trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is sensitive to frontal lobe damage.

the verdict
CONTESTED
the evidence cuts both ways
Recorded sources
5 sources for · 4 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is sensitive to frontal lobe damage?

Partly. Peer-reviewed studies disagree: a meta-analysis and a lesion study report the WCST is sensitive to frontal lobe damage, while other lesion studies and a review find it does not reliably discriminate frontal from nonfrontal damage.

Verdict: CONTESTED · 5 sources for, 4 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 5
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
Get citation
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Card_Sorting_Test

Evidence against · 4
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance as a measure of frontal lobe damage.
1991
Get citation
Anderson, S. W., Damasio, H., Jones, R. D., & Tranel, D. (1991). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance as a measure of frontal lobe damage.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639108405107

See more details
More for · 4
A meta-analytic review of the sensitivity of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test to frontal and lateralized frontal brain damage.
2003
Get citation
Demakis, G. J. (2003). A meta-analytic review of the sensitivity of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test to frontal and lateralized frontal brain damage.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.255

Model-based lesion mapping of cognitive control using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
2019
Get citation
Jan, G., Ralph, A., & Daniel, T. (2019). Model-based lesion mapping of cognitive control using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. authors.library.caltech.edu. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07912-5

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes
2000
Get citation
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. (2000). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00093-7

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Performance Following Head Injury: Dorsolateral Fronto-Striatal Circuit Activity Predicts Perseveration
1999
Get citation
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Performance Following Head Injury: Dorsolateral Fronto-Striatal Circuit Activity Predicts Perseveration. (1999). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.21.1.2.940

More against · 3
Does the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test measure prefontral function?
2001
Get citation
Barceló, F. (2001). Does the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test measure prefontral function?. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600005680

The Impact of Frontal and Non-Frontal Brain Tumor Lesions on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Performance
2004
Get citation
B., G., E., O. J., C., J., G., L., & L., A. C. (2004). The Impact of Frontal and Non-Frontal Brain Tumor Lesions on Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Performance. eric.ed.gov. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00269-0

Utility of the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in neuropsychological assessment
1993
Get citation
Utility of the Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test in neuropsychological assessment. (1993). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1993.tb01064.x

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work