Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382

Short report
Age-related changes in concept formation, rule
switching, and perseverative behaviors: A study using
WCST with 12 unidimensional target cards
Sevtap Cinan ∗
İstanbul Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, 34459 Beyazıt, İstanbul, Turkey

Abstract
This study examined developmental changes in concept formation, rule switching, and perseverative
behaviors of children in the WCST by altering visual features of the test and using a new test score – the
‘zigzag’ error score – which shows the number of shifts made between two incorrect concepts or rules.
Instead of the original four 3-dimensional WCST target cards, 12 unidimensional target cards were used in
the present study. Consistent with previous research using the original WCST, the results of the current study
revealed age-related differences in the unidimensional WCST performance. Six- to seven-year-olds produced
more perseverative errors than older children, but as many zigzag errors – shifts between incorrect categories
– as the eight- to nine-year-olds did. This suggested that the main difficulty for six- to seven-year-olds was
one of the representational inflexibility rather than of switching inflexibility.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Age; Sorting; Executive functions; Concept formation; Perseveration; Rule use

Many previous studies examined children’s performance on sorting tasks such as the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test (WCST), the California Card Sorting Test (CCST), and the Dimensional Change
Card Sort (DCCS), which measure executive skills of concept formation, rule-switching flexi-
bility, and/or problem solving (Greve, Love, Dickens, & Williams, 2000; Welsh, Pennington, &
Groisser, 1991; Zelazo, Frye, & Rapus, 1996). Developmental studies showed that adult per-
formance level on both the WCST and the CCST was not usually achieved until about the
age of 10–12 years (Chelune & Baer, 1986; Greve et al., 2000; Welsh et al., 1991). The find-
ings of these developmental studies on the sorting tasks are consistent with the suggestion that
the development of the frontal lobes, which are believed to be responsible for executive func-

∗ Tel.: +90 212 455 5700x15782; fax: +90 212 511 4371.
E-mail address: scinan@istanbul.edu.tr.

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.03.002
378 S. Cinan / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382

tions, is not complete before the age of 10–12 years (Passler, Isaac, & Hynd, 1985; Welsh et al.,
1991).
The present study aimed to assess concept formation, rule switching, and perseverative behav-
iors of children from different age groups in the WCST by altering visual features of the test.
The WCST is a frequently used measure in the assessment of executive function. However, it is
a complex test which draws on various components of executive function simultaneously; as a
result, performance on this task is difficult to interpret. Although some attempts have been made to
manipulate different components of the WCST (e.g., Cinan & Öktem-Tanör, 2002), much research
remains to be done to advance our understanding of sorting performance in this multicomponent
executive-function test and developmental trajectory of executive function.
The important measure of the WCST, which has been most associated with prefrontal (exec-
utive) functioning, is perseverative error score (Milner, 1963). Although perseveration is often
attributed to a failure to inhibit dominant responses, more recent views stress that perseveration
can stem from non-inhibitory processes (Deák & Narasimham, 2003; Zelazo & Müller, 2002).
Based on these views perseverative performance on the WCST can be explained in relation to
cognitive inflexibility. Two types of cognitive inflexibility can be distinguished: representational
inflexibility and disinhibition or switching inflexibility, i.e., lack of response control (Zelazo &
Müller, 2002; Zelazo, Reznick, & Spinazzola, 1998). In a representational inflexibility situation,
perseveration occurs because rules or concepts are not formed or inappropriate representation is
formed. In the switching inflexibility situation, on the other hand, appropriate rules or concepts
are formed but cannot be used flexibly due to the failure to inhibit the activated representation,
inappropriate responses, or stimulus—response associations (between certain properties of the
target cards and sorting response).
The main questions of interests here are: how can these two types of cognitive inflexibilities be
distinguished in WCST performance? Which kind of inflexibility affects performance of school
aged children? The categories measure of the WCST, number of categories completed may reflect
switching ability of a child as well as conceptual ability. Possible maximum score on this measure
is six categories, which shows five successful shifts made between the three concepts (color, shape,
or number). However, lower scores on this measure are indicative of conceptual problems and
thus cannot be attributed to switching inflexibility. For this reason, the present study introduces
a new score – zigzag error score – which shows that a participant zigzags between two incorrect
concepts (shifting between two incorrect rules). Although this measure is an error score, it can
be an indication of switching flexibility, especially in younger children who have conceptual or
problem-solving difficulties. Indeed error rate in task-switching performance and switch costs –
temporary response time increase – are used as the measure of flexibility (Deák, 2003).
The present study also used a new version of the WCST in which participants are simultaneously
presented with 12 unidimensional target cards (see Fig. 1) and instructions were standard ones
outlined in the manual of the WCST (Heaton, 1981). Thus, this unidimensional WCST drew on
the executive functions associated with the search for sorting criteria. As the main objective of
this study was to explore rule switching and perseverative behaviors of different age groups, it was
thought that the use of 12 unidimensional target cards would enable switching and perseverative
behaviors to be observed more clearly, as there would be no ambiguous responses.
In addition, the number category may be harder than the other two categories because children
have to consider the quantitative similarity between the target cards and the response cards (e.g., a
target card with two stars and a response card with two triangles matched each other on the number
dimension), whereas colors and shapes involve obvious matching of the perceptual features of the
cards. The present study also aimed to explore the number concept of the three WCST concepts
 S. Cinan / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382 379

Fig. 1. An illustration of the 12 target cards used in the first experimental setting.

