Talk:Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

Removal of WCST info

I'm a neuropsychologist, and the cat is not out of the bag regarding the WCST. We use this test in daily practice and rely on the information gathered from its administration. Test results are valid only if the participant has no experience with the measure, and figures it out on their own. Although some people certainly know the trick, most people do not, and therefore it would be very much appreciated if the sensitivity and integrity of this test were protected by not needlessly distributing the solution on as popular a forum as Wikipedia.

I believe that the anonymous edit was carried out in order to prevent people from getting the "trick" of the task online which could significantly affect any studies which readers went on to participate in. On other pages e.g. Iowa gambling task we have been asked by the test authors not to give the game away. I don't know what people's feelings are about this? --PaulWicks 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way to understand this task is if the procedure is described, and there is precious little precedent for censoring details here; movie spoilers appear, for example. The task has been described in the literature for more than 50 years--the cat is out of the bag. Efforts to obscure the details of the task impede science and run counter to principles of wikipedia and academic freedom/integrity. Removing information simply makes it harder for researchers and students interested in the task to evaluate and understand it, and thus makes them less likely to use it, take it seriously, test it, etc. Anyway, removing valid information with an anonymous account without discussion or even providing justification in the summary is bad form. If people feel strongly about this, they should discuss it here and request arbitration.Nestify 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Response The release of psychology tests is restricted under Detroit Edison, a supreme court ruling (Detroit Edison v NLRB, 1979) wherein the High COurt determined that the release of psychological tests is counter to the public interest because it threatens the test's validity. Shelleypeery (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)shelleypeery 4/14/2011

Nestify, I don't disagree with your sentiments, I'm just trying to explain why someone might do it. Movie pages do have "spoiler warnings" on them of course...--PaulWicks 13:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is so easy to find information on the WCST and IGT online just using a search engine, we might as well include a complete description here. It is frustrating that this is the case because it makes my research more difficult--if someone knows the test, then we have to exclude their data. I wish there was a way to control the spread of information, but I agree with Nestify--the cat is out of the bag. I don't think a spoiler warning would do any good--people are too curious. Kslays 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Following up on my previous comment and more internet searches, I think that the current detail (Feb 2007) in the article is quite good and complete. It describes what kind of test it is for, how it is used, and the details of what kind of useful data it produces (e.g. % perseverative errors). Some things that could be added (with refs) are how widespread its use is and some specific results of research that utilized it has produced. -kslays 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, photo poster, let's please forget about copyright issues for a moment. I understand you are a researcher and not a clinician. Butif I were a patient, I would want the doctor to be able to use his tests without me knowing their secrets ahead of time--otherwise I will be misdiagnosed. When a test is developed for clinical use and marketed and used by clinicians all over the world, it's just not nice for someone to help the anti-psychology world reveal "trade secrets" and force us to abandon our well-researched methods of figuring out what's wrong with a person. The reason the test is used so much is because it's very helpful, so ruining it is very damaging to a patient's evaluation. Your own Spanish ethical code for psychologists states, in II-19, "All kinds of strictly psychological material, both in terms of evaluation or intervention/treatment is reserved for the use of Psychologists, and are not made available to others not competent to interpret them." So please, please stop posting pictures and other strictly psychological material. It's important for those of us who see patients and important for the patients themselves. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.173.34 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who reverted last editions (I suppose you were refering to me in your text... I am not the only one editing wikipedia neuropsychology articles... so please be careful before saying anything. As I said before I won't revert anymore your editions on articles even if I think they are not justified. Nevertheless I said what you should do is try to create a policy in the psychology project of wikipedia or at least rise a discussion on the topic, or you won't be enough to revert all editions.--Garrondo (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to suppress information will only draw more attention to it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; also, Wikipedia is not censored, it may contain content some consider objectionable, and its purpose is that of being a comprehensive encyclopedia; having encyclopedic stuff "all over the web" but purposedly not on Wikipedia would not be acceptable. --LjL (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

