Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31795503›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2019

A Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Measures of Wisconsin Card Sorting and Intelligence.

Bruno Kopp, Natasha Maldonado, Jannik F Scheffels, Merle Hendel, Florian Lange

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bruno KoppDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Natasha MaldonadoDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Jannik F ScheffelsDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Merle HendelDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Florian LangeDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

Horizon 2020 665501Karlheinz-Hartmann-Foundation n.a.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) represents a widely utilized neuropsychological assessment technique for executive function. This meta-analysis examined the discriminant validity of the WCST for the assessment of mental shifting, considered as an essential subcomponent of executive functioning, against traditional psychometric intelligence tests. A systematic search was conducted, resulting in 72 neuropsychological samples for the meta-analysis of relationships between WCST scores and a variety of intelligence quotient (IQ) domains. The study revealed low to medium-sized correlations with IQ domains across all WCST scores that could be investigated. Verbal/crystallized IQ and performance/fluid IQ were indistinguishably associated with WCST scores. To conclude, the WCST assesses cognitive functions that might be partially separable from common conceptualizations of intelligence. More vigorous initiatives to validate putative indicators of executive function against intelligence are required.

Indexed as

executive functionintelligencemeta-analysispsychometricsshiftingvalidityWisconsin Card Sorting Test

Identifiers

PMID31795503
PMCPMC6956132
OpenAlexW2990663809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.