Disruptive behavior disorders and indicators of disinhibition in adolescents: The BRIEF‐SR, anti‐saccade task, and D‐KEFS color–word interference test

Long, Elizabeth C.; Hill, Jeffrey L.; Luna, Beatríz; Verhulst, Brad; Clark, Duncan B.

doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.07.003

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with previous research using information from parents and teachers on the BRIEF (Davidson et al, 2016;Skogli et al, 2014;Toplak et al, 2009), in which children and adolescents with ADHD were considered to be more impaired than controls. Interestingly, some studies using the BRIEF self-report have shown that ADHD groups report significantly more difficulties than non-ADHD groups in several areas of executive functioning (Long et al, 2015;Weyandt et al, 2017) as observed in the present study. Additionally, we found significant differences between the two ADHD groups only on the emotion regulation scale of the CEFI, in which the ADHD-C group presented greater difficulty.…”

Section: Relations Between Cognitive and Behavioral Efsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Significant differences between groups with and without ADHD have been found on behavior EF rating scales (Long, Hill, Luna, Verhulst & Clark, 2015;Weyandt, Oster, Gudmundsdottir, DuPaul, & Anastopoulos, 2017). Thus, in groups of ADHD children and adolescents, deficits in EF have consistently been found compared with controls on the Metacognition Index (inhibition, working memory and plan/organize scales) and the shift scale scores of the BRIEF parents' and teachers'…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

Krieger

Campos

2017

Child Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze performance on measures of neuropsychological and behavioral executive functions (EF) in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and to evaluate the utility of performance-based tests for predicting scores on behavioral EF ratings. One hundred eighteen adolescents (75 ADHD and 43 controls) aged 12-16 years performed neuropsychological tests and completed a behavior rating scale of EF. The ADHD group presented significantly lower scores than controls on Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) and all indexes of the WISC-IV, except the verbal comprehension index (VCI). The ADHD group had significantly lower scores on performance-based tests of working memory, planning and inhibition, and on EF rating scales. Scores on the cognitive EF working memory, planning and flexibility modestly predicted performance on behavioral EF. The results suggest that the combined use of performance-based tests and rating scales provides valuable complementary information that can improve the assessment of executive domains in ADHD.

show abstract

Section: Relations Between Cognitive and Behavioral Efsupporting

confidence: 75%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

Krieger

Campos

2017

Child Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of self-reports is the method of choice when information is needed on the self-insights and perceptions of individuals. Consequently, self-report questionnaires are used in studies on anxiety, depression and other aspects of mental health, and in studies of memory complaints and executive functions (e.g., [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). In the present study, we evaluate the self-reports of adolescents using the Amsterdam Executive Function Inventory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This measure has been used in several large-scale investigations in adolescents (e.g., [7], [18], [22], [41]). The AEFI is a measure which is similar to the widely used BRIEF (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function; [33], [37], [42]). A difference in advantage to the AEFI is its length, which makes it easier to use in large-scale studies: the AEFI uses 13 items whereas the BRIEF uses 68 items.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in self-regulation in early, middle and late adolescence: A large-scale cross-sectional study

Tetering

Laan²,

Kogel³

et al. 2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This large-scale cross-sectional study had the aim to investigate whether adolescent males and females differ in self-perceived self-regulation. The large sample size allowed us to investigate sex differences in three age-groups of young (n = 161), middle (n = 133) and late (n = 159) adolescents. Self-regulation was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire, the Amsterdam Executive Functioning Inventory (AEFI). This questionnaire gives a proxi for three executive functions that are important for proper self-regulation: (1) self-control & selfmonitoring, (2) attention, and (3) planning & initiative taking. Results revealed clear sex differences in the self-regulation as perceived by mid-adolescents (i.e., 13-16 years). In this age period, females evaluated their attention higher than males, and they reported higher levels of self-control & self-monitoring. Our findings offer important new insights with respect to the decision making, academic achievements and behaviour of 13-16-year olds. Self-regulation is known to have a central role in academic achievement and in behavioural organisation. The sex differences in self-regulation in mid-adolescence may therefore explain part of the difference which males and females in this age-group exhibit in academic achievements and behavioural organisations. The results imply that self-regulation may be a relevant intervention target: rather than focussing on changing behaviour, interventions may focus more on self-insights and thereby changing the adolescent's perceptions about their behaviour. Increased self-insight may have the potency to actually change behaviour, which might be an interesting target for future investigation.

show abstract

“…Expressly developed to measure eight executive dysfunction dimensions, the BRIEF has been demonstrated to be a valid and practical tool in school and clinical settings as well as in research (Egeland and Fallmyr, 2010 ; Roth et al, 2015 ). The BRIEF has been utilized in adolescent research to study executive dysfunction in relationship to SUD risks and outcomes, including disruptive behavior disorders (Wang et al, 2012 ; Long et al, 2015 ), sleep problems (Anderson et al, 2009 ; Caruso et al, 2014 ), academic achievement (Langberg et al, 2013 ; Samuels et al, 2016 ), performance-based cognitive tests (Shimoni et al, 2012 ; Long et al, 2015 ), brain structure and function (Clark et al, 2012 ; Ziegler et al, 2013 ; Zhai et al, 2015 ), and substance use (Clark et al, 2012 ). While comprehensively measuring executive dysfunction dimensions, most of these prior studies have had small sample sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescent Executive Dysfunction in Daily Life: Relationships to Risks, Brain Structure and Substance Use

Clark

Chung

Martin

et al. 2017

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During adolescence, problems reflecting cognitive, behavioral and affective dysregulation, such as inattention and emotional dyscontrol, have been observed to be associated with substance use disorder (SUD) risks and outcomes. Prior studies have typically been with small samples, and have typically not included comprehensive measurement of executive dysfunction domains. The relationships of executive dysfunction in daily life with performance based testing of cognitive skills and structural brain characteristics, thought to be the basis for executive functioning, have not been definitively determined. The aims of this study were to determine the relationships between executive dysfunction in daily life, measured by the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), cognitive skills and structural brain characteristics, and SUD risks, including a global SUD risk indicator, sleep quality, and risky alcohol and cannabis use. In addition to bivariate relationships, multivariate models were tested. The subjects (n = 817; ages 12 through 21) were participants in the National Consortium on Alcohol and Neurodevelopment in Adolescence (NCANDA) study. The results indicated that executive dysfunction was significantly related to SUD risks, poor sleep quality, risky alcohol use and cannabis use, and was not significantly related to cognitive skills or structural brain characteristics. In multivariate models, the relationship between poor sleep quality and risky substance use was mediated by executive dysfunction. While these cross-sectional relationships need to be further examined in longitudinal analyses, the results suggest that poor sleep quality and executive dysfunction may be viable preventive intervention targets to reduce adolescent substance use.

show abstract

Disruptive behavior disorders and indicators of disinhibition in adolescents: The BRIEF‐SR, anti‐saccade task, and D‐KEFS color–word interference test

Cited by 15 publications

References 59 publications

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

Assessment of executive function in ADHD adolescents: contribution of performance tests and rating scales

Sex differences in self-regulation in early, middle and late adolescence: A large-scale cross-sectional study

Adolescent Executive Dysfunction in Daily Life: Relationships to Risks, Brain Structure and Substance Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About