While deep neural network models offer unmatched classification performance, they are prone to learning spurious correlations in the data. Such dependencies on confounding information can be difficult to detect using performance metrics if the test data comes from the same distribution as the training data. Interpretable ML methods such as post-hoc explanations or inherently interpretable classifiers promise to identify faulty model reasoning. However, there is mixed evidence whether many of these techniques are actually able to do so. In this paper, we propose a rigorous evaluation strategy to assess an explanation technique's ability to correctly identify spurious correlations. Using this strategy, we evaluate five post-hoc explanation techniques and one inherently interpretable method for their ability to detect three types of artificially added confounders in a chest x-ray diagnosis task. We find that the post-hoc technique SHAP, as well as the inherently interpretable Attri-Net provide the best performance and can be used to reliably identify faulty model behavior.