The Relationship Between Working Memory, Inhibition, and Performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in Children With and Without ADHD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) has frequently been used to assess executive functions in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We first compared the performance of 15 children with ADHD to 15 children of a control group (age range 6 to 11) on the WCST and then examined the relationship among working memory, inhibition, age, IQ, and scores from this test. When age and IQ were included as covariates, children with and without ADHD did not differ on the perseverative errors (PE) score, but the ADHD group made significantly more failure to maintain set errors (FTMS). Partial correlations revealed that working memory was significantly correlated with PE but was fully mediated by age and IQ. Age and IQ had no effect on the significant correlation between inhibition and FTMS. Clinicians are encouraged to interpret the results of this test with caution when including it in an assessment for ADHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it