This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Axelrod, B. N. Articles by Goldman, R. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Axelrod, B. N. Articles by Goldman, R. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparison of Four Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Scoring Guides with Novice Raters

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Allen Park, Michigan

Kevin W. Greve

University of New Orleans

Robert S. Goldman

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Ann Arbor, Michigan

The utility of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is predicated on the ability of its users to accurately administer and score the task. This study evaluated four different WCST scoring guides in an effort to determine the most reliable and accurate instructional set for use by individuals previously unfamiliar with scoring the WCST. The study targeted the scoring of perseverative responses, as this is the most difficult of the measures to learn. Novice raters using one of four methods (original manual alone, decision tree [key guide] with the original manual, written supplement with the original manual, and revised manual only) and expert raters each scored 20 technically difficult WCST protocols. The results demonstrated that novice raters who used the written supplement to score these difficult protocols were as reliable and accurate in scoring perseverative responses as the experts. Those who used either the original manual alone or the key guide with the manual were less reliable. Scoring perseverative responses with the revised manual's instructions was considerably more reliable and accurate than scoring with the original manual. However, scoring performance for perseverative responses with the revised manual did not achieve that of the novice raters using the written supplement. It is recommended that scoring accuracy for cognitive measures be empirically validated rather than assumed.

Assessment, Vol. 1, No. 2, 115-121 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191194001002001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?