LjL and DocJames - there now very clearly appears to be an agenda here on both your parts to post as many tests as possible; which was why I initially chimed in on the Rorschach. Now you are posting neuropsychological measures and their stimuli? DocJames, did you not initially state that one of your reasons for posting the Rorschach was because it was a test that the public identified psychology with? Does that reasoning hold any weight with the Wisconsin? Has a layperson even heard of it? I think not. Here's the deal, the Wisconsin is an incredibly useful tool to evaluate frontal lobe functioning (and with any neuropsychological test, it is but part of a much larger battery that encompasses many aspects of functioning, including memory, attention, cognitive ability, verbal skills, etc.). Neuropsychologists use it daily - and yes, I comfortably feel that I am speaking for the majority here. The research on it is outstanding as well. And putting the stimuli on here is, in fact, akin to a cheat sheet; something that i believe Wikipedia is NOT in the business of. Most of all, putting the methods section is most harmful, as anyone who has read that will not be able to be validly administered the measure. And not everyone taking a neuropsychological evaluation is suffering from dementia or has impaired cognitive functioning either, so yes - it is possible for someone to look this up and "cheat" before their administration. I move that the methods section be removed - talk about the history of the test and what the tests is for; even describing the neuroanatomical correlates would be nice - but the stimuli and the methods section basically ruin the rationale for the test. And James, I have seen your endless arguments that we cannot keep things secret; that does not mean we create a "cheat sheet." In a very real way, if someone who suffered a mild TBI has seen this page (even before their TBI) and performs well on more global cognitive tests (as many do in mild TBI) and then perform well on executive functioning measures like the WCST because they saw it, or does well on memory tests (like the Rey-O which LjL has been working on) because of prior exposure - than detecting their neurocognitive weaknesses will become more difficult. Yes, we have other tests, and many of the newest ones are copyrighted, but I argued that this was a slippery slope with the Rorschach, and we are sliding and sliding further. Do you not understand - NO PRIOR EXPOSURE is critical to these measures. Part of the process is that they are novel situations - measuring things like executive functioning skills demands a novel stimulus; if they are practiced or previously seen, they cease to measure what they previously did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking back through the edits it seems that many psychologist have an agenda that is counter to that of Wikipedia. This removal of information is akin to vandalism.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude, do you never respond directly to a set of questions posed to you? Your arguments are always circular and never address the issue that was initially posed. Have i edited this page or removed contents? No. I am bringing up very valid points to discuss and you seem to be unable to do so in an adult manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is basically secret http://stats.grok.se/en/200907/Wisconsin_card_sort A couple of a hundred views a day. If you must insist on secrecy through obscurity Wikipedia does not change things much as few people care. Thus other than the Rorschach per your criteria these tests are not harmed by images being on them. Making a big to do about keeping them hidden will only draw a crowd to see what all the commotion is about.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you wish these images removed go to Wikimedia. That is were they are stored.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments stated and repeated many many many times on Talk:Rorschach test apply here too, I am not willing to waste my time duplicating them on every page. Also, about "being on an agenda", I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one mentioning other tests and stating how they should be "purged" to begin with. I certainly do keep a large number of pages in my watchlist. --LjL (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of this article

Why is this article called Wisconsin card sort and not Wisconsin Card Sorting Test??? The whole article is about this test. I propose a move. Any objections? Lova Falk talk 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Anybody any comment? Lova Falk talk 12:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No objections. I'll make the move. Lova Falk talk 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Random question

Why is it called the Wisconsin sorting test? I'm just curious..

192.5.110.4 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Observer effect?

Have there been studies about an observer effect in computer-administered testing? I would expect that the presence of an observer during the test would influence the performance of for example people with avoidant personality disorder. Someone watching them while they make mistakes would make it hard to focus on the test. Ssscienccce (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition of suspect material and reiterated removal of cleanup templates by User:AbrahmsKilt

This article's history shows that User:AbrahmsKilt single-handedly introduced a large amount of material that looks like suspect original research and/or not neutral. "Criticism" and "Flaws in testing" sections were created that overwhelmed the entire article. To add to that, they were badly formatted and contained many meaningless red links.

I added a number of relevant cleanup templates to the article, including one requesting expert attention, and I explained my point of view in the edit summaries, but without a single word in edit summaries or talk pages, the user kept removing my templates and only making very minor corrections to their material.

I have left a message on the user's talk page but received no response there either.

I have now re-added the templates one more time, and I strongly request that they not be removed again without talk on this page, although I honestly do not expect that request to be heeded. I will escalate this matter if it is not. Please respect Wikipedia's etiquette.

This, by the way, also goes for the Frontal lobe injury article where much of the same WCST-related material was snuck in, although I have not yet gone to the pain of removing the red links and requesting or starting a cleanup and vetting.

LjL (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19375839. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @MusikAnimal: I wasn't aware of the copyright violation, but as you can see from the section above, the problem was a long-standing one with an editor repeatedly adding controversial material without indicating the sources or, in effect, communicating with other editors (i.e. me) at all, and repeatedly removing maintenance tags that were added to highlight the problem. I trust the objectionable material will not be re-added, especially now that it's clear it mostly consists of copyright violations. --LjL (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing what appeared to be the same material from Frontal lobe injury. --LjL (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227095933/http://psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/Publications/2002/The%20role%20of%20prefrontal%20cortex%20in%20working-memory%20capacity.pdf to http://psychology.gatech.edu/renglelab/Publications/2002/The%20role%20of%20prefrontal%20cortex%20in%20working-memory%20capacity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

So what happened?

As it stands, the article itself does not include a complete description of the test's functioning- merely a description of the test from the test-taker's perspective. This talk page is full of arguments between psychologists insisting that details about the test be removed so as not to compromise its validity and Wikipedians informing them that Wikipedia Is Not Censored - even if it hinders their use of the test, content shouldn't be removed.

The discussions are in massive walls of text and semi-personal attacks that I simply lack the emotional energy to read thoroughly, but there appears to be discussion of copyright?

The source code of the article states that giving a more complete description of the test than that which is already given would violate copyright, but I'm fairly certain that describing how a test is performed does not violate the copyright of the test maker any more than describing the plot of a book violates the copyright of the author.

So what happened? Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2022 and 25 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vr2254 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vr2254 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)