scholarly journals Validity of the Dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test for Assessing Learning Potential in Brain Injury Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1034-1044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hileen Boosman ◽  
Johanna M.A. Visser-Meily ◽  
Tamara Ownsworth ◽  
Ieke Winkens ◽  
Caroline M. Van Heugten

AbstractThe dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (dWCST) examines the effects of brief training on test performance where pre- to post-test change reflects learning potential. The objective was to examine the validity of the dWCST as a measure of learning potential in patients with acquired brain injury (ABI). A total of 104 patients with ABI completed the dWCST at rehabilitation admission. Performance of a subgroup (n=63) was compared to patients (n=28) who completed a repeated administration of the conventional WCST (rWCST). Furthermore, dWCST performance was compared between patients with ABI (n=63) and healthy controls (n=30) matched on gender, age, and education. Three learning potential indices were used: post-test score, gain score, and a group classification (decliners, poor learners, strong learners, high achievers). The median dWCST administration time was 30 min. The dWCST showed no floor or ceiling effects and the post-test and gain score were significantly intercorrelated. The pre-test score showed no significant associations with other neuropsychological tests. The learning potential indices were significantly associated with language and/or memory. In contrast to the dWCST group, the rWCST group showed no significant pre- to post-test improvement. There were significantly more poor learners in the rWCST group. Compared to controls, patients obtained similar gains, but significantly lower pre- and post-test scores for the dWCST. The ratio of poor learners between-groups was not significantly different. The results support the validity of the dWCST for assessing learning potential in patients with ABI. Further research is needed to investigate the predictive validity of the dWCST. (JINS, 2014, 20, 1–11)

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 405-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Vaskinn ◽  
Kjetil Sundet ◽  
Svein Friis ◽  
Torill Ueland ◽  
Carmen Simonsen ◽  
...  

Brain Injury ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin W. Greve ◽  
Jeffrey M. Love ◽  
Elisabeth Sherwin ◽  
Charles W. Mathias ◽  
Paul Ramzinski ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 699
Author(s):  
Lizzette Gómez-de-Regil

This review aimed at providing a brief and comprehensive summary of recent research regarding the use of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test (WCST) to assess executive function in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). A bibliographical search, performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo, targeted publications from 2010 to 2020, in English or Spanish. Information regarding the studies’ designs, sample features and use of the WCST scores was recorded. An initial search eliciting 387 citations was reduced to 47 relevant papers. The highest proportion of publications came from the United States of America (34.0%) and included adult patients (95.7%). Observational designs were the most frequent (85.1%), the highest proportion being cross-sectional or case series studies. The average time after the occurrence of the TBI ranged from 4 to 62 years in single case studies, and from 6 weeks up to 23.5 years in the studies with more than one patient. Four studies compared groups of patients with TBI according to the severity (mild, moderate and/or severe), and in two cases, the studies compared TBI patients with healthy controls. Randomized control trials were seven in total. The noncomputerized WCST version including 128 cards was the most frequently used (78.7%). Characterization of the clinical profile of participants was the most frequent purpose (34.0%). The WCST is a common measure of executive function in patients with TBI. Although shorter and/or computerized versions are available, the original WCST with 128 cards is still used most often. The WCST is a useful tool for research and clinical purposes, yet a common practice is to report only one or a few of the possible scores, which prevents further valid comparisons across studies. Results might be useful to professionals in the clinical and research fields to guide them in assessment planning and proper interpretation of the WCST scores.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document