4.2 Article

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test with children: a meta-analytic study of sensitivity and specificity

期刊

ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 1027-1041

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.acn.2003.12.009

关键词

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; sensitivity; specificity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More and more frequently the presence of executive function deficits appears in the research literature in conjunction with disabilities that affect children. Research has been most directed at the extent to which executive function deficits may be implicated in specific disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); however, deficits in executive function have been found to be typical of developmental disorders in general. The focus of this paper is to examine the extent to which one frequently used measure of executive function, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), demonstrates sensitivity and specificity for the identification of those executive function deficits associated with ADHD as well as its use with other developmental disorders through meta-analytic methods. Evidence of sensitivity of the WCST to dysfunction of the central nervous system is reviewed. Effect sizes calculated for all studies compared groups of children on differing variables of the WCST. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that across all of the studies, individuals with ADHD fairly consistently exhibit poorer performance as compared to individuals without clinical diagnoses on the WCST as measured by Percent Correct, Number of Categories, Total Errors, and Perseverative Errors. Notably, other various clinical groups performed more poorly than the ADHD groups in a number of studies. Thus, while impaired performance on the WCST may be indicative of an underlying neurological disorder, most likely related to frontal lobe function, poor performance is not sufficient for a diagnosis of ADHD. Implications for further research are presented. (C) 2004 National Academy of Neuropsychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据