Talk:Wisconsin card sort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Garrondo (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)==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)

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)