Assessment of Executive Function in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury with the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test

• Main Author: Lizzette Gómez-de-Regil
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2020-10-01
• Series: Brain Sciences
• Subjects: executive function; traumatic brain injury; Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/10/10/699

This review aimed at providing a brief and comprehensive summary of recent research regarding the use of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test (WCST) to assess executive function in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). A bibliographical search, performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo, targeted publications from 2010 to 2020, in English or Spanish. Information regarding the studies’ designs, sample features and use of the WCST scores was recorded. An initial search eliciting 387 citations was reduced to 47 relevant papers. The highest proportion of publications came from the United States of America (34.0%) and included adult patients (95.7%). Observational designs were the most frequent (85.1%), the highest proportion being cross-sectional or case series studies. The average time after the occurrence of the TBI ranged from 4 to 62 years in single case studies, and from 6 weeks up to 23.5 years in the studies with more than one patient. Four studies compared groups of patients with TBI according to the severity (mild, moderate and/or severe), and in two cases, the studies compared TBI patients with healthy controls. Randomized control trials were seven in total. The noncomputerized WCST version including 128 cards was the most frequently used (78.7%). Characterization of the clinical profile of participants was the most frequent purpose (34.0%). The WCST is a common measure of executive function in patients with TBI. Although shorter and/or computerized versions are available, the original WCST with 128 cards is still used most often. The WCST is a useful tool for research and clinical purposes, yet a common practice is to report only one or a few of the possible scores, which prevents further valid comparisons across studies. Results might be useful to professionals in the clinical and research fields to guide them in assessment planning and proper interpretation of the WCST scores.