Fig. 2. An illustration of the different set of target cards for the number category used in the second experimental setting.

by manipulating the way in which number is represented in the unidimensional target stimuli
(compare the number target cards in Fig. 2 with Fig. 1).

1. Method

1.1. Participants

One hundred and twenty students from Fatih Primary School in Istanbul participated in the
study. All the participants were healthy white children, from families with middle to lower middle
income levels. The information about the children was obtained from the school psychologist
and their class teachers. There were three age groups: the younger age group included first grade
students (M = 78.22 months; S.D. = 3.83 months; mean age of 6½ years old; N = 40); the middle
age group included third grade students (M = 102.67 months; S.D. = 3.73 months; mean age of
8½ years old; N = 40); and the older age group included sixth grade students (M = 139.42 months;
S.D. = 6.84 months; mean age of 11½ years old; N = 40). Each age group had an equal number of
males and females.

1.2. Materials

The normal four target cards of the WCST were not used. Instead, the unidimensional WCST
included 12 target cards (four cards with different colors, four with different shapes, and four with
different numbers), each with only one dimension, but the response cards were the two decks of
the WCST cards, which had three dimensions. The 12 target cards were mixed and fixed on a
piece of cardboard in random order in such a way that two target cards from the same category
did not follow each other in a row.
380 S. Cinan / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382

There were four cards in a row; that is three lines of four cards (see Fig. 1). A different set of
target cards for the number category was stuck on a second piece of cardboard—instead of one
digit on a number target card there were as many digits as the numerical value of the digit itself:
four 4s, three 3s, two 2s, and one 1 (see Fig. 2). All the other target cards and their positions on
the second piece of cardboard were the same as on the first piece of cardboard.

1.3. Test procedure

The children were individually tested in a quiet room. They were given instructions which
were similar to those outlined in the manual of the WCST, except for a few changes due to the
use of the 12 target cards and the way the response cards were presented. In the unidimensional
WCST the response cards were shown to the children one by one by the experimenter. After
each response card was presented, a child had to point to one of the 12 target cards placed
in front of him/her. The child was given feedback in the form of the word ‘right’ or ‘wrong’
after each card was presented; then the response card was put to the side and the next one
was presented. The category was changed without warning whenever 10 consecutive correct
responses were made. The test procedure was the same for all the children but half of the children
in each age group performed the task with a different set of four target cards for the number
category.
The dependent measures used in the present study can be summarized as follows: (1) total
errors. (2) Categories: the number of categories completed. Ten correct consecutive responses in
a category were defined as a category completed. (3) Number of perseverative errors: an error
was defined as a perseverative error after two incorrect consecutive responses were given in a
category. Thus, the first response and the second response were not counted; counting began
from the third response. (4) The number of zigzag errors: the number of times a participant
alternated between two incorrect categories. (5) Trials to the first category (color): the number
of responses before the first 10 consecutive correct responses were made to the color category.
(6) Trials to the second category (shape). (7) Trials to the third category (number). For partici-
pants who completed only two categories and so were unable to complete the number category,
the total number of responses required by the 128 response cards, which is 128, was taken
as the score. (8) Failure to maintain a set: the number of times in the test that a participant
given five or more correct responses in a row but failed to get the 10 required to complete a
category.

2. Results and discussion

Table 1 presents performance means and standard deviations for the unidimensional WCST
variables as a function of age groups as well as the results of three (age groups) × two (number
target card type/the two different types of number target cards used) ANOVAs. Consistent with
the findings of the previous studies using the original WCST (Chelune & Baer, 1986; Welsh et
al., 1991), significant developmental differences were found in all the dependent variables except
for the variable of failure to maintain a set.
The effects of the number target card type (the manipulation concerning the use of two different
types of target cards for the number category) were significant on the variables of total errors,
categories, zigzag errors, failure to maintain a set, and trials to the third category, but the interaction
between the age groups and the number target card type was not significant. This suggested that
the children benefited from the use of a different set of target cards for the number category,
 S. Cinan / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382 381

Table 1
Performance means and standard deviations for the unidimensional WCST variables as a function of three age groups,
and the results of ANOVAs
WCST-12-stimuli variables Younger age Middle age Older age

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Total errors 88.75 21.01 56.17 20.97 35.85 18.64

Categories 2.45 1.34 4.62 1.35 5.52 1.03
Perseverative errors 28.97 22.74 9.25 6.32 4.62 5.78
Zigzag errors 30.17 14.65 23.92 12.16 13.37 9.01
Trials to 1st category 18.10 23.63 10.72 12.84 6.05 9.75
Trials to 2nd category 53.02 36.59 35.72 20.62 25.70 13.11
Trials to 3rd category 115.72 27.07 75.05 28.20 55.67 22.61
Failure to maintain a set .85 1.12 1.40 1.34 1.40 1.41

