Performance of patients with schizophrenia on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To directly compare the performance of patients with schizophrenia and control subjects on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Specifically, we sought to verify if there are significant differences on the "classical" WCST measurements (perseverative errors and number of categories), as well as on more rarely reported scores, and assess the extent to which patients with schizophrenia can improve their performance with card-by-card instructions and continuous verbal reinforcement. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Psychiatry department in a university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 30 patients with schizophrenia, diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria, and 30 control subjects, matched to patients according to age and education. INTERVENTION: The WCST was administered according to the criteria of Heaton, and a subgroup of the patients with schizophrenia was given a retest after an explanation of the WCST and verbal reinforcements. RESULTS: Patients with schizophrenia succeeded on fewer categories (t = 23.3, p < 0.001), committed more perseverative errors (t = 15.6, p < 0.001), made more perseverative responses (t = 14.6, p < 0.001), needed more trials to succeed at the first category (t = 9.2, p < 0.003) and gave significantly lower conceptual level responses (t = 14.1, p < 0.001) than the controls. However, on retest, patients with schizophrenia committed significantly fewer perseverative errors (t = 5.1, p < 0.001) and showed higher conceptual level responses (t = -3.45, p < 0.003). CONCLUSION: Consistent with a hypothesis of frontal dysfunction in schizophrenia, patients with schizophrenia tend to show a perseverative deficit; however, some are able to partially overcome this deficit when given verbal reinforcement.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".