Suppr超能文献

四种威斯康星卡片分类测试评分指南与新手评分者的比较。

Comparison of Four Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Scoring Guides With Novice Raters.

作者信息

Axelrod BN, Greve KW, Goldman RS

机构信息

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Allen Park, Michigan

出版信息

Assessment. 1994 Jun;1(2):115-22. doi: 10.1177/1073191194001002001.

Abstract

The utility of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is predicated on the ability of its users to accurately administer and score the task. This study evaluated four different WCST scoring guides in an effort to determine the most reliable and accurate instructional set for use by individuals previously unfamiliar with scoring the WCST. The study targeted the scoring of perseverative responses, as this is the most difficult of the measures to learn. Novice raters using one of four methods (original manual alone, decision tree [key guide] with the original manual, written supplement with the original manual, and revised manual only) and expert raters each scored 20 technically difficult WCST protocols. The results demonstrated that novice raters who used the written supplement to score these difficult protocols were as reliable and accurate in scoring perseverative responses as the experts. Those who used either the original manual alone or the key guide with the manual were less reliable. Scoring perseverative responses with the revised manual's instructions was considerably more reliable and accurate than scoring with the original manual. However, scoring performance for perseverative responses with the revised manual did not achieve that of the novice raters using the written supplement. It is recommended that scoring accuracy for cognitive measures be empirically validated rather than assumed.

摘要

威斯康星卡片分类测验(WCST)的效用取决于使用者准确实施该任务并进行评分的能力。本研究评估了四种不同的WCST评分指南,以确定最可靠、准确的指导方法,供以前不熟悉WCST评分的人员使用。该研究针对持续性反应的评分,因为这是最难掌握的测量方法。使用四种方法之一(仅使用原始手册、使用决策树[关键指南]和原始手册、使用书面补充材料和原始手册、仅使用修订手册)的新手评分员和专家评分员分别对20份技术难度较大的WCST测试记录进行评分。结果表明,使用书面补充材料对这些难度较大的测试记录进行评分的新手评分员在持续性反应评分方面与专家一样可靠和准确。仅使用原始手册或使用手册加关键指南的评分员则不太可靠。使用修订手册的说明对持续性反应进行评分比使用原始手册更为可靠和准确。然而,使用修订手册对持续性反应进行评分的表现不如使用书面补充材料的新手评分员。建议对认知测量的评分准确性进行实证验证,而不是想当然。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验