent) to lesions irrespective of site indicating that it may be a useful screening test. The present findings are consistent with recent research with the original Wisconsin Test, that suggests that card‐sorting performance may not be as differentially sensitive to frontal lobe disorder as has been thought hitherto.
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?
Milner's finding of a specific dorsolateral prefrontal deficit on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test has never been entirely replicated by Milner or any other investigator, although there are many failures to replicate.
“However this finding has never to our knowledge been entirely replicated, either by Milner or by any other investigator, although there are many failures to replicate (see, e.g., Anderson et al., 1995; Corcoran & Upton, 1993; van den Broek et al., 1993).”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as van den Broek et al., 1993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Executive Function and the Frontal Lobes: A Meta-Analytic Review
Alvarez, J. A., & Emory, E. (2006) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-006-9002-x · Cited by 1,981 · see citing works
BURGESS, P. W., ALDERMAN, N., FORBES, C., COSTELLO, A., M-A.COATES, L., DAWSON, D. R., ANDERSON, N. D., GILBERT, S. J., DUMONTHEIL, I., & CHANNON, S. (2006) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617706060310 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Rogers, R. D., Andrews, T. C., Grasby, P. M., Brooks, D. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2000) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892900561931 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
BENNETT, P. C., ONG, B., & PONSFORD, J. (2005) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617705050423 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Comparative cognitive profiles of obsessive-compulsive disorder and schizophrenia
MARTIN, V, HUBER, M., RIEF, W., & EXNER, C. (2008) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2008.03.006 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- van den Broek, M. D., Bradshaw, C. M., & Szabadi, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 333-343
- ISSN
- 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8260
- OpenAlex
- W2013618388
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology (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
- perseveration, neuropsychological assessment, screening test, lesion lateralization, sensitivity and specificity, executive function
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain Diseases, Cognition Disorders, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Prognosis, Task Performance and Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence
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