Age group effects Number target card type effects

df F p df F p

Total errors (2, 114) 73.33 <.001 (1, 114) 7.49 <.01
Categories (2, 114) 65.76 <.001 (1, 114) 4.93 <.03
Perseverative errors (2, 114) 34.40 <.001 (1, 114) 2.11 >.05
Zigzag errors (2, 114) 20.11 <.001 (1, 114) 4.20 <.05
Trials to 1st category (2, 114) 5.31 <.01 (1, 114) .16 >.05
Trials to 2nd category (2, 114) 12.13 <.001 (1, 114) 1.04 >.05
Trials to 3rd category (2, 114) 58.03 <.001 (1, 114) 7.79 <.01
Failure to maintain a set (2, 114) 2.57 >.05 (1, 114) 7.65 <.01

and this was true across all age groups. In other words, the children from all three age groups
performed better when very explicit number cards were used in the second target card setting than
when the simple number target cards, each with one digit, were used.
The results of Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) tests revealed that the younger
age group completed significantly fewer categories, and had more trials before they reached the
third category (number) than the middle age group who, in turn, were worse than the older age
group. On the variables of perseverative errors and trials to the second category (shape), the
performance of the younger children significantly differed from the middle and older age groups,
but no significant differences were found between the middle age and the older age groups on
these variables. On the measure of trials to the first category (color), the only significant difference
was between the younger and the older age groups. On the zigzag error measure, no significant
difference was found between the younger age group and the middle age group, but the older age
group significantly differed from the younger and the middle age groups.
The present data showed that significantly more perseverative errors occurred in the younger
age group than in the other two groups. In the original WCST, the three-dimensional target
cards may distract attention and initiate perseverative responding. In other words, the difficulty of
shifting from one dimension of the target cards to another at the perceptual level may contribute to
perseverative responding. In the present study, however, the visual complexity of the WCST target
cards was eliminated by the use of unidimensional target cards, which made it possible to observe
much more clearly the shifts between the three WCST concepts. Thus, the perseverative errors
in the present task cannot be attributed to the influence of the visual features of the experimental
stimuli.
382 S. Cinan / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 377–382

Perseverative behaviors of the younger age group can be best understood by looking at not only
the number of perseverative errors they made but also at the pattern that emerged in the other scores
of the test. The younger children completed fewer categories and needed more trials to complete
the second and the third category. Perseveration in the younger age group could, therefore, be
due to representational inflexibility. Consistent with this, Greve et al.’s study (2000) revealed
that seven-to nine-year-olds have conceptual difficulties. Greve et al. used the CCST, which
allows one to measure various components of concept formation, namely concept recognition,
concept articulation, and sorting behavior, and the results showed that seven- to nine-year-olds
had difficulty spontaneously identifying the CCST concepts but that their performance improved
dramatically in conditions where spontaneous identification of the concepts was no longer needed.
This finding suggested that the development of concept recognition precedes sorting ability (Greve
et al., 2000).
Further, the above suggestion that the main difficulty for the younger children was one of
representational inflexibility was supported by the present results on the zigzag error score, which
indicated that the major problem for the younger age group was not one of switching inflexibility,
because the children in this group were able to flexibly switch between two, but incorrect, concepts.
In fact they produced nearly as many zigzag errors as the children in the middle age group, despite
the fact that the middle age group completed more categories and had fewer trials to the second and
the third category, which may be interpreted as them having better representational flexibility than
the younger age group. The older children also produced zigzag errors, but probably for a different
reason. It is possible that, especially after the initial stage of testing, older children’s zigzag
errors are due to attempts at problem solving; they cannot be ascribed to cognitive inflexibility
(representational inflexibility or switching inflexibility).

References

Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. A. (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting test. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 219–228.
Cinan, S., & Öktem-Tanör, Ö. (2002). An attempt to discriminate different types of executive functions in the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test. Memory, 10, 277–289.
Deák, G. O. (2003). The development of cognitive flexibility and language abilities. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior (Vol. 31, pp. 271–327). San Diego: Academic Press.
Deák, G. O., & Narasimham, G. (2003). Is perseveration caused by inhibition failure? Evidence from preschool children’s
inferences about word meanings. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 194–222.
Greve, K. W., Love, J. M., Dickens, T. J., Jr., & Williams, M. C. (2000). Developmental changes in California card sorting
test performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 243–249.
Heaton, R. K. (1981). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Milner, B. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting. Archives of Neurology, 9, 90–100.
Passler, M. A., Isaac, W., & Hynd, G. W. (1985). Neuropsychological development of behavior attributed to frontal lobe
functioning in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1, 349–370.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groissier, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive function: A
window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149.
Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D., & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive
Development, 11, 37–63.
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook
of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Oxford: Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D., Reznick, J. S., & Spinazzola, J. (1998). Representational flexibility and response control in a multi-step,
multi-location search task. Developmental Psychology, 34, 203–214.